Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 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 01:25 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
    9,192
    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
    6,312
    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
    4,672
    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
    1,022
    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......
    Out riding, leave a message

  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
    5,287
    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
    1,657
    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
    10,771
    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
    754
    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
    2,851

    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
    1,770
    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
    1,770
    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
    1,770

    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: 24400
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
    2,949
    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
    2,949
    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
    2,949
    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
    1,657
    [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
    2,949
    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
    1,657
    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
    2,949
    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 08:37 PM.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770

    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

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    25
    Any knowledge of a UK date? Thanks

  52. #52
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,657
    [QUOTE=craigsj
    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.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for writing what you don't like about the study. When I see the facts of the article I see good methodology, good data, and reasonable conclusions. You'll never find a "perfect" study of anything but I believe this one was pretty good. Like I said, we're looking thru the telescope from opposite ends here. Best of luck finding fast tires

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: super jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    This is an interesting discussion. I ride one night per week with a club of road bikers. My goal is to have my 29er mountain bike be capable of road work and off-road work with minimal time and effort to make changes between the two. So my logic is: What makes the road bike faster than the mountain bike?
    *Rolling resistance in tires/wheels.
    *Wind resistance in bike and rider position.
    *Weight
    *Gearing

    From the above, weight should only be a "major" factor during acceleration and braking. Once at speed, it should have minimal affect on speed. Gearing should only be a "major" factor at the fastest speeds where the MTB would max out. We're not racing so this should not be a concern for me.

    That leaves wind resistance from wider profile frame, forks, tires, wheels, rider position and rolling resistance in the tire/wheels.

    I can adjust seat/bars to reduce rider position affect to some extent. I am working on the tires issue. I have two complete wheel sets, one for off-road and one for road. Looking for the best road tire.

    I posted another thread on my personal rolling resistance testing. In summary, in a downhill test on average asphalt checking top speed and rolling distance up the other side of the hill, the Racing Ralphs in 29 x 2.25 front and 29 x 2.4 rear at 45 psi performed as well or better than the Marathon Supremes in 29 x 2.0 at 75 psi at top speeds near 30 mph. Does that make any sense?

    Since I was not impressed with the Marathon Supreme speed, I am now going to try Continental 25mm road slicks. I sure would like to see head to head comparison of the Super Moto vs a real road slick.
    Last edited by super jim; 05-10-2010 at 08:48 AM.

  54. #54
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by super jim
    This is an interesting discussion. I ride one night per week with a club of road bikers. My goal is to have my 29er mountain bike be capable of road work and off-road work with minimal time and effort to make changes between the two. So my logic is: What makes the road bike faster than the mountain bike?
    *Rolling resistance in tires/wheels.
    *Wind resistance in bike and rider position.
    *Weight
    *Gearing

    From the above, weight should only be a "major" factor during acceleration and braking. Once at speed, it should have minimal affect on speed. Gearing should only be a "major" factor at the fastest speeds where the MTB would max out. We're not racing so this should not be a concern for me.

    That leaves wind resistance from wider profile frame, forks, tires, wheels, rider position and rolling resistance in the tire/wheels.

    I can adjust seat/bars to reduce rider position affect to some extent. I am working on the tires issue. I have two complete wheel sets, one for off-road and one for road. Looking for the best road tire.

    I posted another thread on my personal rolling resistance testing. In summary, in a downhill test on average asphalt checking top speed and rolling distance up the other side of the hill, the Racing Ralphs in 29 x 2.25 front and 29 x 2.4 rear at 45 psi performed as well or better than the Marathon Supremes in 29 x 2.0 at 75 psi at top speeds near 30 mph. Does that make any sense?

    Since I was not impressed with the Marathon Supreme speed, I am now going to try Continental 25mm road slicks. I sure would like to see head to head comparison of the Super Moto vs a real road slick.
    How much are you willing to bet that the best road cyclist on a road bike of his choice will out-brake a halfway decent rider on a box stock 29"er, on any surface? Weight is not the limiting factor in braking. Just isn't.
    44x11 is the typical top gear of a 29"er. Do the math, how much lower is that than 52x12 on skinnies? Not a whole lot...

