Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 118
  1. #1
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019

    JUST IN : Schwalbe Super Moto 28x2.35 676/685g

    Schwalbe Art. Nr. : 10600012
    HS338

    Evo
    Compound : 3NC
    Weight on sticker : "ca. 690g"

    Roughly 300g less than the already well-performing Big Apple of the same size. 150g lighter than the folding Lite version.

    Bug your local shop to order you a pair.

    Rough measurement and first impressions, to follow when I get time.
    At first glace, they are the same as the Lite versions I now also own. Same mold used, obviously. These may stretch better though, as they're basically Racing Ralph 2.4's without knobs.

    Schwalbe specs 2.0-4.0 bar, but I know I'll be running them between 1.0 (or less) and 3.0.
    No point inflating these to 4.0, at 3.0 they'll likely roll faster anyway, on anything but the smoothest of concrete surface.

    I'll mount them on my Redline Flight which now gets both my commuting and rare off-road mileage.

    Color : Black with large white letters.

    Note that these are named 28", likely because of being more trekking-purpose for Schwalbe, not associated with MTB's.

    In 26", these end up a lot on trekking bikes with 26" frames and Rohloff hub. You get the idea. But they can do so much more!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails JUST IN : Schwalbe Super Moto 28x2.35 676/685g-super-moto-29-800.jpg  

    Last edited by Cloxxki; 04-22-2010 at 02:25 PM.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Schwalbe Art. Nr. : 10600012
    HS338

    Evo
    Compound : 3NC
    Weight on sticker : "ca. 690g"

    Roughly 300g less than the already well-performing Big Apple of the same size. 150g lighter than the folding Lite version.

    Bug your local shop to order you a pair.

    Rough measurement and first impressions, to follow when I get time.
    At first glace, they are the same as the Lite versions I now also own. Same mold used, obviously. These may stretch better though, as they're basically Racing Ralph 2.4's without knobs.

    Schwalbe specs 2.0-4.0 bar, but I know I'll be running them between 1.0 (or less) and 3.0.
    No point inflating these to 4.0, at 3.0 they'll likely roll faster anyway, on anything but the smoothest of concrete surface.

    I'll mount them on my Redline Flight which now gets both my commuting and rare off-road mileage.

    Color : Black with large white letters.

    Note that these are named 28", likely because of being more trekking-purpose for Schwalbe, not associated with MTB's.

    In 26", these end up a lot on trekking bikes with 26" frames and Rohloff hub. You get the idea. But they can do so much more!
    Nice! Now I need to finish the bike they would be perfect for.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884
    and i need to start one!

  4. #4
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    So what setups are you guys looking at?

    For myself, living in a region with mostly sand-based smooth trails, I can see the 676g SuperMoto replacing a Racing Ralph 2.4", for most riding I do.

    For XC racing, I might try one of the 400-500g offerings, perhaps even the Rediculous Fred.

    By those using 26" SM's (26" itself is another form of SM, one might argue) for beach racing, they work well with latex tubeless. It will be interesting to see how the beads on these end up fitting.

  5. #5
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    So what setups are you guys looking at?

    For myself, living in a region with mostly sand-based smooth trails, I can see the 676g SuperMoto replacing a Racing Ralph 2.4", for most riding I do.

    For XC racing, I might try one of the 400-500g offerings, perhaps even the Rediculous Fred.

    By those using 26" SM's (26" itself is another form of SM, one might argue) for beach racing, they work well with latex tubeless. It will be interesting to see how the beads on these end up fitting.
    Mine is a frame I started a year ago at Steve Garro's shop. It is still a "BLO" (bicycle like object) as I am lacking the shop facilities to finish it.

    A "roadster" in a cruiser/hot rod way rather than Dutch city bike. Long, low and clean. Plan to use Sturmey-Archer 8-speed internal gear hub with drum brakes F&R. Swing dropouts. Not this color scheme. May or may not have fenders.
    p3270262.jpg

    cococamino.jpg
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  6. #6
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Interesting project Shiggy!

    Initial inflation :
    Mavic A119 rim. 24mm wide?
    45psi on my cheap alu track pump. I don't even like to put in more, let alone ever ride at that much.
    I don't have caliper, but I eyeballed it to be 58mm already, +/- 0.2mm. Will see how that progresses as it sits there.
    On this rim, the fit is rather loose.
    Interestingly, the tire can stand on it's own, the rubber seems to offer sufficient support.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails JUST IN : Schwalbe Super Moto 28x2.35 676/685g-super-moto-29-800.jpg  

    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  7. #7
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Interestingly, the tire can stand on it's own, the rubber seems to offer sufficient support.
    It is the "solid" rubber tread. The 26" Super Moto does that, too.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #8
    Powered by ice cream.
    Reputation: Enel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,305
    Nice. The Nano is out of a job.
    Quote Originally Posted by buddhak
    And I thought I had a bike obsession. You are at once tragic and awesome.

  9. #9
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    It is the "solid" rubber tread. The 26" Super Moto does that, too.
    So, is this 10% more impressive for a 29" tire, or 21%, being the square of 110%? :-)

    Really, the 690g target weight to me is very promising. It will perform better in all ways than the legendary Super Moto 26", and weigh only ~70g more.

    In 26", on simple XC rims, I've seen the Super Moto to measure 60mm. On worthy rims such as Flows, Semi's or even P35's (not even a heavy combi with the latter), I would not be surprised people getting 62mm or so.

