New Tire Choice, Help!

Forums Mountain Bike Forum New Tire Choice, Help!

Tagged: , , ,

Viewing 16 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #122527

      So…. I poked around the net and forums for over a week and I’m still indecisive as all get out. Basically, I’m looking to get new tires real soon. I ride mostly XC singletrack, but will freeride (hard packed, but a fair share of roots and some loose/firm rock) and occasionally will vacation to serious Mountain riding. Also, I’m an aggressive rider. I’m partial to Maxxis (for many reasons) but this could be my first mountain tire purchase from them. I’m definitely going tubless on this set because I have everything but the "tubeless" tire.

      I was thinking: Minion DHF (front) and Minion DHR II (rear). Most research I have done is Minion DHF (front) and either Minion DHR, High Roller (rear). I do understand this is more AM riding. Is this too much for my usual terrian? I’ve also seen Ardent (front) and either Larsen or Crossmark (rear). Now because of easier availability, I’m thinking High Roller and stay at 26X2.35 front and rear. Now, I have NO feaking idea.

      Please give me your inputs and advice (if you wish) on your choice and "Tire Combo". All input will be greatly appreciated. I already can’t wait to get my new set and shred.

      Thanks and take care.
      -GT

    • #122528

      I will give an AAAA+++ with the Ardents either in the rear or both wheels (front and back). They are solid grip like the Nevegals in all avenues of terrain, however roll much faster and are a bit lighter. I like the Crossmarks as well, no experience with the Larsons though.

      Flying with the Minion and High Rollers is a bit much in my opinion, as they are more aggressive DH tires and are much heavier for XC.

      Anyways, good luck and have fun! 😀

    • #122529

      I agree with SCHucker. I’ve never ridden the Minions, but I would think that unless the majority of your riding is downhill, you don’t need a DH tire. I’ve been thinking about picking up some Ardents. Never ridden them either, but know some that do and they highly recommend.

      For all around trail riding I’ve been going with something beefier upfront to take the abuse and hook up in the turns and something lower-profile in the rear to offset a little of the weight and rolling resistance of the front. Right now I have Nevegals on the front and Crossmark on the rear and have been pretty happy with that combo.

      Good luck. Let us know how it works out.

    • #122530

      I’ve used the Minions on my DH rig, and I agree with everyone above: they are definitely overkill for XC. If you want aggressive tires that aren’t quite all the way to DH, you could check out the WTB Bronson (in addition to all the other great options offered). Also, my one of my favorite tires is the WTB Wolverine: not super aggressive and knobby, but it offers up pretty incredible traction for how fast it rolls.

    • #122531

      Alright then, I’ll take your words for it. I just wish I had a chance to try them out first. Looking at them, I don’t feel so sure. You wouldn’t happen to have any inputs on wear life would you?

      Also, for the Crossmarks… how well do they bite? I’ve read in some places that they tend to get away from you. Others didn’t state this, I suppose riding styles?

      But, after much following up and research, now I’m considering the Ardent (front) and either Crossmark, Ardent, or Ignitor (rear). Why is this so hard???

      By the way, kicking my Bonty Jones XR’s for this new set. If anyone can compare.

      Thanks again so much!

      -GT

    • #122532

      The Ardent for the front is a no brainer. I’m running a 2.4 EXO on the front of my Anthem and it’s as close to perfect a front tire as I’ve had. When the rear gives up, I’m going to look at either the 2.25 Ardent or the Crossmark.

    • #122533
      "Cotharyus" wrote

      The Ardent for the front is a no brainer. I’m running a 2.4 EXO on the front of my Anthem and it’s as close to perfect a front tire as I’ve had. When the rear gives up, I’m going to look at either the 2.25 Ardent or the Crossmark.