    Rolling resistance, over which surface? And is this a fact? Let's try some cobble stones. Very usual in road classics :-)
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Yes, wheels/tires and rider position. Weight and gearing are secondary. Gearing is only a problem if you don't have enough or the wide spacing holds you back. I suppose suspension can gobble up some rider power but my 29er is rigid.

    What tires you can use depends on your rim, but with a 29er you have lots of choices. The Pro3 race is oversized for a 25mm, the Ultrema 28mm is about 1mm wider than the Pro3 25. The Challenge PR is rated at 27mm but runs a lot wider. The Kojak 35mm is pretty fast for a wider tire but requires a 28mm rim to get to the rated width. On a 24mm rim it's closer to 32mm. I've tried all those tires on 29er wheels at high(ish) pressures. I don't have experience with Conti but they make 28s. If your rim is around 24mm I think 25mm tires are fine. I'm heavier so I look at 28s.

    If you have a wide rim and use a 28 tire, you may need to use cross tubes rather than road ones. I use the Challenge 30-35mm latex tubes in mine.

    Your racing ralph results don't make sense to me. The Marathon Supremes are loved tires but not for super fast rolling. It's hard to believe they aren't a lot faster though. I use RR 2.25s on my 29er and recently swapped in the Kojaks just to test. The difference in rolling is what you'd expect...enormous. Schwalbe would say the Kojak is faster than the Supreme or even the Marathon Racer.

    A fast tire will get you much of the way, but once you hit a headwind the upright position of the MTB will be an issue.

    Incidently, check out the Tout Terrain Grand Route pictured on the manufacturers site. That's the way to make a rando/tourer fast. Wide rims, disc brakes, and Ultremo 28's. You won't see a single bike of this type with Big Apples.

  56. #56
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Because I'm cheap, I got 28mm steel beaded Schwalbe Stelvio's. On a 24mm Mavic rim, they're still only 27mm, which bugs me. I'd get 30mm tires of this kind, if I could find them.
    It's for my Surly Pacer, in which Fatties Fit Fine. I ones rode a cross on the bike, with borrowed wheels with 30mm Tufo tubular clinchers on it. I happened to be there on my road bike, and figured "what the heck".

    Really, a fast commuter style has has little to it. BA/SM like fatties, and swap your handlebar for a trekking one. Flip it if you feel like a grandmother on a city bike. Long stem helps, old (long) Fisher or Niner geometry helps as well.

    In my commuter duels with roadies (me on the fatty with backpack, them iwth just one water bottle and shaved legs) I never felt like the inherent speed of my bike was causing me to be dropped. And when I dropped them after they'd given a decent fight, I usually did so by not losing momentum when they just had to, for sanity's sake.

    The fatties make for such a stable ride, that I would com up to a blind corner, and only brake when something came around it. I'd always have time to stop. Takes like 4-5m from cruising speed. Try that on a road bike when the surface is less than perfect.
    Also, the wider bars typically found on MTB's tend to be an advantage in traffic. When I'm on the road bike, I miss the leverage. Shifting down is subsequently more important on a road bike. Yet braking hard and shifting at the same time is a challenge.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: super jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    137
    This is what I just ordered: Does that look anything like a good combination for a road set?


    Continental Ultra Race Folding Road Tire
    BEAD: Kevlar - Folding
    MAX. PSI: 120
    SIZE(S): 700c x 25
    TPI: 180
    WEIGHT: 220g

    with this tube: Forté Road UltraLight Long Presta Tube 700c x 18-26

    on this wheel set: BWW Pure 29er - Tire Sizes: 29er/700C x 1.5 - 2.30 (700 x 25 - 40)

    Contacted BWW and Pat said he did not see a problem with the 25mm road slick on these wheels. However, Schwalbe North America said they did not recommend anything under 30 mm on this wheel and recommended the marathon racer or Kojak 700c x 35. Thoughts?
    Last edited by super jim; 05-12-2010 at 01:20 PM.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I'd always have time to stop. Takes like 4-5m from cruising speed. Try that on a road bike when the surface is less than perfect.
    What is "cruising speed"? What is "less than perfect"?