    I seem to remember rolling resistance tests carried out by Schwalbe enginerds showing the SuperMoto actually rolled about as fast over asphalt as a top road race tire. The 29" version, obviously will roll better, while matching it to super duper MTB compliant goodness.
    No, not a tire for loose gravel descends, but if you're on a century ride, and spot some sweet singletrack shadowing the road, you'll be just fine there.

    If that announced Alfine 11spd works out well, I can see myself building a dirt cheap steel frame with one. Redline Monocog frames are awesome for complaince and pedaling efficiency. A long top tube also works out well with the inverted trekking riser bars I like.

    Awesomely bomber 29" bikes don't need to be "heavy" anymore.
    Bugs me that it took them years to make it after we offered to order a couple thousand tires, but at least now it exists, and just as I wanted it, sub 700g and full spec.

    I like that the tire has these grey beads. You can tell whether the tire sits in the rim hooks well.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  10. #10
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Enel
    Nice. The Nano is out of a job.
    To a degree. A Nano will always be the better off-road tire I suppose, its traction is unreal on some surfaces. If you run BA's at decently low pressure, they're fine to get by. SM's will (should) be better.
    Really, I'd want a Furious Fred in 2.4. Make it over the top puncture proof, it will still be light and fast. Would make a great front with a SM rear. I did some beach races with a BA rear and Fast Fred 2.35 front. Great combo.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    So, is this 10% more impressive for a 29" tire, or 21%, being the square of 110%? :-)

    Really, the 690g target weight to me is very promising. It will perform better in all ways than the legendary Super Moto 26", and weigh only ~70g more.

    In 26", on simple XC rims, I've seen the Super Moto to measure 60mm. On worthy rims such as Flows, Semi's or even P35's (not even a heavy combi with the latter), I would not be surprised people getting 62mm or so.

    I seem to remember rolling resistance tests carried out by Schwalbe enginerds showing the SuperMoto actually rolled about as fast over asphalt as a top road race tire. The 29" version, obviously will roll better, while matching it to super duper MTB compliant goodness.
    No, not a tire for loose gravel descends, but if you're on a century ride, and spot some sweet singletrack shadowing the road, you'll be just fine there.

    If that announced Alfine 11spd works out well, I can see myself building a dirt cheap steel frame with one. Redline Monocog frames are awesome for complaince and pedaling efficiency. A long top tube also works out well with the inverted trekking riser bars I like.

    Awesomely bomber 29" bikes don't need to be "heavy" anymore.
    Bugs me that it took them years to make it after we offered to order a couple thousand tires, but at least now it exists, and just as I wanted it, sub 700g and full spec.

    I like that the tire has these grey beads. You can tell whether the tire sits in the rim hooks well.
    That grey bead is also a softer rubber to reduce rotational slip on the rim.

    It is a very impressive weight for the tire. I plan on use at least 27mm wide rims for my Roadster. Likely Sun Equalizers but maybe something even wider.

    The S-A 8-speed hubs are a bargain compared to the Alfine. For your cost of just the Shimano hub (no cog or shifter) I can get front and rear drum brake S-A hubs (even a dynamo front), cog and shifter. The whole drivetrain (excluding crankset) and brakes (excluding levers) for the bike. Downside is the gearing is 1:1 in low and overdrive for the other 7 ratios. Requires a very small chainring to pair with the 25T cog for big wheels.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,674
    Well, Shiggy, you could probably run a granny ring then have a custom HbC bashguard made to fit really tightly to the spider so it all looks nice. I like the overall idea. It's what I want to do at some point. Drum brake cruiser. Brown with gold. Wood fenders. Silver components. Brooks saddle and grips. Dynamo hub and refurb an old housing with my modern 4x LED 600 lumen internals.

    Are these available in NA yet? I don't see the sizes on their site. Will a 2.0 version also be available?

  13. #13
    Waiting for Godot
    Reputation: OilcanRacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Really, I'd want a Furious Fred in 2.4. Make it over the top puncture proof, it will still be light and fast.
    now your talking my language. i would really dig that tire!!!! kind of like what my RR2.4 look like when they get worn out......
    get to know me thru my blog
    http://oilcanracer.blogspot.com/

    spend $$ at my sponsors shop http://www.revolutionutah.com/

  14. #14
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmucker
    Well, Shiggy, you could probably run a granny ring then have a custom HbC bashguard made to fit really tightly to the spider so it all looks nice. I like the overall idea. It's what I want to do at some point. Drum brake cruiser. Brown with gold. Wood fenders. Silver components. Brooks saddle and grips. Dynamo hub and refurb an old housing with my modern 4x LED 600 lumen internals.

    Are these available in NA yet? I don't see the sizes on their site. Will a 2.0 version also be available?
    Profile Racing crank and a 30T chainwheel. No bash or chain guard needed with the single rear cog.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  15. #15
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Shiggy, I am intrigued, will need to get myself educated on the SA. I don't need to climb hils, so it may turn out OK for me.

    Tire grew to 59mm overnight, say 10 hours at 45psi.

    I have a Sun EQ27 wheel coming to me soon.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  16. #16
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Today I had the tire sit at 50psi. Measured it a good 59mm.
    Aired back down to 40psi, and still it's 59mm.

    And, this is on a 24mm narrow Mavic trekking rim. This tire is the real deal.

    What would you guys guess it would measure when put on a Kris Holm 47mm rim? And how would casing height be affected?
    I'm considering that rim, due to being barely heavier than this tire, and just 110g more than a Velocity 35mm.
    Just wonder whether my knobbies will still in the back of my frames with such wide rims...
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,235
    Does anyone carry this new tire? I've checked all my usual, online sources. Nothing.

    It looks like exactly what I'm after.

