Sorry you soiled yourself.

J/K...I've got an Ardent 2.4 on the way and I've been riding a RR 2.4 for a while. Can't contribute anything buy my 6th grade attempt at humor.

 

Oh, sorry - i forgot the "p" for "spoiled"

 

How about a side by side pic of the two?

 

Word on the street is that it makes a great rear ripper.
Sorry I have only played with the 26" version and it was a good tire on the rear, had a Betty on the front of that bike.

Shiggy says the Ralph may have the "magic tread pattern" and at the $$$ it better. I only got five miles on mine before winter set in.

 

Tires often take a few days to expand to full volume.

 

Are you comparing a used RR to a new Ardent? If so, that may be part of the problem. It takes a while for new tires to stretch to their full width. They need to be mounted and ridden for a while to get true measurements. Do you have any actual measurements of the 2 mounted to the same rim?

I have both tires mounted to Flow rims at home. I have not measured them yet, but I will do so tonight. Yes, they have both been mounted for a while and used.

My eyeball indicator tells me the casing on the RR is a little bigger than the Ardent, and the tread on the Ardent is a little bigger than the RR. I will post my findings tomorrow.

Mark

 

I'd have to agree with Lionel

I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)

 

I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've since converted it to tubeless as well)

Very interesting!

The one company that seems to consistently produce tires that are labeled with correct size is Specialized. I recently put a pair of Purgatory 2.2 tires on Flow rims. At 30psi. tubeless they measure 55.7mm. (both casing and edge knobs) or 2.19". I had the same experience with Eskar 2.3s on my 26" bike. I haven't ridden them very much yet but after a bit of saddle time I think I'm going to like them.

Ronnie.

 

Well, I guess if I go for bigger knobs in a 2.4 I'll go with the Specialized Purgatory 2.4

Although, I'm still waiting for the measurements on the Purgatory, too...

 

Just FYI, and not really applicable to 99.9% of the use the ardent will see(or racing ralph), but all mounted with tubes on a Speedway Uma 50mm wide rim, the ardent 2.25" measures out within 1mm of the ardent 2.4 and the racing ralph 2.4.

 

Just FYI, and not really applicable to 99.9% of the use the ardent will see(or racing ralph), but all mounted with tubes on a Speedway Uma 50mm wide rim, the ardent 2.25" measures out within 1mm of the ardent 2.4 and the racing ralph 2.4.

My 2.25 Ardent was within a millimeter of the 2.4 incher on the P-35's tubeless as well. The big difference is in the construction of the the newer 2,4. It has beefier sidewalls than the 2.25 and a different bead which looks far more tubeless compatible to my eyes. And finally, I couldn't keep my Ardent 2.25 from developing pin hole leaks throught the sidewalls. They would spontaneaously erupt and leave the tire half flat after the sealant sealed them, or as in one case, entirely flat. That was the last straw for me and off it came in favor of the 2.4.

 

I have run Schwalbe Racing Ralph 2.4's only with tubes. Never tubeless, and on a Gordo (35mm wide rim) they measured 60.6mm.

I have a pair of 2.4" Ardents. I set one up with a tube for awhile on a 28mm wide rim with a tube. There is no way that Ardent was ever going to be a 2.4" tire set up this way. At an outside knob to outside knob width it only got to a 58.2mm width. The casing measurement was a paltry 55.4mm

Tubeless it has done much better. On a Velocity P-35 rim, I am getting 60.2mm width, or 2.37" width. Close, but still not as wide as a Racing Ralph with a tube! Running a tire tubeless will stretch it more because the casing doesn't have that extra support from a tube. That is the only way these Ardent 2.4" tires will ever get close to 2.4 inches.

I am not going to harp about the Ardent 2.4"er not being 2.4 inches wide. Heck- most tires are not what they say they are for width. But in the case of this Ardent 2.4"er, it is woefully undersized. They would have been better off calling it a 2.3"er, and even then my tubed example was barely that. (I've snce converted it to tubeless as well)

The prototype Ardent 2.40 I measured was virtually the same size as the RR 2.40.

Both on a 24mm rim.