    Here's a discussion on maximum braking rates of a bicycle. The limit is not the tire, it's going over the bars. Where does one do road rides where a road tire in consistently inadequate but a smoothie is a great choice? This is a mountain forum, right? I guess that explains it.

  59. #59
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851

    What is less than perfect?

    Your completely dickish contentiousness and rudeness.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    Um, a lot of words above, but what is the conclusion or lesson? Back on topic, Cloxxki, I am looking forward to any further Super Moto news or photos of the tire mounted on an actual 700 29er rim.
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  61. #61
    Full Tilt Boogie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,651
    Jan, what's the number on the inside of the tire? I'm working on getting some, they need that number.

    Thank you sir.
    I sell bikes here. Check out the Blog here. Facebook.

  62. #62
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,192
    Quote Originally Posted by illnacord
    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.
    His name is Ezra and his brand is Fast Boy Cycles (Flickr link). That particular "assless" bike he built after being diagnosed with "ass cancer."
    He's a very skilled photographer with some unique vision.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    meltingfeather, yep, that's the photostream. Ezra does a great job, have been following his work for years. Too bad to hear about his ass cancer, I heard the recovery from that is near zero chance. But this recent shot riding a Super Moto tire (back on topic) shows that recovery was successful.



    P.S. benwitt11, did you get any news from Schwalbe?
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  64. #64
    Is dang happy!
    Reputation: Mr. Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,249

    Hello 14 tooth cog!

    My monocog should go to beer store 2X as fast now.
    The wheel is a extension of the foot

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    540
    I'll throw this out there...

    It is a proven fact that in a controlled environment, on a flat surface, once you reach speeds in excess of 18mph on any bike... the amount of wattage used to propel the bike's mass and get the wheels rolling becomes second to air resistance. You are fighting aerodynamics more than building the momentum of your bicycle.

    There have also been tests done that show the rolling resistance is only slightly better with a 28mm tire vs a 46mm tire at max pressure. The greater benefit of the narrower tire is largely aerodynamic.

    These are the reasons all time trial and track bikes trade weight for aerodynamics.

    My personal feeling on the matter:

    I like big, cushie tires because they ride nice. I like having my teeth attached to my gums. I like not feeling every piece of gravel. And I also like the added stability that extra rotating mass gives you.

    Note: this is coming from a guy with a 16lb SS 26er...

    Weight is not all that important in day to day riding, which is what the majority of people on here do. Comfort and fit are much more important. That is why I like big tires... comfort. I don't ride over 25mph except downhill on the way home from work so fighting aerodynamics isn't a problem.

    Science is your friend.

  66. #66
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,192
    Quote Originally Posted by illnacord
    meltingfeather, yep, that's the photostream. Ezra does a great job, have been following his work for years. Too bad to hear about his ass cancer, I heard the recovery from that is near zero chance. But this recent shot riding a Super Moto tire (back on topic) shows that recovery was successful.
    That's not him, but he's been clear for about a year.
    And... hmmm... topic?
    Oh yeah... somebody let me know when I can buy some SuperMotos!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    604
    NICE..............a discussion involving a pissing match, tire/bike porn, mathematics, bikes missing saddles, rolling resistance, crack, and 'ass-cancer'. Is it any wonder we all keep coming back to MTBR.