  18. #18
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by JonathanGennick
    Does anyone carry this new tire? I've checked all my usual, online sources. Nothing.

    It looks like exactly what I'm after.
    Apparently 200 tires were made. Don't count on a single tire outside the country of manufacture, or Europe. Some patience, and bugging local distributors.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  19. #19
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,649
    I'm a 26" revert...but this tire would be perfect on my "road bike on steroids"...any here in the US?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    217
    Not interested. This tire is 1" or 3.5% smaller than I need for my 29er.

  21. #21
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy
    I'm a 26" revert...but this tire would be perfect on my "road bike on steroids"...any here in the US?
    Practice patience or impatience.

    German brands like to say "there is no damand for this product".
    I bet Schwalbe North America is on the case, but they'll need some time to get an order processes, produced and shipped.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  22. #22
    Full Tilt Boogie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,651
    Man I want a pair or two of these! That weight is really impressive for that size. I'll call the US importer on Monday and see what they say on availability.
    I sell bikes here. Check out the Blog here. Facebook.

  23. #23
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,762
    Now maybe next year they'll give us a 650B version.

  24. #24
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Now maybe next year they'll give us a 650B version.
    Unlike the 700C versions, no molds exist for a 650B.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  25. #25
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Ben, your tire cutting skills might make something killer our of this ;-)

    Total tire height of the tread less hairs I'm eyeballing to be 56mm, I suppose this makes the casing some 55mm.
    Casing width at 40psi stabilizes (unridden) at 59mm for now.

    Fat, light, fast.

    Pick all three.

    People will ask for puncture resistance and tubeless ease, but others will find out about those better than I could. Don't have any latex on hand anyway.
    With 1mm of rubber nearly covering the casing, it might be about as puncture-proof as the original big apple. Which in my mind is pretty okay compared to other urban tires. The tread being less high might make it more vulnerable to sharp objects which do manage to find the thinnest part of the tread, not being guarded by surrounding knobs as much.

    It's a really light tire for its size for road use, but of course the similarly sized Racing Ralph knobby is lighter.

    Darn, I wish I had 35mm and 47mm rims on hand now. I just gotta know what those would do to total (cross-section) volume, and not unimportant : casing height.
    I once rode someone's freeride type bike, wide rims, and 26" BA's at high pressure, that was pretty wild for urban racing/playing.

  26. #26
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Now maybe next year they'll give us a 650B version.
    Oh, just put the 26" version in your bike. The tall casings make it similar to a 650B/2.0", right?

    If they make something cool, usually it's because people gave up asking for it a couple years ago, it seems. All we can do it prove them wrong by buying more tires.

    I gave y'all the article number, go crazy with it.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki

    I don't have caliper, but I eyeballed it to be 58mm already, +/- 0.2mm.
    +/- 0.2mm? That's an accurate "eyeballed" measurement!

  28. #28
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,850

    Vulpine

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    To a degree. A Nano will always be the better off-road tire I suppose, its traction is unreal on some surfaces. If you run BA's at decently low pressure, they're fine to get by. SM's will (should) be better.
    Really, I'd want a Furious Fred in 2.4. Make it over the top puncture proof, it will still be light and fast. Would make a great front with a SM rear. I did some beach races with a BA rear and Fast Fred 2.35 front. Great combo.
    I don't know about the Nano, it seems fairly equivalent to the fast rolling Geax Saguaro though which I love and use most of the time. I have Big Apples and used them often but since I've had WTB Vulpines I'm pretty happy leaving those on for rides that the BAs would have served. The Vulps are a semi-slick off road tire that will not corner on pavement like BAs but they roll as fast and are way light and are better off road. They wear faster than BAs though but with the much lower price on WTB versus Schwalbe products in North America that isn't much of a real issue.

    The folding bead lite-skin Big Apples in 29 x 2.35 are already $70 each. I can't imagine these Super-Motos will be any less expensive. So, I'm very interested in these but not being wealthy not super interested .

    http://www.schwalbetires.com/big_apple

  29. #29
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by willapajames
    +/- 0.2mm? That's an accurate "eyeballed" measurement!
    Thanks for the compliment! I didn't even mention I use a little slack metal measuring tape, did I?

    Just messing with you guys, but I know what I'm doing.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    77
    So is the diameter smaller or is "28" just a marketing number? I can't find specs.

  31. #31
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    People, it is just like the Big Apple 28x2.35. Shiggy's website has the specs for that (use its search engine for 700c), his specimen was not particularly wide yet still huge. This SM here is wider, it seems.

    If you're confused on the 28" vs 29" on the sidewalls of tires, I need to refer you to the FAQ section on the top here.
    Do you know what a tire would look like if it maintained a 28.00" diameter at 2.35" width, on a 700c (25" diameter) rim? Well, I thin I just spelled that one out :-)

    Diameter on the tread is more like 29.55" on Supermoto I have here. Rim, not wheel in case that matters.