      I’m seeing that looking around. The hard part for me now is, do I run a 2.4 up front or a 2.25? Either way, I’m going Ardent front and rear. I’m seeing the Ardent used more together than, combined with another. Just don’t want to go with the 2.4 if it isn’t neccessary, (not sure how heavy this would be/feel). I’ve seen both 2.4, both 2.25, and 2.4 front/2.25 rear. I plan on going EXO on both and running tubeless. Too many great testimonies to pay more for UST when they work great as non-UST.

      Wondering if I should say "forget it" and just pick something. I just don’t want regrets on the size is all. 😕

      Definitely letting you all know how this turns out. Thanks for all your input.

      Take care,
      -GT

    • #122534
      "GTXC4" wrote

      I’m seeing that looking around. The hard part for me now is, do I run a 2.4 up front or a 2.25? Either way, I’m going Ardent front and rear. I’m seeing the Ardent used more together than, combined with another. Just don’t want to go with the 2.4 if it isn’t neccessary, (not sure how heavy this would be/feel). I’ve seen both 2.4, both 2.25, and 2.4 front/2.25 rear. I plan on going EXO on both and running tubeless. Too many great testimonies to pay more for UST when they work great as non-UST.

      Wondering if I should say "forget it" and just pick something. I just don’t want regrets on the size is all. 😕

      Definitely letting you all know how this turns out. Thanks for all your input.

      Take care,
      -GT

      2.4 leading and the 2.2 following. Gives you solid grip up front, especially in corning (berms or off-cambers) at both slower to higher speeds. As per weight, that is moot. I fly on the 2.4’s and I really don’t feel any difference. Ardents are fast rollers with an aggressive grip! 😄

    • #122535
      "SCHucker" wrote

      As per weight, that is moot. I fly on the 2.4’s and I really don’t feel any difference. Ardents are fast rollers with an aggressive grip! 😄

      That all depends on what you’re used to. I’ve got a 2.4" Ardent up front on my rigid bike for a little extra cushion (I use less than 20psi), but no way would I want it out back. It’s an 800g tire! I use an Ikon on the back, it’s only 520g. That’s almost 3/4 of a pound difference, and the Ikon is a faster rolling tire. But, even the 2.25" Ardent is a heavy tire at 760ish grams. I’m talking all 29er weights here.

      Once summer rolls around I’ll be switching to a 2.35" Ikon on the front, pretty much the same volume/comfort but it’ll roll faster than the Ardent and drop about 100g.

      The Ardent does grip a lot better in loose stuff than the Ikon, that’s for sure.

    • #122536
      "dgaddis" wrote

      [quote="SCHucker":5dfoortx]As per weight, that is moot. I fly on the 2.4’s and I really don’t feel any difference. Ardents are fast rollers with an aggressive grip! 😄

      That all depends on what you’re used to. I’ve got a 2.4" Ardent up front on my rigid bike for a little extra cushion (I use less than 20psi), but no way would I want it out back. It’s an 800g tire! I use an Ikon on the back, it’s only 520g. That’s almost 3/4 of a pound difference, and the Ikon is a faster rolling tire. But, even the 2.25" Ardent is a heavy tire at 760ish grams. I’m talking all 29er weights here.

      Once summer rolls around I’ll be switching to a 2.35" Ikon on the front, pretty much the same volume/comfort but it’ll roll faster than the Ardent and drop about 100g.

      The Ardent does grip a lot better in loose stuff than the Ikon, that’s for sure.[/quote:5dfoortx]

      I’m used to 2.20, the Bonty Jones’ sooo, that is the only reason why I’m reluctant on the 2.4. I’m feeling more towards keeping them the same size, but I’m itching over the 2.4 because of other’s testimonies. I also ride year around, so when the snow drops and then it freezes over hard packed, I ride that too. I read that the 2.25 is fat for it’s size compared to other 2.25s, so that right there would be a gain for me. I just don’t know. I might just go for it… any personal comparisons?

      Thanks so much and take care,
      -GT

    • #122537

      I like an equal or fatter tire on the front, more cushion and better grip. I did not like the crossmarks at all… not enough grip on my local trails.