    Cloxxi,
    How about a 'on-bike' shot of the tires, and a close up of the tread section (with or without ruler).
    EricN
    The flood of fixed gear bikes, small t-shirts, and womens jeans will saturate craigslist

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by DocAltie
    There have also been tests done that show the rolling resistance is only slightly better with a 28mm tire vs a 46mm tire at max pressure. The greater benefit of the narrower tire is largely aerodynamic.
    Aerodynamics is clearly the issue at greater speeds, but I would like to see these tests you speak of. I don't believe they really exist or say what people believe they do. There are 28mm tires made first and foremost as racing tires. How many 46mm tires are there that can claim that? It isn't just width, construction matters.

    The threshold at which aerodynamics becomes dominant depends on the profile and keep in mind that it is air speed, not ground speed, that is important. It could be 18 mph or it could be lower and the tires effect that. A 20 mph headwind means that most likely aerodynamics dominates at all speeds since hopefully you aren't being blown backwards. Racers care about every watt and care a good deal less about comfort. Most other riders have different priorities, though many have the priority of looking like a racer...

    It's a perfectly good reason to like bigger tires because of comfort, you just shouldn't say they are faster because you like the comfort. Science is like that, too. Sadly, there are some people that will think this is the fastest tire around simply because it is enormously wide.

  69. #69
    Bedwards Of The West
    Reputation: CommuterBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,444
    I want these tires. I don't care about the rest of this thread. How, when, and where can I get them? And an actual width measurement would be nice.
    You have no excuse for driving to work
    (unless you don't have studded tires)
    (no excuse for that either)

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    179
    I put a couple thousand miles on a set of these on my 26er. Be prepared to fix more flats verses any type of armored tire like a big apple. Other than that I like them a lot.

  71. #71
    Missouri sucks...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,306
    Quote Originally Posted by illnacord
    It's like, why does a wing move up on a Porsche once it goes over 60mph? Aggressive looks.
    Ummm, that's not why the wing goes up...

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    dfyfzx, I was being sarcastic as I see the half bald middle aged man suffering from a mid life crisis driving the porsche with the wing that goes up at 60mph. You can claim aerodynamics but hello, I've had 10+ years in motorsports and 200hp all motor, 300hp-600hp turbo engined vehicles both on gravel and pavement and or a track, and an AWD dyno, so yeah, that's not the reason the wing goes up, but the sarcasm went over the head there (pun intended).
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PuddleDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,118
    Hi Clooxki, I'm looking forward to your updates.

  74. #74
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    What is "cruising speed"? What is "less than perfect"?

    Here's a discussion on maximum braking rates of a bicycle. The limit is not the tire, it's going over the bars. Where does one do road rides where a road tire in consistently inadequate but a smoothie is a great choice? This is a mountain forum, right? I guess that explains it.
    My commuting cruising speed, cycling wear, helmet and rucksack, is 20mph. In a hurry with tailwind more, slacking with headwind, less. Lazy and tailwind, it can still be 20mph, in a hurry with strong headwind, 20mph roughly. 20mph is just a pretty dead-on cruising speed in my book. Flat ground, of course.

    Less than perfect: non-dry, non-cleanly swept, non-pristine asphalt conditions.

    Re: braking.
    Guess what, 2.35" tires are taller than racing skinnies, while using the same rim size :-)
    Using a long 29" frame does help a lot for the rider who hates to brake. Also for confident cornering without holding back on the pedals or altering seating position to negotiate the turn.

    The Super Moto I now use as a front is still doing great. Never aired it down, it doesn't bother me at 40psi although for agressive commuting I'd probably take it down some for even more confidence inspiring grip. I can hear the rubber "work" a bit at times.

    The rear BA Lite Skin has a nice advantage. When locked up, it screams.
    I used to have 26x1.95 Vredestein Razors that really squeeled like a car locking up all four from a multiple of bike cuising speed. Excellent for side road traffic that won't make positive eye contact before crossing over without grantin priority. At times when I deployed the scare-brake, I got whole cross-roads to hold heir breath, wating for the "BOOM". Kind of a cool sound when you are the one intensionally creating it. I have not been able to try the SM's rubber for this behavior, but it would be a sure added bonus. I never got the regular BA to do this for me.