  32. #32
    Full Tilt Boogie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,651
    I called Schwalbe America and they had not heard of these yet. I will post up when I hear back from them.
    I sell bikes here. Check out the Blog here. Facebook.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,759
    Wow. Talk about a gap in communication when a forums group can get information in advance before Schwalbe America. Who's running the USA office, a teenager with a pencil, pad of paper, and a rotary dial telephone?
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  34. #34
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by illnacord
    Wow. Talk about a gap in communication when a forums group can get information in advance before Schwalbe America. Who's running the USA office, a teenager with a pencil, pad of paper, and a rotary dial telephone?
    Actually, I think we (in Europe) have Schwalbe America to thank for the existence of 29" Racing Ralphs and subsequent models. It took them years of bugging head office in Germany. The latter thought that they'd given 29" an honest chance with an undersized, 28x2.1 labeled Little Albert. Think about that name. Which big bike guy or even gal wants a tire like that?
    Schwalbe head office's way are mysterious. The guy I got them from is an acquaintance to people of a local European office. THEY didn't know what the tire was for (OEM, aftermarket sales, or test), but figured the 29" bike freak might appreciate them.
    I'll throw in a bet that Schwalbe America gave up bugging head office about a 29" Supermoto over a year ago.
    Heck, - I - gave up 4 years ago, after offering them to purchase a full production run of them, money on the table!
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  35. #35
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    The bike I commute on has a Big Apple 2.35 Liteskin rear. Until recently thius was a regular BA. I didn't notice the 150g lost, just a slight reduced lateral stability perhaps.

    Front, I had a Racing Ralph 2.4. A-OK for commuting.

    Now, I mounted a new wheel (Sun EQ 27mm rim) with the Super Moto on the front. Still at 40psi, which I NEVER use with fatties. Yet, the S M was surprisingly forgiving. Wicked silent and fast, which was to be expected after the knobby.
    Nice to see such a narrow contact patch to be used (wet roads made that apparent), just about a half inch. On a 23mm road tire at 120psi, you'd not have expect a much narrower contact patch.
    Didn't notice weight advantage, but may do so when the roads are not wet and I ride less "grandpa".
    So far, so good. I do feel even more strongly about mating these smooth fatties with a wide rim. Oh, I was surprised that a front tire gave such an apparent rolling resistance advantage. For the rear, that's more of a challenge. Yet to swap that one (dirtier job).

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    28" is a more accurate measurement, even with my 2.35 FR3 I doubt it's got a diamater of 29" or over, I think Halo Choir Master measured out at 28.4"'s where as my 26" wheels + tyres measure out at 26.6" so it's really only a 2" gain, so 28 fits better.

  37. #37
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    28" is a more accurate measurement, even with my 2.35 FR3 I doubt it's got a diamater of 29" or over, I think Halo Choir Master measured out at 28.4"'s where as my 26" wheels + tyres measure out at 26.6" so it's really only a 2" gain, so 28 fits better.
    Doubt? Take measure.

    A 700c rim is 25.0" by itself, outer diameter. You need a 2" tall tire and you're there.
    All 26" off-road tires you know, are 26"+, as the rims are 22.5".

    Super Moto's are more like 29.4" if I recall myself correctly posting somewhere above. You are not required to be believe this.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  38. #38
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    28" is a more accurate measurement, even with my 2.35 FR3 I doubt it's got a diamater of 29" or over, I think Halo Choir Master measured out at 28.4"'s where as my 26" wheels + tyres measure out at 26.6" so it's really only a 2" gain, so 28 fits better.
    No, you are wrong. I doubt anybody has measured as many 29er tires as I have. Few are under 29" in diameter. I measured the Choir Master 29 at 740mm / 29.13".

    The Rampage 29 x 2.35 is 744mm / 29.29"
    The Rampage 26 x 2.35 is 676mm / 26.61"
    A 2.68" difference.

    Big Apple 28 x 2.35: 746 / 29.37
    Super Moto 26 x 2.35: 684 / 26.93
    2.44" difference (Super Moto casing is slightly larger than the standard Big Apple)

    In any case, nominal bicycle tire diameters are just that, a stated or expressed dimension but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,759
    So it looks like it'll be a couple years before the 29 (28) x 2.35 Super Moto 6XXg tire releases per persistent Schwalbe USA bugging the HQ. For now, will rock the Continental black chili Race King 2.2 coming from a lot of time on the WTB Nanoraptor 2.1 and Hutchinson Python 2.1.
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,759

    Super Moto

    Super Moto - balloon tire...

    I'm not sure a Super Moto tire counts as a saddle. But I don't get the tall gearing combined with the albatross euro cruiser handlebars with cork grips. It's as if a trials bike had sex with a rando and farted single speed MTB.

    Posted by joshua-roddy on flickr but it looks like the photo was borrowed from the custom frame builder, forgot his name maybe mtbr can chime in, but he likes to use the White Industries ENO crankset and take photos with this style.

    Name:  super moto.jpg
Views: 20082
Size:  112.4 KB
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    I'm as big a fan of large tires as any, but does anyone honestly believe a tire of this size is going to be a superior roller for the road? A tire this large suffers diminishing returns when it is much larger than needed to support the load yet it's larger size dictates heavier construction that necessarily reduces rolling performance. The resulting profile lowers the transition to aerodynamic drag to very slow speeds. That all assumes you don't even care about the abysmal weight.

    Presumably there must be a reason, a goal, to building a custom road bike around an abnormally large-profiled road tire. Perhaps a rider weighs a 1000 pounds and wants to optimize his ride for 6 mph. That I could see this tire being useful for. Frankly I see a wheel larger than 700c as much more interesting than freakish width for the road. A road bike with this tire would certainly look cool but people should stop pretending that there are compelling performance advantages. It's an urban tire.

    A marketing claim made to sell wide tires has been elevated to a religion. While there is truth to those claims within the right set of circumstances, it doesn't make a huge tire like this into a racer. If you are a larger rider and want to go fast with the least effort and with good comfort, by all means consider wider tires but understand that there are tradeoffs to be made still and 60mm is probably not it. With all the effort to make a custom frame for an odd wheelset, I'd sure love to see a little objective evidence that a tire this large is actually better than a road race tire at any speed...and please don't tell me about Jan Heine and his fabulous, re-badged Paselas or his for-pay test results that in no way support his claims. I bought that article already.

