Recommend 29er XC tires

[NHAero]

It's hard for me to picture an Ikon on the front, given how they wash out in the rear, and your assessment for the Ardents is shared by others posting elsewhere.
Schwalbe durability is supposed to be notably up with the new models, but time will tell! Knocking on wood as I say this, but overall, road and trail, I seem to be easy on tires. 140 pounds, and riding mild terrain.

Thanks for your insights.

Originally Posted by Jaybee

i'm surprised to see the love for Ardents here. They might (especially in the 2.2 flavor) be my least favorite tire ever. Enough knobs to be a bit draggy (especially compared to Ikons), not enough knobs (or wrong configuration?) to hold a line if there's even a bit of loose in a corner. They've put my on my ass more than any other piece of bike equipment. Sketchy as a rear, asking for dental work as a front.

2.35 Ikons are awesome, but just for full disclosure they usually end up around 2.5 (a significant part of the reason they are awesome). They don't fit a lot of frames.

I don't have experience with the Racing Ray, but the tread pattern looks like what you want. I've never had good luck with Schwalbe durability, but I've usually lived in places known for eating tires. you might see a bit of a drop in cornering ability relative to the Vig, but that's a full on trail bike tire.

[Jaybee]

My specific durability issues with Schwalbe were ripping knobs off (not so)Nobby Nics and some sidewall cuts on a Racing Ralph. Others have talked about weeping sealant. I've also heard the newer versions of the Snakeskin casing are better.

Whatever the case, they're just tires. If they don't work for you, pull 'em off and mount up something else. Experimenting with tires is fun and relatively inexpensive (as bike expenses go).

[45K10]

Man, I love the Ardents. I have ridden the Kenda Slant six, Conti's and Nobby Nic and Ardent race are way above them in terms of rolling feel and wear IMO. I have ripped knobs off all of the other tires especially riding on heavy rock trails. I have been riding the Ardents for over a year and I haven't ripped off a single knob.

Are they as grippy as some others, no. But I not bombing long descents in loose stuff. Most of the trails around here the descents are like a minute max and it is roots and some rocks.

To each is own, in my experience tires are like saddles everybody feels something different and you don't really know until you try them out yourself.

[Jaybee]

I figure someone (or a few someones) must love Ardents, given that they've been around forever. I'm glad they work for you. Maxxis trail tires are nothing if not pretty durable. I've never ridden in NE, but the terrain you describe sounds like something the Ardent would excel on, and I agree that they roll just fine for something that's not an XC race tire. In Arizona and Colorado, they are just too sketch.

DHF/Aggressor or XR4/XR3 for me. Rekons if I want something faster rolling.

[sparky33]

Originally Posted by NHAero

Thanks much! I read a lot of reviews last night and ordered a Ralph 2.25 rear and Ray 2.35 front. These are the most current Evo versions, with the Snakeskin Addix combo. I haven't had Schwalbe tires before.
That WTB Vigilante was on the bike when I bought it used four years ago. My guess is that I've put over 3,000 miles on it. The Ikon was a replacement for the original rear, and being much lighter also lasted less time (rear too).
Also, chainstays don't look to fit a 2.4, so that limited some choices.

Originally Posted by NHAero

Mostly woodland, sandy, not much rocks. Will be interested to see if the Racing Ray feels less good in turns than the WTB Vigilante, which is excellent but most of a pound heavier IIRC.

I like Maxxis Ardent Race (2.35) for your neck of the woods, for mellow fast sandy xc trail...fast, light, good grip, volume, capable enough for tricky areas. The regular Ardent is better in slightly heavier terrain. The Recon Race is uber light/fast but lacks bite in the woods...fantastic on unpaved roads. I don't get along with the Ikon at all.
The current Schwalbe lineup is intriguing - tell us how they work for you.

[hellvetica]

I run a 2.4 Ardent front, 2.25 Ikon in the rear (SS 29er). Pretty perfect balance of speed and handling.

I had an Ardent in the rear and it was just too sluggish climbing. Replacing with an Ikon worked out well.

[Spoker]

spec ground controls f/r are nice.

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by Spoker

spec ground controls f/r are nice.

Speaking of which... The first Ground Controls did everything well. Miss those tires

M

[jpritchet74]

Originally Posted by hellvetica

I run a 2.4 Ardent front, 2.25 Ikon in the rear (SS 29er). Pretty perfect balance of speed and handling.

I had an Ardent in the rear and it was just too sluggish climbing. Replacing with an Ikon worked out well.

What's the reasoning to going fat in the front and narrower in the back?

I am new to the trail side of things.....

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by pritchet74

What's the reasoning to going fat in the front and narrower in the back?

I am new to the trail side of things.....

Plenty of grip and cush up front, “lower rolling resistance” in the back. Sometimes you can fit the tire you want in the fork but not the frame.
Some people think it helps on tight corners to have more grip in the front relative to rear.

[p nut]

Riding around in Utah, I find 29x2.4 Ardents to work great on XC trails. Grip is fine up front and it's taken quite a bit of abuse that would have rendered the Currently, I am running Ardent 29 2.4 front and Ardent Race 2.2 rear on my rigid HT. If I were riding smoother tracks, I would go Ikon 2.35 and 2.2.