    I am still enjoying how the fatty tires make the road so much wider. The added control lets me overtake swerving cyclists right IN the curb edge. I will take outside lines around bends over curbs, when cyclists just think they're all lones. I swerve wide when traffic comes from the side at speed, to stay further clear.

    Fat is good, for tires.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    My commuting cruising speed, cycling wear, helmet and rucksack, is 20mph. In a hurry with tailwind more, slacking with headwind, less. Lazy and tailwind, it can still be 20mph, in a hurry with strong headwind, 20mph roughly. 20mph is just a pretty dead-on cruising speed in my book. Flat ground, of course.
    20 mph is about 30 ft/s. 4-5 m (the distance you said you could stop in from cruising speed) is about 15 feet. 1g of acceleration is about 32 ft/s/s. It would take 1g to stop from those speeds in that distance even assuming an unrealistic zero reaction time (particularly in blind turns). 1g is well beyond the deceleration capability of your bicycle as shown in the link I provided. You are making stuff up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Less than perfect: non-dry, non-cleanly swept, non-pristine asphalt conditions.
    No bicycle can do what you claimed even in ideal conditions. Suggesting you can do so on littered, wet asphalt is even more ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Using a long 29" frame does help a lot for the rider who hates to brake.
    Can't wait to see your proof of that. A lot!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    The Super Moto I now use as a front is still doing great. Never aired it down, it doesn't bother me at 40psi although for agressive commuting I'd probably take it down some for even more confidence inspiring grip. I can hear the rubber "work" a bit at times.
    Haha, "agressive commuting". You realize that lowering the air pressure raises rolling resistance, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I am still enjoying how the fatty tires make the road so much wider. The added control lets me overtake swerving cyclists right IN the curb edge. I will take outside lines around bends over curbs, when cyclists just think they're all lones. I swerve wide when traffic comes from the side at speed, to stay further clear.
    I find it interesting that you think that cyclists with narrow tires can't control their bikes. You have a vivid imagination. How many crit racers have you seen running big apples? You think they don't care about handling?

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    342
    anyone know who sells these tires and ships internationally (e.g JensonUSA)? Either the Super Moto or Big Apples(liteskins) are fine.

  77. #77
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    I am sorry, I love to exaggerate a bit, but 1g is exactly what I have calculated (in my younger years) to be my peak decelleration. I remember marking a line on the road, or using one that was already there. I'd come up to it at 30 or 35kph, and then take note of my braking distance. Amazed me how short it was, just a handful of walking paces. Acceleration out of the gun feels so quick, but it's easily 3-5x longer for distance (time works out different).

    I may not be at a dead stop in 5m each time, but so much speed is shed in the first meters, I can make a 90 degree turn before I am car food. Also, I will obviously not gamble on optimal braking and response each time I pass a blind corner.

    I am sincere about the braking capabilities of a fat tired mtb, especially 29" (less endo prone by default, and for some minor additional reasons, espcially modern ones). I prefer the feel of V-brakes for really hard braking, but I never raced much with discs, and never learned to really tune them to the best possible modulation.
    If you find yourself in a race situation, sole 29" rider among 26" bikes, out-braking a whole group of equally capable riders is kind of easy, especially from high speed and over bumpy terrain.
    A steel MTB fork is something else to hang on to while saving your life with a handful of brakes, than a road bike fork, of any make. I will admit than skinnies in a proper commuter MTB will be a safer and in some condition faster platform than the racerboy road bike.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  78. #78
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,019
    Quote Originally Posted by mafia6
    anyone know who sells these tires and ships internationally (e.g JensonUSA)? Either the Super Moto or Big Apples(liteskins) are fine.
    You're from Singapore? I think Schwalbe actually makes some hih-end tires there, possibly even the Super Moto's. It's on the box stickers, but I tossed those.
    Klok - XC - Skate - Ski