    Far more interesting, IMO, along these lines is to take a tire designed to race and see how wide a wheel can be made out of it. From the same manufacturer there is the 28mm Ultremo which can exceed 30mm in width when mounted on a Flow or a Blunt. I'm quite certain that combination will out-roll this Super Moto for any reasonable load without the enormous weight and aerodynamic penalties and it can be fitted to at least some stock road frames available today. Get a disc-braked road frame, build it with Edge AM rims and Ultremo 28s and dispense with the huge disadvantages of a 60mm road "racer". There's a whole class of riders that optimize their bikes around fast, extreme distance riding. You don't see any of them using rubber that wide.

    BTW, I have mounted and used 28mm tires on a Blunt without problem and I have fitted but not ridden them on both the Edge XC and AM rims. It is not a problem despite what some people might say. Similar tire and rim widths are, in fact, normal in road racing. If I were to use the Super Moto for its cool factor, I'd put them on P35s.

  42. #42
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    I'm as big a fan of large tires as any, but does anyone honestly believe a tire of this size is going to be a superior roller for the road? A tire this large suffers diminishing returns when it is much larger than needed to support the load yet it's larger size dictates heavier construction that necessarily reduces rolling performance. The resulting profile lowers the transition to aerodynamic drag to very slow speeds. That all assumes you don't even care about the abysmal weight.

    Presumably there must be a reason, a goal, to building a custom road bike around an abnormally large-profiled road tire. Perhaps a rider weighs a 1000 pounds and wants to optimize his ride for 6 mph. That I could see this tire being useful for. Frankly I see a wheel larger than 700c as much more interesting than freakish width for the road. A road bike with this tire would certainly look cool but people should stop pretending that there are compelling performance advantages. It's an urban tire.

    A marketing claim made to sell wide tires has been elevated to a religion. While there is truth to those claims within the right set of circumstances, it doesn't make a huge tire like this into a racer. If you are a larger rider and want to go fast with the least effort and with good comfort, by all means consider wider tires but understand that there are tradeoffs to be made still and 60mm is probably not it. With all the effort to make a custom frame for an odd wheelset, I'd sure love to see a little objective evidence that a tire this large is actually better than a road race tire at any speed...and please don't tell me about Jan Heine and his fabulous, re-badged Paselas or his for-pay test results that in no way support his claims. I bought that article already.

    Far more interesting, IMO, along these lines is to take a tire designed to race and see how wide a wheel can be made out of it. From the same manufacturer there is the 28mm Ultremo which can exceed 30mm in width when mounted on a Flow or a Blunt. I'm quite certain that combination will out-roll this Super Moto for any reasonable load without the enormous weight and aerodynamic penalties and it can be fitted to at least some stock road frames available today. Get a disc-braked road frame, build it with Edge AM rims and Ultremo 28s and dispense with the huge disadvantages of a 60mm road "racer". There's a whole class of riders that optimize their bikes around fast, extreme distance riding. You don't see any of them using rubber that wide.

    BTW, I have mounted and used 28mm tires on a Blunt without problem and I have fitted but not ridden them on both the Edge XC and AM rims. It is not a problem despite what some people might say. Similar tire and rim widths are, in fact, normal in road racing. If I were to use the Super Moto for its cool factor, I'd put them on P35s.
    It seems you have never done the same commute on a road bike and on a 29x2.35 Big Apple tired MTB.
    My experience is that the road bike is ONLY, and then MAGINALLY, faster, in absolutely perfect conditions. Such as fierce head wind, over perfect asphalt. That's where the road bike has an edge. In anything else, the MTB just beats the heack out of the road bike. Road bikes are nice when you have 2 car lanes of swept road, police escort, and 200 equally fit riding buddies sticking to you like a bee to honey.

    These tires, especially in the Super Moto variety, are absolutely, insanely, FAST. Any step the surface is away from pristine polished wood indoor tracks, they do better. Air drag is there, but doesn't matter if your zipping across a crossroads where the road biker just had to apply brakes for safety. No way to catch up that difference in even a mile of perfect road ahead.
    I have done averages on the BEACH, with 26" BA tires at ~15psi, that are just really hard to match on a cycling path with a road bike.

    I can preach all I want, but this is about believing. Try, and see. It's like 29 vs 26 here. If you believe WEIGHT in a tire will make it roll fast, you just don't understand tires.
    I am telling you, 1kg heavy BA tires are blisteringly fast. And Super Moto's are plain faster.

    My personal best over an asphalt 620m track, turns I could round at max. 40kph, doing a 5km rolling start:
    - 9kg alu Giant TCR road bike, extra low handlebars : 7m19 (perfect conditions)
    - 13kg steel Giant Terrago '91, 26x1.75" negative profile Conti tires : 7m21 (more windy day)
    I did this little time trial so often, it changed my physiology to be a specialist at this pace.

    And frankly, the Terrago was not a really fast road bike for me apart from the frame itself. 29" bikes are honestly better han that when equipped with the BA's, or alternatively Marathon Supreme 50's.

