Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 110 Posts

·
Rider and Wrench
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been running a set of 2.35 Rampages on my rigid and one on the front of my F/S with an Ardent 2.25 out back - both are a "winter" set-up so I am fine with them not being too light or fast.... but

I purchased a couple Ardent of 2.4's thinking that combined with size/olume they have a bit deeper transition and edge tread they might offer a bit more bite than the Ardent 2.25's up front for the winter (I think these are great in all but really slick stuff up front) but be a bit faster than the rampages. After the brown santa dropped them off I quickly installed one and while I did not give it much time to "grow" it appeared to be about the same size as the Rampage 2.35. In itself I have no issue with this as it is common but they are ~80-90 grams heavier per tire, I am no complete weight weenie but why add weight especially to wheels if it is not adding a benefit? So before I ride them and make them "used" so I can't return/sell them I would greatly appreciate any input to those who have a bit of time on the Ardent 2.4's (and preferably can compare them to the Rampages).

Thanks in advance for any input-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,006 Posts
Initially I had the same results....same size as the panaracer seemingly. However, after mounting them up tubeless & letting it sit overnight, there was already a noticeable difference. After one week, there is really no comparison and I am really digging the 2.4 Ardent much more than the 2.25 it replaced. It feels like I have another inch of travel :)
 

·
T Smee
Joined
·
160 Posts
knottshore, can you leave them aired up and confirm that they fill out? I've been thinking of buying a 2.4 Ardent for the front of mine, but i have a rampage that i like pretty good... Can someone take a picture of the 2.4 Ardent vs the Rampage, both mounted up and all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I cannot understand why everyone uses the Rampage tires. They're not that great. Try something new and keep the Ardents.
 

·
rider
Joined
·
2,356 Posts
My 2.4 Ardent on the front is way bigger than the Rampage on the back. Both were installed new at the same time and have had a total of about 48 hrs at max sidewall pressure. The Rampage grew a bit & the Ardent grew a lot.

I have a few rides on the Ardent up front now, and unless I discover some really weird yet to be found handling quirk, I don't think that I'll be buying too many more of the Rampages...
 

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
knottshore said:
I have been running a set of 2.35 Rampages on my rigid and one on the front of my F/S with an Ardent 2.25 out back - both are a "winter" set-up so I am fine with them not being too light or fast.... but

I purchased a couple Ardent of 2.4's thinking that combined with size/olume they have a bit deeper transition and edge tread they might offer a bit more bite than the Ardent 2.25's up front for the winter (I think these are great in all but really slick stuff up front) but be a bit faster than the rampages. After the brown santa dropped them off I quickly installed one and while I did not give it much time to "grow" it appeared to be about the same size as the Rampage 2.35. In itself I have no issue with this as it is common but they are ~80-90 grams heavier per tire, I am no complete weight weenie but why add weight especially to wheels if it is not adding a benefit? So before I ride them and make them "used" so I can't return/sell them I would greatly appreciate any input to those who have a bit of time on the Ardent 2.4's (and preferably can compare them to the Rampages).

Thanks in advance for any input-
Deja vu thread.

I don't have a Rampage (I run the smaller cousin - the Fire XC Pro), so I can't help you to compare the Rampage vs. the Ardent 2.4 out on the trail. I do have the Ardent 2.4, though and it's a fast rolling monster truck tire.

But, other thoughts as you work through your predicament you've found yourself and your credit card in.....

Get out your calipers and measure the Rampage and then the Ardent. How much difference is there between a 2.4 and a 2.35 in terms of casing width and tread width? Not much, actually, as the difference is only 1.27mm. 60.96mm is 2.4" and 59.69mm is 2.35". So when you say by looking at them they appear to be about the same size.......well, from that perspective you're probably right. They are about the same size and the human eye probably cannot really be trusted to "see" a 2% difference in a side by side visual comparison.

Make sure you also measure the Casing Height (CH) - edge of rim to the top of the casing (not the top of the tread). Then run the calculation for the "volume index" as Shiggy calls it.

The deja vu thread linked above lists some volume index results, but I will list some of those from Shiggy's site as well as some of my own tires(*) for reference:

*Maxxis Ardent 2.4 = 32.64
*Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4 = 31.95
*Schwalbe Big Apple 2.35 = 31.5
Geax Saguaro 2.2 = 29.3
Panaracer Rampage = 28.6
*WTB ExiWolf = 28.3
Maxxis Ardent 2.25 = 28.1
Kenda Karma 2.2 = 27.9
WTB Stout = 27.7
*Kenda Nevegal = 27.5

Then there are measurements to be taken of tread depth at the center tread and the edge, radius, and throw it all into a pot, stir, bring to a boil and go out on the trail to see what performance is actually like for you.

That brings you full circle back to your dilemma of what appears on the surface as a mild case of "buyer's remorse" or perhaps simply the realization of seeing them mounted up next to each other has you thinking about the $89 - 100 expenditure. :D

If you keep them, you'll use them eventually and probably really, really like them. If not, all those Ardent 2.4's on eBay that have been listed as used in the past couple of months have been selling north of $33-35+, plus shipping. So I wouldn't sweat any huge financial loss as you will be able to sell them used if you try them out and lose out on your opportunity to return the merchandise new for a full refund.