Ardent:
tread: 61.1
casing: 58.7
Volume index: 32.3

Racing Ralph
tread: 60.8
casing: 58.2
VI: 32.5

 

-Shiggy

From your numbers, the Ardent seems bigger. Would it be safe to say that the RR stretches more than the Ardent, which gives the results that others are getting?

 

I'm afraid I'm a bit soiled by the Schwalbe Racing Ralph 29x2.4. but as I mounted my new Maxxis Ardent onto my wheels, I was quite a bit disappointed about its width and volume. It's really bad that 2.4" is not the same as 2.4". What do you think about that tire?

Here's a clue for those who don't warm up the oven before throwing the pizza in there:

You have to air the tire up and let it sit for a few hours so it expands if you want a more realistic measurement. I just mounted a brand new Ardent 2.4 on the rear of my RIP yesterday at lunch. Measured 55mm in casing width at 12:30 p.m. after mounting with a tube. I came home from work, and the same casing width measured 59mm at 5:30 p.m. After 24 hours - it's identical to my Ralph 2.4.

Be patient - and measure after the tire has been on the rim for a few hours or more.:thumbsup: A measurement right after mounting doesn't count.:nono:

BB

 

how about everybody come back in a few weeks with some measurements after getting a few rides on them

 

how about everybody come back in a few weeks with some measurements after getting a few rides on them

Bingo! But let the whiners whine in the meantime as it is fun to watch them eat crow....

BB

 

I was shocked at how much the ardent grew after being mounted tubeless a day or two. I was also a little nonplussed initially...but now I am super stoked. The ardent 2.4 is a very big looking tire!

 

I installed an Ardent 2.4 on the Front of my F/S to see how it faired compared to the Rampage I had been running for the winter (Ardent 2.4 VS Rampage thread...), with an Ardent 2.25 Out Back-

Here's what I found after having the 2.4 mounted tubeless on an Stans Arch (~24.5mm wide) at ~45 + psi from the time I mounted it to see how much it "grew"....


Tread Width Casing Width
At Install: 2.32 2.23

~12 Hr: 2.34 2.25

~2 weeks: 2.34 (57mm) 2.25 (60mm)

For Reference here are some specs on 2.25 Ardent's on the same wheels but mounted for a few months-

Tread Width Casing Width
2+ months: 2.23 (57mm) 2.16 (55mm)

The knobs are noticeably taller especially the transitions on the 2.4 and as other's have noted it has a much beefier sidewall- it actually has a knurled-like texture (think micro snakeskin...) not smooth like the 2.25 version-

Silly to look at it in such detail I guess as if it will make or break the whole deal.... but that's the beauty of e-biking

 

-Shiggy

From your numbers, the Ardent seems bigger. Would it be safe to say that the RR stretches more than the Ardent, which gives the results that others are getting?

No. I pre"stretch" all tires before I measure them.

 

Somebody at Maxxis must not like you guys.
I have production Ardent 2.4 mounted on my Gordos with Tubes and its casing width measures well within 60mm. As big as the Weirwolfs which they replaced. Add the bigger tread and it is just about the biggest tire I can run on the rear of my Jones. Every now and again I'll even get some tire buzz.
Could not be happier with this tire in Socal. 200lbs and running the front at 20psi and the back at 25psi. Feels like I'm riding on fluffy pillows with a nasty set of chompers.
Love for the Ardent 2.4.

 

I was shocked at how much the ardent grew after being mounted

that's what she said

 

lot's of good points made, especially with respect to timing of measuring tires.

in summary, for other than XC riding on boardwalks, the 2.4 Ardent kicks the snot out of the pantywaisted, but nicely pantywaisted Racing Ralph. I own both and would sure as hell not consider the Ralph for other than XC purposes, even by my standards - I however like it (Ralph) in particular as a front tire on a rigid bike. The Ardent 2.4 is outstanding for weekend warriors like myself...truly outstanding IMHO, rendering the Dissent and other such tires utter retardation

 

this thread is worthless without photos.

 

this thread is worthless without photos.

yes. That and tires given to me to take said photos

 

same experience here....put a 2.4 ardent tubeless on the front of my bike, rode for two months, decided to put another on the rear for the winter and it was amazing the difference in how much larger the one I'd been riding was compared to the newly mounted one.