    Try it. Then tell us we smoke crack.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    It seems you have never done the same commute on a road bike and on a 29x2.35 Big Apple tired MTB.
    My experience is that the road bike is ONLY, and then MAGINALLY, faster, in absolutely perfect conditions. Such as fierce head wind, over perfect asphalt. That's where the road bike has an edge. In anything else, the MTB just beats the heack out of the road bike. Road bikes are nice when you have 2 car lanes of swept road, police escort, and 200 equally fit riding buddies sticking to you like a bee to honey.
    With claims like that I don't know how anyone takes you seriously. It appears you don't know the first thing about what makes a cyclist fast or slow. Rolling resistance only matters at slow speeds, particularly with enormously wide tires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    These tires, especially in the Super Moto variety, are absolutely, insanely, FAST. Any step the surface is away from pristine polished wood indoor tracks, they do better. Air drag is there, but doesn't matter if your zipping across a crossroads where the road biker just had to apply brakes for safety. No way to catch up that difference in even a mile of perfect road ahead.
    Again, ridiculous. If these differences were so pronounced then road racers would be riding fatties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I have done averages on the BEACH, with 26" BA tires at ~15psi, that are just really hard to match on a cycling path with a road bike.
    You ride in loose sand faster than road racers can ride on smooth pavement? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I can preach all I want, but this is about believing.
    Yes, it's about religion, and you have it. There won't be any reasoning with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Try, and see. It's like 29 vs 26 here. If you believe WEIGHT in a tire will make it roll fast, you just don't understand tires.
    I never said that, of course, but weight does make a difference. I cannot try these particular tires since they aren't for sale, but what makes you think I haven't tried similar ones? I've ridden a 26er amd a 29er with a variety of smoothies including a marathon, a vittoria rubino pro, a vittoria rando hyper and a Kojak 35. The fastest of those was also the narrowest, the Kojak, and none are remotely as fast as a proper road bike and wheels. A Big Apple isn't even rated especially fast by Schwalbe themselves; the Kojak according to them is the fastest tire they make wider than 622-28.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    And frankly, the Terrago was not a really fast road bike for me apart from the frame itself. 29" bikes are honestly better han that when equipped with the BA's, or alternatively Marathon Supreme 50's.
    Marathon Supremes aren't even the fastest of their type in Schwalbe's line. It's comments like that that show what a blind believer you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Try it. Then tell us we smoke crack.
    I have and you do, but those weren't my words. There is a sound, straightforward technical argument for why your claims are preposterous. I doubt you would be very receptive to it. That's how it is in MTBR.

    Even if these tires have no rolling resistance at all, they would still be at a disadvantage to conventional road tires starting a relatively modest speeds due to their horrendous aero disadvantage. I don't agree that such tires have any rolling resistance advantage and would love to be shown otherwise, but by 20 MPH it wouldn't matter anyway. The purpose of using a wide tire is to operate the tire on the good side of the "knee of the curve" of sidewall distortion without resorting to excessive tire pressure. Any width beyond that is a detriment to performance except at the lowest speeds. It's a real shame Schwalbe claimed that fatter tires roll better in the way that they did; it's encouraged people with a limited grasp of the obvious to believe some stupid things.

  44. #44
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    You bring good arguments, or at least hint of them.
    My experience with road tires, narrow or thin, seem to be different even from what the Schwalbe guru's found on their digital meters.

    Even though I live in the country with the best cycle path network in the world, I can still appreciate the advantage a fat tire offers when riding over a man hole, or crossing rail tracks, playing piano with loose bricks, road surfaces that don't line up, etc.
    Maybe it's all just perception, but big fat tires are crazy fast for me. I know about aerodynamics and how they get more important as speed is higher. Yet, for me the point where I started noticing (on the speedometer, relative to conditions I faced daily) a road bike being fast, was around 40kph on smooth asphalt. 35kph with strong headwind. Tail winds, the fat tires were better, and the bomberness helped to preserve the momentum around bends, over tricky surfaces, cross roads, etc.
    Rolling resistance is only that. Actual speed you travel is something different. To ride a road bike at 40kph over a regulation quality cycle path without hitting rims, takes considerable effort that could have been invested into forward speed. Going around a bend rather than a cutting it short through the shoulder, means speed loss and greater power input required to get back up to speed.
    I'll have to try and organize a rolling speed test. I've done that before, in a cycling tunnel with slope. I tested my Cross-Check with 2.0 BA's against my Fisher with 2.35's. Calibrated speedometers. The Fisher rolled 1kph faster at threshold velocity (down this 4-5% slope). I suspect the superior positoning aerodynamics of the inverted trekking back vs the Salsa Short&Shallow made part or all of the difference there. The CC never did bring me fast cummute time trials though, the Fisher did. Again, not about the tire width 2.0 vs 2.35 here, but rather about the bikes themselves. The Fisher was a 1st generation flexy one even.
    In the same tunnel I did daily summit speed tests. The tunnel went under a channel, and back up. If I'd sprint to 60kph down, I would be too exhausted to make it up with good summit speed. One rule I set myself, is that top speed down below should gradually be reduced towards the summit, to power and speed burst at the end. Sustained sprint, 500m, 4% average. I was fastest again on the Fisher with fatty tires. My road bike could not match it. Super smooth concrete surface here.

    Anyway, there's more to tires than their "measured" rolling resistance.

    Back to the Super Moto's, I'm still perplexed at the smoothness delivered at a whopping 40psi. This is a lot of pressure on a 60mm tire, and I bet voiding warranty on some rim models. Anyway, the shatter from uneven road surface is nicely absorbed, and you just boulder on.

    Where tire weight and rolling resistance correllate some, us due to the amount of rubber required to be deformed. For a goven contact patch, a thicker rubber layer on the casing will lead to great rolling resistance. Lightweight tires are often fast. They can be made slow though, like the Schwalbe Black Shark Mud 1.5". The BA is the example of a fast tire that is everything but light.
    Trains, on which rolling resistance and durability is vital, happen to used solid steel wheels. Riding our alu rims would be fast, if they'd offer any traction and grip, and surfaces would be smooth like that wooden track. If you ever had to ride a bike home on the rim, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's fast, but you feel everything.

