Home | Reviews | Tire | Maxxis

Maxxis Ikon Tire

4/5 (1 Reviews)
MSRP : $44.99


  • Store Price

Product Description

  • EXO Protection offered in select models
  • High-volume, lightweight true racing tire
  • 3C Triple Compound Technology


Review Options:  Sorted by Latest Review | Sort by Best Rating

Reviews 1 - 1 (1 Reviews Total)

User Reviews

Overall Rating:4
Value Rating:4
Submitted by MSU Alum

Date Reviewed: July 25, 2013

Strengths:    26 x 2.35 EXO 3C, as front tire, surprisingly good cornering and braking. As rear tire also very good grip. 2.2 version is a bit lacking as front tire, but good as rear.

The 26x2.2 Ikon (rear) is a good substitute for the 2.1 RaRa (rear). I wouldn't use it on the front. About the same size and grip as the 2.1 RaRa, the tread on the 2.2 Ikon is a bit narrower than it's carcass, but the carcass and tread wear on the Ikon looks like it will be significantly better than the RaRa.

The 26x2.35 Ikon is a different animal with tread wider and side knobs taller than the 2.25 RaRa. As a front tire in THESE CONDITIONS, steerage and braking is closer to the 2.4 NoNi - better than 2.25, for sure (even though 2.4 tire's tread is slightly wider, spread out and taller than the 2.35 Ikon).

Given the terrible tread life of the Schwalbe's, the Ikons would be a good alternative (cheaper, slightly heavier, easy rolling and better wear).

I'm thinking of going to the 2.35 Ikon rear and a 2.4 Ardent front as a more aggressive combo. There's no option in the review section to write up the 26x2.35 Ikon, so I haven't posted there. The carcass width for the 2.35 Ikon is 57 mm and the tread width for it is 59 mm.


Weaknesses:    See review

Bottom Line:   
This is for the 26" version, Utah, DRY trail, some rocky sections, areas of buff turns with some small loose gravel (about 1 cm or less in size).

I expect the 29er version is a different animal.

The 26 x 2.2 Ikon EXO 3C (rear) is a good substitute for the 2.1 (or even 2.25) RaRa (rear). I haven't used it on the front - I think I need more grip than it looks like it would give - , but am told it's great on the front in the 29er version for XC riding. Slightly bigger size and slightly better grip than the 2.1 RaRa, the tread on the 2.2 Ikon is a bit narrower than it's carcass, but the carcass and tread wear on the Ikon looks like it will be significantly better than the RaRa. It came in at 540 grams. Mounted tubeless on Tricon M1700, the tread is 52 mm wide and the tire carcass is 54 mm wide. I expect it will stretch a bit. Think Racing Ralph 2.25 carcass with a RaRa 2.1 tread width. As with most EXO's, it holds air very well. I'm currently using these as my rear tire.

The 26 x 2.35 Ikon EXO 3C is a different animal with tread wider and side knobs taller than the 2.25 RaRa. As a front tire in THESE CONDITIONS, steerage and braking is closer to the 2.4 NoNi - better than the 2.25, for sure (even though 2.4 tire's tread is slightly wider, spread out and taller than the 2.35 Ikon). Rolling into the turns, the grip is consistent at all lean angles and confidence inspiring under these conditions. I also use the 2.4 Ardent EXO front and back, and this combo is a great (lower weight – about 650 grams) alternative to the Ardent’s 820 gram weight. Mounted tubeless on the M1700, the carcass width for the 2.35 Ikon is 57 mm and the tread width for it is 59 mm. They can be had for under $50. I'm currently using this as my front tire.

Given the terrible tread life and high cost of the Schwalbe's, the Ikons would be a good alternative (cheaper, slightly heavier, easy rolling and better wear).

For around here, I'm thinking of going to the 2.35 Ikon rear and a 2.4 Ardent front as a more aggressive combo.
I'm giving them 4 chilis because I haven't used them long enough to give 5.

Reviews 1 - 1 (1 Reviews Total)

Review Options:  Sorted by Latest Review | Sort by Best Rating


Ikon (2.2 & 2.35 EXO) alternate to RaRa/NoNi (2.1/2.25 EVO)

This is for 26" version, Utah, DRY trail, some rocky sections, areas of buff turns with some small loose gravel (about 1 cm or less in size). The 26x2.2 Ikon (rear) is a good substitute for the 2.1 RaRa (rear). I wouldn't use it on the front. About the same size and grip as the 2.1 RaRa, the tre ... Read More »

WTB i19 and Maxxis Ikon TR

Howdy. Any of you use an Ikon TR (EXO 3C Maxxspeed) on a WTB i19? Most "tubeless ready" versions of tires have worked well with these rims, but I haven't tried any of Maxxis' rubber on them. Thanks.Read More »

26x2.2 Maxxis Ikon Exo 3C EXO

Oops, make that Exc EXO's. Just got one tire in the mail and mounted it up on a DT M1700 wheel, rear tire. There has been a lot of info on the 29x2.2, but not as much on the 26 version. It came in at 540 grams, the width of the tire, folded was about 6.25 inches - 158 mm. Mounted, the tread is 52 mm ... Read More »

Ikon 26x2.35??

Has anyone come across these yet. The 29ers appear to have made it into a few shops, but I haven't seen any 26" models pop up yet. The 3C EXO version will be the perfect summer rear tire for an all-mountain/trail bike.Read More »

Maxxis Ikon vs Crossmark

I ride in central Texas and I'm looking for the perfect set of tires for my HT. Trails are only open when it's bone dry. I do about 50% road and 50% trail riding so I've narrowed it down to these two fast rolling tires. Should I get Ikon for F & R? Or Crossmark F & R with a modification to the front ... Read More »

Read More »



 

Enduro Compare-O

Contests





   

MTBR on Facebook