It has been awhile since I got a hold of the Maxxis Ardent 2.4″er tires, but I have been riding them in a wide variety of conditions and now it is time to lay down some of my thoughts on these big meats.
First Impressions: The 2.4″ Ardents are a different tire than the 2.25 version are. Again, you can go back to the “Out Of The Box” post to see what those differences are. Suffice it to say that the 2.4 inch Ardent is much more impressive, not only in width, but in sidewall thickness/stiffness and in tread height for the intermediate knobs. It makes a world of difference in my testing so far. I’ll get to more of that in a bit. First, let’s get the current measurements, as promised from last time.
Casing Width: 61.6mm
Outer Knob To Knob: 60.3mm
So the casing is over 2.4″ and the tread area is just a hair under. We’ll call it a wash and go with 2.4″. The thing about this tire is that like the Racing Ralph 2.4″er, this tire has a great, round shape to the casing on a P-35, (35mm wide rim). Again though, the Ardent has a thicker casing than a Racing Ralph, so it should survive rocks better than the Schwalbe.
The tire mounted up tubeless, (remember, this voids your warranty and is not recommended by Maxxis), and I found I could run some insanely low pressures for packed snow machine trails which allowed an almost snow bike-like experience. During this phase of the testing, I was running pressures down into the teens front and rear. Later on, as the trails cleared out, I was bumping up that pressure to the mid 20’s and the tires were hooking up rather well on the dry hard packed dirt. The tires felt very supple and were gripping the ground really well, but I wasn’t bottoming out on the rims at all.
Getting back to the cornering of the Ardent, I found the 2.4″er to be a different animal than the narrower version. With the taller intermediate knobs, I could lean slightly and not get a vague feeling, like the traction was going away on me, like I would with the 2.25″ Ardent. This tire would hook up on dry terrain at any lean angle. I found that traction was decent on tacky to dry dirt, but the Ardent still doesn’t like greasy dirt or mud. You really have to back off the speed if the dirt gets very wet at all.
Traction for climbing was decent. The huge footprint of the tire on the P-35 really helped lay the power down, so slipping out was never an issue. Only when I hit mud or wet roots and wet downed tree limbs did I detect that the Ardent wasn’t going to give me a high degree of traction. Again, the ability to run low pressures lets you get away with more than you would be able to otherwise with the Ardent.
Mid-Term Thoughts: I like this Ardent. It measures up to a true 2.4″er, is supple, has a better tread than it’s narrower brother, the 2.25 Ardent, and it rails on dry to tacky soil. I want to go to some rockier trails next and give the Ardent a go in those sorts of conditions. I am pretty convinced that the Ardent won’t do well in mud, and the wetter things get the faster the Ardent 2.4 inchers performance will fall off. It does do tubeless quite well, which even though Maxxis doesn’t recommend it, I find to be a plus here.
The volume of this tire on a 35mm wide rim will perhaps be a close fit in a lot of frames, and it definitely will not fit at all in many other frames. If your chain stays are 62mm or more apart from each other where the tire will reside, then you should be good to go. I have the tires and wheels in a Gen III Soul Cycles Dillinger frame. It gives me about two millimeters all around the rear tire for clearance at the chain stay. Pretty close! If you have a flexy wheel, you will find out. This combination seems to be working fine so far though. As for the Rock Shox Reba Team, the clearance is fairly tight. A quick check with a Manitou shows better clearances. Keep this in mind when you choose your Ardent and a rim to put it on.
That’s it for now. I will be doing some more riding on some different trails to find out more on the performance of the Ardent 2.4″ tires. Then I should be back afterward for my final review. Stay tuned………..
Note: The reviewed products were provided to Twenty Nine Inches at no charge for review. I was not paid or bribed for this review. I will give/gave my honest opinion or thoughts through out.
Just wondering what rim strip you are using on the p-35?
@prphoto: I made my own out of strapping tape, 3M Mounting tape, and black electrical tape. However; a Stan’s Freeride strip is also said to work just fine.