    Above all arguments for and against big tires, one rules all others : sefety. With BA's and similar tires, you can brake so well, and avoid obstables so easily, that it helps safety. Just this week, a car crossed in front of me, and failed to get out of the way, blocking my pah. On a road bike, I'd been in trouble here. Now, I could modulate my brakes to make sure I'd hit the car audibly to make a point, yet soft enough to save my bike.

    BTW, I am not claiming these SM's rolling like kphs faster than BA's. It's bound to be something, and it seems to be way apparent when riding them, but from experience, I know differences are always exagerbated in the mind. We don't look at 100%, we zoom into the 1% difference, till it takes up all of our view. Lightweight tires find customers by this effect. A 100g lighter tire is not going to help to be you any faster over a 30m sprint from stand still. Not with your 100kg ass+bike being dragged along for the ride. But you will feel like it helped, a lot.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    You bring good arguments, or at least hint of them.
    To ride a road bike at 40kph over a regulation quality cycle path without hitting rims, takes considerable effort that could have been invested into forward speed. Going around a bend rather than a cutting it short through the shoulder, means speed loss and greater power input required to get back up to speed.
    I don't understand what's being said here. A road bike isn't hard to ride over good surfaces and you don't hit rims with proper inflation. I'm sure you are saying something but I'm not getting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I'll have to try and organize a rolling speed test. I've done that before, in a cycling tunnel with slope....
    An informal test with different bikes, wheels, and tires without any control or repeatability is interesting but it won't say anything objectively about a tire. Nevertheless, that's essentially exactly what Jan Heine did that is currently being used as argument in favor of fat tires DESPITE the data not supporting the conclusion at all. Heine's test showed the vast majority of the fastest tires to be narrow road tires.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Anyway, there's more to tires than their "measured" rolling resistance.
    Yes, but I've never seen measured rolling resistance on tires such as the BA. Interestingly, I've seen claims that skinny tires are best, fat tires are best, and small wheels are best. Generally speaking, I don't see data that backs up such claims. All things equal, it's clear that larger diameters and wider widths are better for rolling resistance and worse for aero drag. All things are never equal though and that's why it's the choice of compromises that ultimately matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Where tire weight and rolling resistance correllate some, us due to the amount of rubber required to be deformed. For a goven contact patch, a thicker rubber layer on the casing will lead to great rolling resistance. Lightweight tires are often fast. They can be made slow though, like the Schwalbe Black Shark Mud 1.5". The BA is the example of a fast tire that is everything but light.
    Yes, true. What I said was that weight matters, not that weight matters to rolling resistance. It's true, though, that heavier tires generally roll more poorly because of heavier construction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Trains, on which rolling resistance and durability is vital, happen to used solid steel wheels. Riding our alu rims would be fast, if they'd offer any traction and grip, and surfaces would be smooth like that wooden track. If you ever had to ride a bike home on the rim, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's fast, but you feel everything.
    This is true, too, but are paved roads so rough that you need a 60mm tire to roll fast rather than just 25 or 30? That's a really rough road or the load is really heavy. It's a matter of proper size for the job. Clearly your example of loose sand is another matter, and that brings me back to a point I made originally, you have to have something specific in mind as a goal that a tire does well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Above all arguments for and against big tires, one rules all others : sefety. With BA's and similar tires, you can brake so well, and avoid obstables so easily, that it helps safety. Just this week, a car crossed in front of me, and failed to get out of the way, blocking my pah. On a road bike, I'd been in trouble here. Now, I could modulate my brakes to make sure I'd hit the car audibly to make a point, yet soft enough to save my bike.
    It's a hard case to make that traditional road tires are unsafe, but if you feel safer on big ones that's fine by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    BTW, I am not claiming these SM's rolling like kphs faster than BA's. It's bound to be something, and it seems to be way apparent when riding them, but from experience, I know differences are always exagerbated in the mind. We don't look at 100%, we zoom into the 1% difference, till it takes up all of our view. Lightweight tires find customers by this effect. A 100g lighter tire is not going to help to be you any faster over a 30m sprint from stand still. Not with your 100kg ass+bike being dragged along for the ride. But you will feel like it helped, a lot.
    Yep, also true. Tires can feel different, one feeling faster than another without really being so. Weight, though, is something that can be felt in handling and it contributes over time to fatigue. A lot of people make the argument that weight contributes little to speed even in climbs and their numbers aren't wrong, it's just that they don't take into consideration everything. The point with weight, though, is that it's a burden you have to accept with large wheels that needs to be compensated by a tangible benefit. I see a tangible benefit for some applications but road speed isn't one.

    Nevertheless, I find all this interesting. I am curious under what conditions really wide tires make sense. I'm a believer that wide is good especially considering I'm a large rider, but my focus has been on fitting an unusually wide rim with a 28-35mm tire to get that width in a lighter tire that's designed for speed from the beginning.

    If it were simply style points, a BA-style tire makes a good looking bike IMO. I would consider it best for modest speeds and great comfort though.