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I am sorry, I love to exaggerate a bit, but 1g is exactly what I have calculated (in my younger years) to be my peak decelleration.
    That much braking capability isn't possible on an upright bicycle regardless of tires, brakes, and traction. You are limited by your center of gravity and forward weight shift i.e. you go over the bars. I provided a link with an expanation of that already.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Also, I will obviously not gamble on optimal braking and response each time I pass a blind corner.
    That's good to hear, but I wonder why you think you have a competitive advantage over skinny tired riders because you don't need to brake into blind corners? It would seem, for safety's sake, that you have to do the exact same thing as they do. Reaccelerating the tires afterward will take more effort, not less. This is common sense and it contradicts your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    If you find yourself in a race situation, sole 29" rider among 26" bikes, out-braking a whole group of equally capable riders is kind of easy, especially from high speed and over bumpy terrain.
    Again, you believe this for religious reasons, not objective ones. The tire is not the limiting factor in braking on reasonably good surfaces. If it is, then skinny tires won't be used anyway because conditions are too loose. All that an MTB wheel with an enormous tire does is add some undesirable momentum to the equation. The difference is not great, but the big-tired bike will be at a disadvantage.

    To put things in perspective, 4-5m is about one car length. At 20 mph (quite an impressive "cruising" speed), the bike will travel about that distance solely in the typical reaction time. In other words, you may well hit an obstacle within 5m before you even apply the brakes. No bicycle can stop from 20mph in one car length even under a controlled test where reaction time can be reduced to zero. It takes much longer and anyone who rides knows it.

    If you are going to make claims of the performance superiority of a tire, it helps to be objective.

    One more thing, there really isn't any such thing as a "fast" tire. Legs make you fast, everything else slows you down. It's how great, or little, the energy losses are that's the question. If people fundamentally understood this from the beginning, they would realize that no tire, particularly a giant balloon one, will transform them from cruisers to racers.

  80. #80
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851

    I'm with you

    Quote Originally Posted by DocAltie
    My personal feeling on the matter:

    I like big, cushie tires because they ride nice. I like having my teeth attached to my gums. I like not feeling every piece of gravel. And I also like the added stability that extra rotating mass gives you.

    Note: this is coming from a guy with a 16lb SS 26er...

    Weight is not all that important in day to day riding, which is what the majority of people on here do. Comfort and fit are much more important. That is why I like big tires... comfort. I don't ride over 25mph except downhill on the way home from work so fighting aerodynamics isn't a problem.

    Science is your friend.
    My positive experience with Big Apples is mainly due to their great suspension benefit, especially on a "rigid" bike without benefit of mechanical suspension. Given how heavy the wire bead models are I was surprised how little one pays in rolling resistance and smooth trail-worthiness and how much one gains in overall riding experience. It's really fun to just remain seated and comfortably ignore road irregularities that you'd have to steer around even with a "large" road tire like a 700 x 32. On a road, once up to speed there also appears to be something positive to be said for wheel inertia or momentum too. You don't get thrown off line too easily by an unseen pebble or pavement crack. Also, I don't seem to have any trouble maintaining road bikes speeds once there when riding with similarly able people on road bikes. If one likes to suffer though, by all means use a smaller tire.

    I just wish the higher end Schwalbe tires were less expensive. I'd like to try a much lighter version of a BA for fun.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JonathanGennick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,287
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1
    It's really fun to just remain seated and comfortably ignore road irregularities that you'd have to steer around even with a "large" road tire like a 700 x 32.
    +1

    Vigorous winters where I live ensure a bountiful supply of potholes and patches on our local roads. There's one "paved" downhill stretch -- steep! -- that I don't dare hit while seated. There are potholes, and there are patches upon patches. It's impossible not to be slamming into them. You just have to hold on in the attack position and ride out the bumpage. And that is where voluminous tires like the Big Apples really shine.

  82. #82
    JJT
    JJT is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JJT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    376
    They are available now here in Europe, so they may be available from Schwalbe NA too?
    Singlespeed Central - European SS and 29" webshop

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,602
    Interesting topic. Just found it while looking for something else.

