Ardent Race vs Ikon?

fongster · Jan 16, 2017

I'm looking to put a 27.5 tire with the best overall qualities on my 12 y/o daughter's XC hardtail (i.e. fastest rolling and the best cornering grip). How would a Maxxis Ardent Race 2.2 at compare to a Maxxis Ikon 2.35 for cornering grip (slightly bigger knobs and narrower vs smaller knobs and wider)? I'm also bit lost in deciding between the two as the Ardent Race is 680g vs the Ikon's 705g Maybe these diffs are too small to matter...

BTW, she's currently running Bontragers: a 2.35 XR3 Team Issue in front and 2.2 XR2 Team Issue rear--these tires have been fine but I want to ease up the rolling a bit. Trails will be dry, hardpack, some loose cobbles--typical so. cal. stuff.

targnik · Jan 16, 2017

Grip would go to the AR 2.2, rolling resistance (less) goes to the Ikon 2.35.

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk

fongster · Jan 16, 2017

targnik said:
Grip would go to the AR 2.2, rolling resistance (less) goes to the Ikon 2.35.

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk

Thanks, targnik. Both would roll better than her current Bonty XR3 2.35 right?

targnik · Jan 16, 2017

fongster said:
Thanks, targnik. Both would roll better than her current Bonty XR3 2.35 right?

Unknown... Never ridden the XR3.

Just going on looks, I'd say the Ikon is faster rolling.

Maybe a photo finish between the AR & XR3 re, speed.

Sent from my kltedv using Tapatalk

NordieBoy · Jan 16, 2017

For climbing, I'd run the skinny Ardent Race on the rear and the fatter Ikon on the front.

J.B. Weld · Jan 16, 2017

fongster said:
Thanks, targnik. Both would roll better than her current Bonty XR3 2.35 right?

Is it a team issue? Those are really good IME, not sure there would be any noticeable difference in rolling resistance between that and the Maxxis ones you're looking at.

mtnbikej · Jan 16, 2017

I've run both tires here in the OC.....in 29er form, and both up front. On a SS.

I don't find a big difference in the cornering between the 2.2 AR vs. The 2.35 Ikon. This is everything from county parks to the Santa Ana's, even some outta state rides.

I do think the Ikon rolls faster...but not by much.

As a rear, the AR is a little better when it gets really loose....but again it's only marginal.

Currently have a 2.35 AR up front and a 2.2 AR on the rear. I'm going back to the Ikon when it wears out.

fruitafrank · Jan 16, 2017

I have used both and I would run the AR 2:35 up front and the AR 2:2 out back. The Ikon 2:35 works well up front and certainly wins the volume contest tho.

fongster · Jan 16, 2017

J.B. Weld said:
Is it a team issue? Those are really good IME, not sure there would be any noticeable difference in rolling resistance between that and the Maxxis ones you're looking at.

Yes, both are Team Issue.

R-M-R · Jan 17, 2017

Rolling resistance often has more to do with casing than lugs. As an example, the large-lugged, 2.4" Continental Mountain King Supersonic rolls faster than many fully slick tires due to fast rubber and a very, very fast (and fragile) casing.

The Ardent Race, Ikon, and XR2/XR3 Team Issue will all roll pretty darned well and you probably won't notice a difference. If you really want something fast, try a Maxxis Maxxlite, Vittoria AKA Pluma, Schwalbe Thunder Burt Liteskin, or Continental Speed King. These barely qualify as mountain bike tires and will require weeks of daily sealant refills before they hold air*, but that's what it will take to be significantly faster than your daughter's already fast tires.

* If she's not already running tubeless, doing so will make more difference than any tire.

fongster · Jan 19, 2017

Guys, if it's down to an EXO/3C/TR AR 2.2 (680g) vs a AR 2.35 (705g) on the front of my daughter's bike, what would you reco? Rotating mass/rolling ease is pretty close but I'm sure the grip of the 2.35 reigns. Thoughts? She's tubeless, btw.

R-M-R · Jan 19, 2017

Given the similar weights and rolling resistances, why not go for the slightly smoother ride and greater traction of the larger tire? With all else being so nearly identical, I always choose greater volume.

fongster · Jan 19, 2017

R-M-R said:
Given the similar weights and rolling resistances, why not go for the slightly smoother ride and greater traction of the larger tire? With all else being so nearly identical, I always choose greater volume.

Very wise. I'm leaning that that way. Back in the day, I got a 2.3 Specialized GC because the shop was out of the 2.1. I loved it--ran as fast or even faster as it conformed over trail bumps vs getting bounced around--felt more secure cornering too. Thanks for your input.

Kaizen · Jan 21, 2017

+1 on the AR 2.35 front and AR 2.2 rear. I've run this set up for a while now and it is very good on most hard pack, loose over hard, etc. For your information, Maxxis rates the non Race version of the Ardent as rolling faster than the AR. I can also attest to that. And the Ardent REALLY hooks up. I ran the regular Ardent with 2.4 front and 2.2 rear and that is an amazing combo for most of what NorCal throws at you - albeit the combo is a bit heavier than the Race setup and is overkill for most XC applications.

ljcap · Mar 6, 2017

Kaizen said:
.... For your information, Maxxis rates the non Race version of the Ardent as rolling faster than the AR. I can also attest to that. And the Ardent REALLY hooks up. I ran the regular Ardent with 2.4 front and 2.2 rear and that is an amazing combo for most of what NorCal throws at you - albeit the combo is a bit heavier than the Race setup and is overkill for most XC applications.

Bump,

I agree, I think the Ardent spins up faster on the rear than the AR.

Are we the only 2 who think this???

Ardent Race vs Ikon?

fongster

targnik

fongster

targnik

NordieBoy

J.B. Weld

mtnbikej

fruitafrank

fongster

R-M-R

fongster

R-M-R

fongster

Kaizen

ljcap

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities