Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Hi There!
Joined
·
1,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello. With Maxxis tires, which have the best combination of speed, grip, and lighter weight? I could sacrifice on the grip a bit for the rear if needed. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
I have been thinking about this too for my light trail bike. I'm ok pushing the grip to a little squirrely but don't want to flat when just trail riding.

I am going to try an Ardent Race (2.2) on the back and a Highroller II (2.3) on the front. I have both tires in the garage so worth a shot. I also have a Minion SS but I think I can get away with the Ardent Race on the rear as significantly lighter.

I also have an Aggressor and thought about that versus the Highroller. I have a DHF too but I think too much.
 

·
Hi There!
Joined
·
1,666 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I have been thinking about this too for my light trail bike. I'm ok pushing the grip to a little squirrely but don't want to flat when just trail riding.

I am going to try an Ardent Race (2.2) on the back and a Highroller II (2.3) on the front. I have both tires in the garage so worth a shot. I also have a Minion SS but I think I can get away with the Ardent Race on the rear as significantly lighter.

I also have an Aggressor and thought about that versus the Highroller. I have a DHF too but I think too much.
Report back please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
That's helpful. I thought the High Roller was quite a bit lighter but looking at #'s it seems that's wrong. Thanks.

Any thoughts on Aggressor as a front tire?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,913 Posts
Why are you stuck on Maxxis?
I agree with this. I have tried the majority of maxxis popular tires the last 5-6 years and.. I just don't think they have a trail tire that for my conditions compares to the speed, durability, weight, traction and price you get from the bontrager xr3. The xr4 is pretty good also. To me the Xr2 isn't enough faster than the xr3 to be worth the significant loss of traction.

Recently, I wondered if this might be true for aggressive AM/enduro use also, so I'm going to try the xr5 and see if I prefer it over the dhf.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
Do folks just not like Ikons anymore? I've been pretty happy with the mix of decent grip and light weight for the sort of XC-ish riding in dry conditions I mostly do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
Aspens man!!! They offer excellent grip for the little tread they have, roll exceedingly fast too, light as a feather :skep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,913 Posts
Do folks just not like Ikons anymore? I've been pretty happy with the mix of decent grip and light weight for the sort of XC-ish riding in dry conditions I mostly do.
Glad you asked, I have spent a fair bit of time on the Ikon. Only the Ikon 2.35 is worth considering, to me. The 2.2 is really low volume, and the shoulder knob is not as tall.

A lot of XC racers have gone to either the Maxxis Aspen, or the Vittoria Mezcal (v3) for hardpack. They are faster and lighter with similar grip. The Mezcal is tougher because TNT is more durable than EXO, it's that simple.

The XR3 is in the process of a rollout to a new version, and I have not ridden the new tread pattern yet, because I don't need a 29x2.4 or 27.5x2.8 and those are the only 2 sizes available now for the new tread.

I use the XR3 or SE3 as a rear tire for more grip. It's nearly as fast as an Ikon - I can't tell any difference - but it has noticeably improved climbing traction, braking, and taller shoulder lugs but the they DON'T create a lot of drag because the tire has a very round profile, which keeps the shoulder lugs off the ground when you're riding in a straight line.

Comparing 29x2.35 Ikon against the 29x2.4 XR3 they have similar published/claimed weight. Trek's XR team issue casing is fairly tough and resists cuts and punctures better then EXO in my usage.

The Ikon 29.2.35 DoubleDown is very heavy at a claimed 995g so I haven't used it, and probably a lot of others haven't, either. Meanwhile the Bonty SE3 29x2.35 is a very reasonable claimed weight of 810g - only about 60-70g more than the XR3 version. I am not sure if that claimed weight is real, but it's surely going to be a lot lighter than the Ikon DD.

Anyway - I like Maxxis - but I've discovered I have better options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
Glad you asked, I have spent a fair bit of time on the Ikon. Only the Ikon 2.35 is worth considering, to me. The 2.2 is really low volume, and the shoulder knob is not as tall.

A lot of XC racers have gone to either the Maxxis Aspen, or the Vittoria Mezcal (v3) for hardpack. They are faster and lighter with similar grip. The Mezcal is tougher because TNT is more durable than EXO, it's that simple.