I have never ridden this tire myself – just bought it immedaitely when it became available here in Europe and gave it to a friend to try (because I have so many other tires to review right now).
… two day ago I meet him and he tells me I shouldn´t expect to “ever get them back again” with a big grin on his face 🙂 (fyi: he has been running it up front in tubeless set up and he claims it to be a perfect allround tire when mated with something faster in the rear).
RIDE ON
@c_g: What does your friend consider to be a faster rolling rear tire? In the rocks and hardpack I find the Ardent to be extremely fast rolling (especially for a full knobby tire) while still proving excellent cornering and braking control. Personally I run a 2.4 Ardent up front and 2.25 Ardent in the back.
@GT: I can attest that it is surely NOT a mud tire, especially in the SE red clay type goo. Does much better in the loamy muck but the closely spaced center tread still limits it’s traction. IMO – it does very well in rocky conditions
Comparison thoughts between the Ardent 2.4 and FR3 in terms of feel, performance, etc?
0.2mm of chain stay clearance each side might actually be on the marginal side 😉
That’s absolutely humongous, 61.6mm casings, on any rim, at any pressure!!
@Dave: The FR3 is a grippier, slower, (but not by much), more aggressive tire than an Ardent. It’s built heavier and should be able to take more abuse than the Ardent can.
I liken the Ardent to a tire like the Racing Ralph, but just a tougher version of that sort of tire. More XC/Trail and less of an AM bruiser type tire like the FR3 is.
I’m generalizing here, but I hope that gets the idea across.
Yeah, that helps. I love the Ralph’s weight, tread pattern, compound. Just don’t like the bead for tubeless.
I’m going to give the FR3 a whirl on the front. Speaking on behalf of myself here, the Bontrager bead/rim/strip combo is pretty idiot-proof. I’ve rolled non-TLR tires off Stans rims left and right with low PSI (22 or so) but the Bontragers hang tough.
The Ardent, though, is a tire that always interested me. We shall see.
Thanks for doing all of these reviews… good way to get some idea of what works in the real world.
I have to say I’ve been running Racing Ralphs tubeless for more than a year with no problems, as I have with the Ardents…
While testing its fit in the rear triangle of a bike might be somehow informational to a specifications-geek, running the 2.4 Ardent as a rear tire strikes me as simply an exercise in adding rotating weight where it’s most painful to one’s legs.
IMO the 2.25 Ardent is wide enough for any situation, and knobbed enough for any situation, as a rear tire.
I ride in the northern Rockies in very gnarly terrain and have never wanted any tire wider or bigger-knobbed than the Ardent 2.25 as a rear tire.
For perspective — I have used the following as rear tires:
MAXXIS
Ardent 2.4
Ardent 2.25
Aspen 2.1
Ignitor 2.1
KENDA
Nevegal 2.25
PANARACER
Rampage 2.35
Prior to riding the Ardent 2.25, my primary choice of tires on my 29″ bike (a steel hardtail singlespeed) was Rampage rear, Nevegal front for technical terrain, and Ignitor rear Nevegal front for smoother terrain.
Currently I run Ardent 2.25 front and rear in most situations.
I will run a 2.4 Ardent front if the terrain is really nasty.
I will run a 2.1 Aspen rear if the terrain is really smooth.
In my view running the 2.4 Ardent as a rear tire seems more an exercise in psychological gratification than a real useful move.
@Charlie Oxtrot: With all due respect, “horses for courses”. Big rear tires are great here and in other places where riders want more traction, more “cush”, or both. Could I ride with a skinnier tire? Sure I could, but I don’t have to if I don’t want to, and especially if the bigger tire is doing things the skinnier tires do not do. 😉
In the case of this Ardent, it is a different tire with different characteristics than the 2.25 Ardent. Some folks will be into what the 2.4″er is laying down out back on their rigs, some- like yourself- will not. Cool! That’s why we have choices. 🙂