Volume, tread, traction, rolling resistance all tip in favor of the Ardent to give it a try....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I've heard from the locals here that the Ardent has thicker/tougher sidewalls which hopefully is where the extra weight comes from. I've had several Rampage sidewall/tread cuts from shale and the recommendation is to go for the 2.4 Ardent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,427 Posts
because

tigerwah said:
I cannot understand why everyone uses the Rampage tires. They're not that great. Try something new and keep the Ardents.
It is a tire that has good traction, in the corners, and on the steeps. It has good volume for us that want it, and it holds up pretty well. What isn't to like about it? The rolling resistance. I guess I can't really comment on that, because I like my tires to hook up in the dirt, and not roll smoothly on hardpack or pavement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,842 Posts
Curtezyflush said:
I've heard from the locals here that the Ardent has thicker/tougher sidewalls which hopefully is where the extra weight comes from. I've had several Rampage sidewall/tread cuts from shale and the recommendation is to go for the 2.4 Ardent.
True. Exactly why I went Ardent 2.4 instead of Rampage for tubeless conversion this time around. Sidewalls have a significantly beefier feel and appearance. Plus, I guess I'm also in the minority camp that just doesn't think the Rampage is that great a tire. I strongly prefer my Fire XCs. To each their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Loved my rampages, ran them for a year and wore them out. Replaced them with Ardent 2.4. Great tough, sticky, rubbery feel out of the package. Aired and sealed up instantly on Archs. Super cornering grip in wet forest duff and wet DG. My vote is for Ardent, though I still like Rampages.

I was thinking about shaving the knobs down on the Rampage to make a racier, lighter tire. Anyone gotten a second life out of Rampages that way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,039 Posts
slip20 said:
Loved my rampages, ran them for a year and wore them out. Replaced them with Ardent 2.4. Great tough, sticky, rubbery feel out of the package. Aired and sealed up instantly on Archs. Super cornering grip in wet forest duff and wet DG. My vote is for Ardent, though I still like Rampages.

I was thinking about shaving the knobs down on the Rampage to make a racier, lighter tire. Anyone gotten a second life out of Rampages that way?
I wore my Rampage to that point up front. It did gain some speed as the knobs got flatter
 

·
Rider and Wrench
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
D3DO said:
You guys running ardents Front and Rear? If not what are you running in the rear?
On my F/S I love the 2.25 Ardent up front as a 3 season tire with a Crossmark outback or now possibly an Aspen- The 2.25 Ardent works well as a rear but I just don't feel I get much more traction etc...out of the Ardent out back so I run a bit lighter/faster tire like the Crossmark... until the winter slop an then I put an 2.25 Ardent on the back- If you don't feel the need to make seasonal tire changes then the Ardent makes a perfectly fine rear tire as it is by no means a slow roller- Maybe I just like to tinker alot...
 

·
Rider and Wrench
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
tigerwah said:
I cannot understand why everyone uses the Rampage tires. They're not that great. Try something new and keep the Ardents.
Well I can't say they are Great otherwise I would not be wondering how the "new" Ardent 2.4's compare in actual use. I can't speak for everyone but the Rampages offer consistant grip, very similar to a 26" 2.1 Nevegal, but faster and with less weight than a 29er 2.2 Nevegal, which they apear suspiciously similar. They work well converted tubeless and while not super tough they have not failed me on rocky stuff yet- So I guess the reasonable price, consistant grip, ~750g weight, tubeless friendly, decent volume and not super slow rolling along with being out there before alot of the more current offerings they offer a very reasonable balance... not too shabby?
 

·
Rider and Wrench
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
29erchico said:
My 2.4 Ardent on the front is way bigger than the Rampage on the back. Both were installed new at the same time and have had a total of about 48 hrs at max sidewall pressure. The Rampage grew a bit & the Ardent grew a lot.

I have a few rides on the Ardent up front now, and unless I discover some really weird yet to be found handling quirk, I don't think that I'll be buying too many more of the Rampages...
Good to know thanks for the info-
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,930 Posts
My Rampage up front is getting close to worn out. Still a noisy tire, still sticky and grippy, and still a lot of rolling resistance, but less so than when new.
 

·
T Smee
Joined
·
160 Posts
Knott, Bruce:
Thanks for the input, Ive been looking around for another tire to try for when i am running a rigid fork, looks like i may give it a try as a front tire

jncarpenter: can you comment on how the Ardent 2.4 has worked as a tubeless setup for you? I assume it has done pretty well since you seem to be pretty happy with them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,330 Posts
I hate the rampage, ripping off 2 valve stems from it rotating in the rain on 1 ride which left me walking home didn't help, tractions useless on anything other than hard pack I found to. Very noisy and Draggy to!!


I'll be getting a Ardent 2.4 soon enough for Rocky riding areas.

The Bonty 29-3 2.25 is pretty nice higher volume than a Stout and the Rampage ( from memory ) but not as wide sadly, there FR3 could still be the answer up front though with a 2.4 Ardent on the rear maybe.
 

·
Pixie Dust Addict
Joined
·
3,366 Posts
I'm not JnC, but I mounted 2.4 Ardents on Flows and they are doing great. They roll better than Rampages, but I feel like the traction of the Rampages (when new) in corners and loose climbs was better. The extra volume of the big Ardent is definitely a plus, though.
 
1 - 20 of 110 Posts
Top