  46. #46
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,649
    [QUOTE=craigsj...and please don't tell me about Jan Heine and his fabulous, re-badged Paselas or his for-pay test results that in no way support his claims. I bought that article already.[/QUOTE]

    I was going to make a comment that you're probably anti-boob job too (no performance gain, just bigger) but in all seriousness, what do you see in his test results that you don't like? I read the article and it seemed to make a lot of sense when your talking 15mph.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastskiguy
    I was going to make a comment that you're probably anti-boob job too (no performance gain, just bigger) but in all seriousness, what do you see in his test results that you don't like? I read the article and it seemed to make a lot of sense when your talking 15mph.
    The methodology included a test rider on a downhill course, the results were not normalized for weight, the tests were not performed under controlled conditions, there were insufficient runs to provide stable results resulting in non-reproducable numbers, the bicycle configuration changed, rider aerodynamics were not factored in, the entire runs were not measured (only an arbitrary section), the problems go on and on. It was not in any way scientific, but the worst part was that the results didn't match the claims. Despite the common claim that testing proved wide tires superior, the top four tires were 24, 28, 25, and 23mm wide! All the fastest tires were narrow, road racing tires. Furthermore, his tire pressure conclusions are absurd (that tire pressure has little effect on rolling resistance). Frankly, the testing is well intentioned and the author perhaps knowledgable, but the article is total garbage.

  48. #48
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,649
    Wow, it's like we read completely different articles. I saw a constant weight, consistent conditions, enough runs to be statistically valid, the same bike and rider in the same position, the same aerodynamics, the same test section, the good things about the study went on and on. I think the conclusion was that a wide tire made of the same construction as a modern racing tire may be faster than the fastest tires on the market, but now the fastest tires are 24, 28, 25, and 23mm. (I really love the 28mm wide tire BTW...) And if tires roll at the same speed at different pressures I'd call that interesting, not absurd.

    No need to debate this further, I think we can both appreciate that we're looking at this thru opposite ends of the telescope! May we both end up on fast tires!



    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    The methodology included a test rider on a downhill course, the results were not normalized for weight, the tests were not performed under controlled conditions, there were insufficient runs to provide stable results resulting in non-reproducable numbers, the bicycle configuration changed, rider aerodynamics were not factored in, the entire runs were not measured (only an arbitrary section), the problems go on and on. It was not in any way scientific, but the worst part was that the results didn't match the claims. Despite the common claim that testing proved wide tires superior, the top four tires were 24, 28, 25, and 23mm wide! All the fastest tires were narrow, road racing tires. Furthermore, his tire pressure conclusions are absurd (that tire pressure has little effect on rolling resistance). Frankly, the testing is well intentioned and the author perhaps knowledgable, but the article is total garbage.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,911
    Regarding the tire pressure issue, the author says that tire pressure doesn't matter within a range, then proceeds to present data that shows otherwise when tire pressure is varied significantly. It should come as no surprise that rolling resistance is good when pressure is sufficient, so their conclusions are uninteresting at best and misleading at worst. All that presumes their data is reliable.

    When runs are done outdoors and speeds through the traps vary, aerodynamic effects are uncontrolled no matter what they say. When they say changing wheels doesn't matter because the wheels weren't different with one of the slower tires (but didn't provide the data) they are wrong. The problem isn't that they didn't think of these things, it's that they are simply incompetent when it comes to this kind of testing. I'm sorry you don't see it this way. I would recommend reading it again.

    Here is their relevant conclusion:

    Our tests confirm that, all other factors being equal, wider tires roll faster than narrow ones. However, currently available wide tires are not optimized for rolling resistance. As a result, narrow racing tires offer lower rolling resistance than the wider ones in our test.
    This is simply not true, though. Nothing in test showed wider tires rolling faster than narrower ones of identical construction (as no such comparable tires existed in the test). This is simply the author's bias. He wanted this conclusion so he stated it in spite of the data showing precisely the opposite (and him recognizing it later in the paragraph). Of course, supporters latch onto the first sentence of the conclusion which is an outright lie.

    I happen to share the author's prejudices, but I don't believe in shoddy test methodology, hiding of the data, and conclusions not supported by the data. Those are the facts of the article.

    Interestingly, one of the conclusions was that latex tubes where slower than butyl, and that thick and thin butyl tubes don't make a difference. In fact, the author asserts that tubes don't contribute significantly to rolling resistance at all. I share that belief but don't think it would be popular with MTBR folks, particularly the tubeless fans.
    Last edited by craigsj; 05-09-2010 at 09:37 PM.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,759

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! 29er Urban Assault Slick Tire

    BRING IT ON!!! How come we get these wimpy big apple tires as the best solution. The Super Moto is something I'd buy but even it is kinda wimpy looking.

    Agree to disagree, but there is a niche in the market yet to be filled. An idea is worthless unless it's executed so shall we take a look at this worthless picture. For every 29er riding off-road, there are two on the pavement. The off roaders got the Racing Ralph, Race King, Nanoraptor, Small Block 8, Nevegal, Python, (add your favorite here). The commuters got the Big Apple, (add your favorite here)?

    As one previous poster asked, "what does the Super Moto offer that the Big Apple doesn't provide?" ... and the only answer is AGGRESSIVE looks. It's like, why does a wing move up on a Porsche once it goes over 60mph? Aggressive looks.

    It's what the Maxxis Hookworm did for 20" 24" and 26" tires with its heavily inspired MotoGP tread pattern. I think technology has come a ways where you don't need a 900-1000g tire spinnin' 'round. Weight: 650g +/- 25g and call it a winner? Can we make it 2.3-2.5 wide so the 700c fixed gear freestyle fixie bikes cant fit them in between their stretched and dimpled chainstays, thus buying the lot of them?

    And please, no reflective sidewalls or cheesy names, on these, thanks! I got $100 on a pair upon delivery



    Cloxxki? Cloxxki?
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •