crossgeared.com

Maxxis Ignitor Tyres

After about a year-and-a-half of consideration, I finally picked up a pair or two of Maxxis Ignitors.  I’ve ridden a fair number other tyres (note that while some of these tyres were purchased in the U.S. as ‘tires’, I’m writing this in Australia, so they’re now ‘tyres’), but I haven’t been that happy with any of them.

Of the tyres I’ve recently ridden, the Larsen TTs were fast on hard pack but way to unpredictable in loose corners and mud.  The Hutchinson Toros were nice on the front, but too slow on the back.  The WTB Prowler 29 SLs were predictable but slow and heavy, the sidewalls proved a little weak, too. Finally, the Crossmark came the closest, but they still gave up too much in the mud and didn’t seem to offer much over the Larson TTs.

While in the U.S. (or the ‘States, as it were) I rode Eric’s Turner Burner with 26×2.1″ Ignitors in what I’d call moderately-slippery mud as well as dry-ish hardpack.  I was so impressed with the Ignitors that I  finally decided to buy some.  I got a pair of Ignitor 120 tpi ‘Exception Series’ 26×2.1″ tyres for the Eriksen and a pair of Ignitor 29×2.1″ 60 tpi tyres for the Kona.

The 26×2.1″ Ignitor Exception measures in at a predictably-puny 1.785″ mounted without tubes on Mavic 819 rims.  The missing 0.215″ of tyre width certainly explains some of the 260g (a little over a half pound) weight savings over the old Crossmark/Toro combo.  Aside from the sizing discrepancy, the 26″ Ignitors mounted easily and inflated with some Stan’s sealant without too much coercion.

The 29×2.1″ Ignitor measures in at a shockingly-accurate 2.039″ mounted with tubes on Fulcrum Red Metal XL 29er rims.  Even with an honest tyre size, the 29″ Ignitors saved 200g (a little under a half pound) over the old and notoriously-heavy 2.1″ WTB Prowler 29 SL tyres.

In the process of swapping the tyres on the Kona, I also removed a link form the chain (the Kona is a SS with sliding Paragon-like dropouts) and shortened the wheelbase by more or less 1″, assuming the PC1 chain didn’t already stretch too much.

I took the Kona out to Fox Creek (home of the Foxy 1000) and had a unplanned riding buddy for the entire one-and-a-half-hour ride.  He kept cutting the switch-backs so I couldn’t always keep up, but I did pass him on the downhills.

Overall, the changes were transformative. I don’t know if the shorter chain stay/wheelbase or the Ignitors made the difference, but either way I’m very happy.  I’ve yet to take the Eriksen out on the dirt with the new tyres, but I think I’ll be pleasantly surprised when I do.

Update:  I swapped the 26×2.1″ Ignitor Exception tyres for a pair of 26×2.35″ Ignitor ‘Maxxpro’ tyres.  I don’t know what ‘Maxxpro’ means, but I’m guessing something along the lines of ‘heavy’.  Anyway, the Ignitor 2.1s, which were actually ~1.8″ wide, were just too small, and these Ignitor 2.35s measure in with a nice 1.97″.  Aside from the increased size and weight, these new ‘Maxxpro’ Ignitors seem to have much thicker sidewalls, and as a result sealed up much more quickly and required about half the Stan’s sealant that the smaller Exceptions took.  Here’s a comparison of the key specifications:

TyreSizeMeasured WidthMeasured Weight
Ignitor 2.1 Exception26 x 2.1"1.785"490g
Ignitor 2.35 Maxxpro26 x 2.35"1.970"740g
Ignitor 2.129 x 2.1"2.039"600g

Ignitor 2.1 Exception (left) & Ignitor 2.35 Maxxpro (right)

Ignitor 2.35 Maxxpro (left) & Ignitor 2.1 Exception (right)

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • JJ

    How are you liking the 2.35 vs the 2.1 at this point?

    Im leaning towards the 2.35 but I had a 2.1 on the front of my bike and never had any problems with it. In fact it was an awesome tire! But Im wondering if I might like the higher volume better.

    Can you notice a difference in weight with the 2.35 vs 2.1 while riding or bunny hopping, etc?

  • Dave

    Yes, I do still prefer the 2.35s. The extra weight is definitely noticeable on the climbs and when accelerating, though the extra volume and width makes for far more confident descents and cornering. The stronger sidewalls on the 2.35s are nice for trail riding, and I worry less about damaging the tyre. Bottom line, the 2.35s are more fun.

    Having said all that, I haven’t yet raced with the 2.35s. I suspect that the 2.1s would be the better choice for XC racing due to their smaller size and lighter weight, though this is assuming that they hold up well and don’t flat. I have an enduro coming up this weekend and I’m planning to ride the Eriksen, so we’ll see how the 2.35s do.

    Also, I haven’t needed to add any air to the 2.35s in the week since I mounted them. The 2.1 Exceptions needed to be re-inflated daily for the first week, and every few days after that. Both the 2.35s and the 2.1s were mounted tubeless with Stans, the only difference being that the 2.1s needed about 2.5 to 3 scoops each where the 2.35s used 1 to 1.5 scoops each.

  • Pingback: Crossgeared.com – Cycling, tech and other stuff I like » Blog Archive » Autumn Bike Updates()

  • tedtoo

    Hi Dave,
    what is the overall diameter of the ignitor 2.35 compared to the 2.1s when inflated to 40psi? I am trying out different combinations of bigger front than rear tyre etc and it would be good to know if the undersize width translates to a smaller diameter also.

    Cheers, Ted:)

  • admin

    Ted,

    The 2.35×26″ Ignitor inflated to 40psi mounted tubeless on the Mavic 819 rims rolls out to a circumference of 209.5cm, which is a diameter of 66.7cm/26.3in. The same configuration inflated to 27psi rolls out to a circumference just under 209cm, which is a diameter of 66.5cm/26.2″. My average tyre pressure with the 2.35s has been around 26/28 (F/R).

    I don’t have any 2.1×26″ Ignitors to test.

    Dave

  • tedtoo

    Thx Dave,
    I am going to try out a 2.2 WTB wolverine for the front – hoping it is a bit bigger in diameter than the 2.35 Ignitor – and lighter. I used the 2.1 Ignitor at Mt Torrens and found it gave perfect grip in those conditions. The only prob was I needed a bit more ground clearance, as my Giant Anthem is a bit low and I was constantly hitting ricks with my pedals. With a larger diam front tyre and a slightly oversized shock on the back I should be able to boost my BB height from 12″ to 13″. At least that’s the plan…. Will let you know how it goes.

    Cheers, Ted.

  • tedtoo

    Ok – so I’ve stuck the 2.2 WTB wolverine on a wheel and it has a diameter of 26 3/4″ at 40psi. The Ignitor 2.1 has a diam of 26″ flat at 40 psi. Now to see how grippy the wolver is – the tread looks very similar to the ignitor…

    T:)

  • tedtoo

    Went for a ride on the wolverines today. Plenty grippy but a bit sluggish on the climbs. I think the size is overkill – even bigger than your 2.35 ignitors Dave. Reckon I’ll go back to the ignitor 2.1s with a 1.95 ignitor on the back.

    T:)

Creative Commons License
www.crossgeared.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License