    • #122538

      The only downside to the 2.4 vs the 2.25 on the front is a little more weight, and not that much since the 2.25 is a heavy tire. The bigger tire will grip better and be more comfy since you can air it down. It does roll a bit slower, but on the front it doesn’t make much difference since the rear tire is the one that carries most of your weight.

    • #122539
      "dgaddis" wrote

      The only downside to the 2.4 vs the 2.25 on the front is a little more weight, and not that much since the 2.25 is a heavy tire. The bigger tire will grip better and be more comfy since you can air it down. It does roll a bit slower, but on the front it doesn’t make much difference since the rear tire is the one that carries most of your weight.

      Being it is in the front, weight is a moot issue or concern here between the 2.2 and 2.4. I will say this, the Ardent 2.4 is lighter and rolls faster than the 2.35 Nevegal, and to me through shredding many varying terrains, a even greater grip, even in wet & muddier conditions where the Nevegals have been known to fail.

      Jumping from 2.0 to 2.4, you will feel the difference over all in rolling resistance, but not much. However, as ‘dgaddis’ mentioned, most of your rolling resistance comes from the rear tire anyways. There is advantages to running a wider tire up front and a narrow tire in the rear as mentioned previously.

      Anyways, good luck and the best shredding! 😄

    • #122540

      Alllllllright….. 😀 I’ll go for the 2.4 up front. I imagine it will feel about like the first time when I dropped pressure in my tires and you noticed that initial "This is slower" sort of thing. But I have the legs for it, so why not? I appreciate your inputs, experience, and time. Hopefully, this post will later help someone else out too.

      Thanks again and take care all 😃
      -GT

    • #122541

      MTI

      I have been running 2.2 Ikon EXO on my 26" hardtail and I love them. For the late fall/winter I am keeping 2.2 Ikon on rear and went with the 2.25 Ardent up front and for me it is more than sufficiant for a front tire. After 150 miles with that combo I know it was a good decision. I am sure the 2.4 will work out really well. Let us know how it works out.

    • #122542

      FINALLY

      I got a set of Maxxis Ardents 2.4 front and 2.25 rear, THANK YOU WIFE!!! Both with EXO sidewall and I’m running them tubeless. I’ve always been partial to Maxxis as I’ve stated before, and once again I’m more than happy with the tires. I couldn’t get the front end to wash out and the rear never slipped on steep climbs. I even took a steep climb slow and over branches, it just bit every bit of surface available. Additionally, that 2.4 up front went where ever I wanted to, when ever I wanted to. Lastly, these babies grip like crazy, yet roll fast and smooth. Much satisfied. So thank you for all that gave input and suggestions, they were much considered and appreciated. If you happen to be looking for a good set, I’d definitely recommend this one. 😃

      Take care,
      -GT

    • #122543

      Just an FYI update:

      So recently I swapped out my rear Ardent 2.25 EXO, reason being is it kept leaking air. Found multiple tiny holes in the sidewall, that and Stan’s valve stem leaking. In addition, some of the sidewall chord looked like it was stringing off, just one piece as you transition from the sidewall towards the lip/bead area.

      So before anyone thinks, BAD TIRE!!! Hear me out. I beat the snot out of tires, just trust me on this. I ran these through and I’m sure laid it down on thorns, multiple times. I know that the leak was more due to the valve stem, because my new tire lost air overnight too. New valve stem solved that and the sealant did hold up in the old 2.25 tiny holes. So, what did I go with? Same tire but 2.4, like the front. One thing to share is, not only is there substantially more tread (larger knobs), but also the sidewall is thicker. AND the BITE!!!

      Lesson learned: I should have got the 2.4 for the rear, because that is what I originally wanted, but was willing to shoot for weight savings. I’m more than happy with the rear being 2.4 and the traction that it affords, AND for the way I ride, it will last a little longer…maybe. The tread on the old rear is still great. Honestly, I just wanted a 2.4 and I suppose that’s ok.

Viewing 16 reply threads
RELATED TOPICS

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.