The XR3 is in the process of a rollout to a new version, and I have not ridden the new tread pattern yet, because I don't need a 29x2.4 or 27.5x2.8 and those are the only 2 sizes available now for the new tread.

I use the XR3 or SE3 as a rear tire for more grip. It's nearly as fast as an Ikon - I can't tell any difference - but it has noticeably improved climbing traction, braking, and taller shoulder lugs but the they DON'T create a lot of drag because the tire has a very round profile, which keeps the shoulder lugs off the ground when you're riding in a straight line.

Comparing 29x2.35 Ikon against the 29x2.4 XR3 they have similar published/claimed weight. Trek's XR team issue casing is fairly tough and resists cuts and punctures better then EXO in my usage.

The Ikon 29.2.35 DoubleDown is very heavy at a claimed 995g so I haven't used it, and probably a lot of others haven't, either. Meanwhile the Bonty SE3 29x2.35 is a very reasonable claimed weight of 810g - only about 60-70g more than the XR3 version. I am not sure if that claimed weight is real, but it's surely going to be a lot lighter than the Ikon DD.

Anyway - I like Maxxis - but I've discovered I have better options.
Thanks for all the detailed info. I was on 2.35 Ikons front and rear for a while and liked them, but switched to Mezcals last year. I liked them too, but thought they lost a little bit of climbing traction compared to the Ikons. I saw about the same durability (1 puncture per season on my local trails in each).

This year I went back to Ikons and tried the smaller 2.20 in the back. Very similar feel to the 2.35. This is borne out by very similar measures of width as shown below.

Display device Electronic device Technology Measuring instrument Bicycle accessory
Technology Machine Measuring instrument Service Medical equipment


Only about 1 mm difference so I didn't find the 2.20's to be particularly low volume (or traction) compared to the 2.35. Could just be variation in individual tires, but that's been my experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Aspens man!!! They offer excellent grip for the little tread they have, roll exceedingly fast too, light as a feather :skep:
I love the Aspens. They are killer race tires but I have irreparably punctured 3 of them in the last few weeks (literally) when using them for trail riding with rocks.

I'll still use them for racing but need something a bit tougher for my fun rides - I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,083 Posts
I was being a bit facetious, as the OP didn't say what bike it was for or the type of riding he was looking to do. Personally, for the type of riding and terrain I like doing, I would not run the Aspens, but if I were racing XC, I think it would be between them and then new Rekon Race, or a combo of Aspen rear/Rekon Race front.

I love the Aspens. They are killer race tires but I have irreparably punctured 3 of them in the last few weeks (literally) when using them for trail riding with rocks.

I'll still use them for racing but need something a bit tougher for my fun rides - I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,866 Posts
Probably a 2.4 Recon offers the best all around performance in their line-up. I am pretty sure I could ride those tires in most places and not feel like the wrong tires were interfering with my enjoyment of the trail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
Probably a 2.4 Recon offers the best all around performance in their line-up. I am pretty sure I could ride those tires in most places and not feel like the wrong tires were interfering with my enjoyment of the trail.
I had horrible experience with the Rekon. Seven rides, two flats and on the last I tore a knob off. Really wanted to like that tire. Might try the EXO+ version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
Do folks just not like Ikons anymore? I've been pretty happy with the mix of decent grip and light weight for the sort of XC-ish riding in dry conditions I mostly do.
I believe Maxxis claims Rekons roll faster than Ikons at the same width/PSI, and they certainly have better shoulder knobs. I tend to think Rekon/Rekon Race may have superseded the Ikon/Aspen combo.

I'm curious how the Rekon compares with Ardent Race. Seems the latter might roll a bit faster, and might be a good front tire for dry conditions paired with a Rekon Race out back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
I just put a 2.4 Rekon on the front and an Ardent Race 2.2 on the back. I really like the way the Rekon looks for technical cross country riding. I rode for an hour today and it felt pretty good - and definitely fast - but we'll see how it holds up. I'm putting the set up through the ringer tomorrow with a huge all day ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,393 Posts
I'm always trying to find the same thing, but in a more enduro application.
However for my novice wife who isn't very strong, I focus on more XC/ trail tires.
Anyways she was sliding all over the place in the rear on an Ikon 2.35 MaxxSpeed and I replaced it with a 2.4 X3 and she loves it. Way more traction and it rolls as well to her.


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top