there is a reason carbon black is added to rubber for tires, it has the highest
molecular surface area for reinforcement of the polymer chains.
it improves its tensile strength and wear resistance

skinwalls are weaker, since there is far less reinforcement and wear resistance going on in the non-black rubber

in fact any other color than black is weaker or the tire behaves worse in some way.

run them if you want, expect them to degrade sooner

-----------------------
Practically all rubber products where tensile and abrasion wear properties are crucial use carbon black, so they are black in color. Where physical properties are important but colors other than black are desired, such as white tennis shoes, precipitated or fumed silica has been used as a substitute for carbon black in reinforcing ability.

Traditionally silica fillers had worse abrasion wear properties, but the technology has gradually improved to a point where they can match carbon black abrasion performance.

advanced fillers are not in your gumwalls, your gumwalls are closer to raw vulcanized rubber.

 

That's the best explanation I got after searching the web and youtube for a week. Thanks!

More responses and actual testimonies are more than welcome!

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

 

Hy!
They do look good do...
thinking in puting a Ikon Skinwall on my Scott Spark 900RC

apparently both versions have the same weight

 

I would say it's terrain dependent. If you're terrain is mostly smooth dirt with minimal obstacles (very few rocks/roots/etc) and tread typically wears out before sidewalls then I would go for it. For my terrain in New England, sidewall's are by far the weak link in the tire. Every tire I've ever had died from sidewall wear first and I always look for stronger and tougher sidewall design when I choose a tire.

 

Back 50 years ago or so we called them gum-wall. The tan rubber sidewalls were soft and somewhat tacky. It'd get brittle and start cracking pretty quickly. The current stuff looks and feels different, much tougher.

 

But not as tough as the black sidewalls I presume.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

 

I am trying to find a tan wall tire for 29" wheels other than Ardent. I am looking for something with a bit more aggressive side knobs than the Ardent has.
I am currently riding a Cannondale f29 with Maxxis HR2 2.3 in the Front and Ardent 2.4 in the back.
The HR2 has great traction where as the Ardent requires a lower psi to get that traction which isn't always good as I ride mixed terrain on most rides.
I love the tan wall look but really want them in 2.4" or there about.

 

I'm glad they're weaker cuz I think they look like crap. Like some cheap Walmart bike or something. JMO, yours may be different. All good.

 

If you're running skinwalls that are tubeless, the inner layers of rubber are still black, with only the outermost layer being tan. The jury is still out on longevity with mine, but the tires I've got are plenty tough with regards to abrasion and cut resistance. They are, so far, functionally identical to blackwalls...

 

Everything old is new again.

 

Is there any skinwall options at all in 29x2.35-2.6 except Ardent?

 

Maxxis Rekon skinwall comes in 29 x 2.5WT.
I got the Ardent 29 x 2.4 skinwall and have been happy with them. Put 500 miles on them and the rear is wearing out. It's held up well for Moab/Sedona riding.
Some say the Ardent is not a great front tire so I'd like to try the Rekon.

 

This post is quite old, but thought I'd share my recent test results comparing Maxxis Ikon 2.20 60tpi Tan Wall vs Ikon 2.20 120 tpi Black Wall and a CrossMark II 2.25 60 tpi Black Wall. All tires are EXO/TR and the Ikons are the 3C. I'm comparing to the Crossmark because it is the lightest 60 tpi black wall xc tire I can find from Maxxis. On my scale here are the tire weights:

Ikon 2.20 Blackwall 120 tpi : 680 grams
Ikon 2.20 Tanwall 60 tpi : 715 grams
CrossMark 2.25 Backwall 60 tpi : 785 grams

My tests are essentially conducted in one location, at Lake Pueblo State Park in Colorado, which has a lot of sharp, splintered and embedded shale shards on the trail. I have hundreds of hours on these trails with many different Maxxis tires over the past five years and know the trails well.

I've only ever cut rear tires, and never a front.

If I run any Maxxis 120 tpi tire I can expect a catastrophic side wall cut in 10 hours of trail riding. In my tests these are the Black Wall tires. I've tried picking lines extremely carefully, unweighting the bike in risky sections, and changing tire pressures, but the results have been pretty consistent. I'm pretty well guaranteed to ruin a rear tire within 10 hours of trail time.

If I run the Maxxis Ikon 2.20 60 tpi EXO/TR Tan Wall I get much better results than any 120 tpi tire I've tested. However after about 20 hours the tan side walls are showing severe abrasion with exposed threads and a few near failures.

I have had the best results with the Cross Mark II 2.25 60 tpi EXO/TR. Over the past 5 years I have cut one tire, and that cut was small enough I was able to repair it. But I'd estimate I've gotten well over 60 hours on this tire without failure.

From these failure results and close inspection of the side wall wear, I believe the Back wall tires are more durable to sharp rocks than the Tan walls.

Having said all that, the reason for all my tire testing is to find the lightest tire with the best feel that will hold up on my trails. The lightest 120 tpi tires have the most supple feel and perform very well at low pressures. And the Cross Mark II at 785 grams has the "worst" feel of the tires I tested. I'd say the Tan Wall Ikon was very good in terms of ride feel, closer to the 120 tpi tires than the Cross Mark II. For racing on high risk trails I may opt for the Ikon Tan Walls. But for day to day trail riding I'll stick with the Cross Mark II on the rear in the Black Wall material.

 

Here is my tanwall setup.
Teravil Kessel 2.6 front and 2.4 rear.

 

Orbea frame looks great