Rene Herse Umtanum Ridge tire review and other 2.2" options

Back in 2017 when I put together my new "gravel" bike, my go-to tire choice was Maxxis Ikon. You can call my decision weird or unreasonable, but I was switching at that time from a bicycle that had a maximum tire clearance of 35mm and the typical gravel tire choices at 40-45mm were simply not wide enough for my taste. My local trails always run through forest paths, full of roots and rocks, and therefore, wider tires seemed necessary. That also meant that I went with 27.5" (650b) wheel size, to squeeze in as much rubber as possible.

Years later, I still think it was a right call, even though most leading manufacturers have abandoned the 27.5" wheel size so I may need to rely on smaller, boutique brands. I feel that 27.5" x 2.2-2.3" (56-58mm) is a perfect wheel/tire combo on gravel, allowing for plenty of grip, extra comfort, and large enough diameter and width to roll well over anything, while still making for a relatively compact bike. Even now that many race gravel bikes run 700c wheels and 50mm wide tires, I'm still very happy with my non-racing choice and think that the extra 6-8mm of tire width helps quite a lot to dampen rough roads.

Maxxis Ikon TR EXO 27.5" x 2.2"

• tubeless-ready XC tire, better suited for dry conditions and hard-packed surfaces
• measured width on Velocity Blunt SS (27mm internal) rims: ~56mm
• measured weight: 580g in the old non-EXO version (manufacturer's spec for the new EXO version: 650-700g, depending on the source)
• price: $70

Maxxis Ikons served me well for a few years, but after wearing out through 2 sets of these tires, and when I was ready to buy a 3rd set, I noticed that things have changed for the worse (for me). Maxxis completely abandoned the old casing and went with the new, reinforced EXO sidewalls. That's probably a good choice for XC riders, but that's not how I was using those tires! I certainly much more preferred the softer, cushier sidewalls over heavier, stiffer ones with more protection. I had a chance to directly compare the new EXO version with my old non-EXO one and the difference was immediately noticeable, even without mounting the tires on wheels. The EXO tire is stiffer, feels tougher and heavier. While I can understand Maxxis' decision, I wasn't happy about it. Nevertheless, the old Ikons still remain my benchmark to compare all other tires against. They were light, fast, supple, supremely comfortable, easy to install, and with perhaps only 2 potential issues: (1) rolling noise on pavement and (2) some sealant seepage through sidewalls over time.

My overall rating (for the old, non-EXO version):

• comfort: 5/5 (very supple!)
• grip: 4/5
• speed: 4/5
• noise: 2/5 (noisy, but it's a MTB tire)
• weight: 5/5 (very light in non-EXO casing)
• width: 5/5 (true to size)
• ease of installation: 5/5
• price: 4/5

Rene Herse Umtanum Ridge 650b x 55mm

• ultralight knobby, tubeless-ready tire
• measured width on Velocity Blunt SS rims: ~51.5mm
• measured weight: 553g (standard casing)
• price: $78

All this made me look at other options out there, not that there are many to choose from (but that's another story). Since I was searching for a wide, yet lightweight tire, Rene Herse was a very obvious choice, and as soon as the new "Umtanum Ridge" was announced, I got really excited about it. I finally got a pair last year and been riding on these for the last 8+ months. 

Generally, I'm quite impressed. There is no doubt that these RH tires are of high quality, fast-rolling, very lightweight, and very supple. They provide excellent comfort, good grip, and what I like a lot after switching from Ikons - are very quiet. I mean, they are not silent, but for a knobby tire, the rolling noise is impressively low. Even their high price doesn't seem too bad at the moment. As long as you don't pick the Extralight or Endurace casing, the cost of a single tire, despite not being cheap, is comparable to all other high-end offerings. Over the last 8 months I also have not noticed any sealant seepage through sidewalls and that's typically immediately visible on tan sidewall tires.

Would I buy them again then? Sadly, no. What completely disqualifies them for me is their width. They are simply not 55mm wide. My own measurements on pretty wide (for gravel standards) rims show only 51.5mm. Other reviewers also found the same exact problem. I have also read in the past that RH's other tire, the 26" Rat Trap Pass is reportedly only 2.1" wide, even thought it is rated at 2.3". It seems to me that this is a common issue with many (most?) RH tires. They are simply not wide enough. I also don't buy Jan's explanation that:

"Due to the nature of hand-made tyres using natural rubber, the size can vary batch to batch, but they err on the side of smaller as larger could mean tyres rubbing."

Difference in size between several copies of the same tire could be explained by manufacturing tolerances, if we could find tires both smaller and larger than nominal. But in this case all tires seem to have width far on the low side, indicating RH's manufacturing process is simply way off target. And no - deliberately selling undersized tires because "larger could mean tire rubbing" is not an explanation. This is just BS. No experienced cyclist who is willing to drop $80 on a tire will be happy receiving a falsely-advertised product. If I buy a 55mm wide RH tire, I expect a 55mm (+/-1mm) tire, not a 50mm tire (In fact, if I wanted a 650b x 50mm one, there are many more choices out there).

It seems to me that RH should therefore either, (1) change the sizing on their tires, (2) set the process back on target, or (3) add a note on their website stating "Please be aware that these tires run routinely narrower than advertised". Interestingly, their website shows quite the opposite:

• Actual width on 21 mm rim (internal): approx. 56 mm
• Actual width on 23 mm rim (internal): approx. 57 mm

No idea where this comes from. If this was true, then my copy of tires should be about 60mm wide on 27mm internal width rims. Either I have a bad luck, or Jan must have measured a completely different batch of tires. Anyway, my overall rating (for Standard casing version) is:

• comfort: 5/5 (very comfortable)
• grip: 4/5
• speed: 5/5 (fast)
• noise: 5/5 (very quiet for a knobby tire!)
• weight: 5/5 (light, but it's really a ~50mm tire)
• width: 1/5 (severely undersized)
• ease of installation: 5/5
• price: 3/5 (pricey, but not too terribly for the Standard version)

Ultradynamico Mars JFF 27.5" x 2.22"

• lightweight tire for all road surfaces, tubeless-ready, with centered knobs for reduced noise and increased speed
• measured width on Velocity Blunt SS rims: ~55.5mm
• measured weight: 620g
• price: $65

Now it's 2025 and I'm thinking that I should have stocked on a couple more pairs of non-EXO Ikons back when they were still available. On top of that we have new tariffs on most products from Asia, which means that soon all tires will become more expensive. I'm still riding on RH tires, but it prompted me to think ahead and buy a pair of Ultradynamico Mars JFFs. I have not had a chance yet to try them out, but I installed one briefly and so far they certainly look very promising. They are lightweight and true to size. I think I will just use Umtanums until they wear out and then switch to Mars JFFs for the nearest future.

Here is how both tires look together, on the same rim (RH Umtanum Ridge on the left, Ultradynamico Mars on the right):

My overall rating (so far):

• comfort: TBD
• grip: TBD
• speed: TBD
• noise: TBD
• weight: 5/5
• width: 5/5
• ease of installation: 4/5
• price: 5/5

The general conclusion is that buying tires can be a lottery sometimes. From what I have notices so far, the manufacturing tolerances of Japanese tire brands are typically quite good, but a lot depends on the tooling design. It seems that in many cases brands get it right (See online reviews of RH Fleecer Ridge, a 700c x 55mm tire, showing that it's mostly true to size. My Ultradynamico Cava tires measure 49mm, being rated at 48mm. Both of these are made in Japan). But sometimes the bad happens and the final size ends up being off target. And because changing tooling can be very expensive, the problem gets never corrected and we end up with tires that not perform as expected.