    I set off from the top of a hill with some friends on good quality well-maintained road bikes, I was on my 29er with BA lites. We were freewheeling down. Road surface fairly abrasive, not perfectly flat, and some ice damage.

    I was having to apply my brakes so as to not roll past my friends (who were not braking). There is no doubt in my mind that the BAs roll better on real life roads than 700x28 section tyres. Seeing as I rarely venture over 20mph, they are a better choice.

    As far as the theory of the inability of a bike to stop at more than 1g - I thought that had been laid to rest in the 1950/60s with motorbikes. It's a case of your bike may stop at better than 1g, but that doesn't fit my theory, so it can't be true.

    (Ask any Vincent owner)
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 57º36' Highlands, Scotland

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike
    I was having to apply my brakes so as to not roll past my friends (who were not braking). There is no doubt in my mind that the BAs roll better on real life roads than 700x28 section tyres.
    I had the same experience on my BA's going down an asphalt hill. I've gone down this same hill on 700 X 32c tires, and the BA's handled the bumps in the road MUCH better.

    I literally blasted past some road riders. That's what they get for taunting me on the climb!!

  85. #85
    Full Tilt Boogie
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,651
    I really want some of these. When I checked a long time ago Schwalbe NA had no idea these existed. Now that Europe has them, I'll check again. These would be killer on my Rawland.
    I sell bikes here. Check out the Blog here. Facebook.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    51
    This tire looks like it would be perfect for slickrock!

  87. #87
    Devo
    Reputation: SelfPropelledDevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,617
    anyone been using this tyre?
    I'm thinking of putting them on my Hunter.
    www.AsanaCycles.com
    "Bicycle Lifestyle, realized." D.G.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    Selfpropelled, if you find the tire at all available, please post! I thought this tire was vaporware - you can see our posts back in the day!
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  89. #89
    Devo
    Reputation: SelfPropelledDevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,617
    www.AsanaCycles.com
    "Bicycle Lifestyle, realized." D.G.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,666
    I've been riding them for a couple of months.


  91. #91
    Dr. Frost
    Reputation: Fastskiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,657
    Oh now that is really nice...ergons, brooks, fatty fork, and the fast cushy tires all on your sweet riding steel frame. Fantastic!

  92. #92
    DTP
    DTP is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    91
    i installed mine today! but before i was able to leave the shop some guy purchased my frame. =(
    now i am thinking of what frame to use with these.

  93. #93
    Devo
    Reputation: SelfPropelledDevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,617
    [QUOTE=Saddle Up;9202053]I've been riding them for a couple of months.
    what are your impressions about the tires?
    anything to compare them to, etc..

    thanks
    www.AsanaCycles.com
    "Bicycle Lifestyle, realized." D.G.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,666
    They are great tires, roll really fast on pavement obviously. They perform much better than I thought they would in dirt. Pressured down they handle extremely well, good traction for not having much tread, a benefit of the volume I suppose. Not much for flat protection though, I got a flat my first ride out. I swapped the presta tubes for schraders, installed a couple of ounces of Stan's and all has been good.

  95. #95
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by illnacord View Post
    Selfpropelled, if you find the tire at all available, please post! I thought this tire was vaporware - you can see our posts back in the day!
    New for 2012 is the 29"er version and it's available on the Schwalbe USA website to order as well. Could be a fun gravel tire.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    837
    nice fast tires,float over sand,crap durability and start to puncture easily toward end of life.
    i switched to geax tattoo lights @$30 a pop and 565 grams as the schwalbes are too much for me especially after they stopped producing the big apple liteskin which was essentially a super moto for half the cost

  97. #97
    Devo
    Reputation: SelfPropelledDevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,617
    I keep going round and round over these tyres.
    they are expensive.

    I'm at a point where I'm considering disassembling my Hunter 29er, having it repainted, blah blah blah.
    I've been using Nano's and Vulpines for a long time now.

    Currently I'm on a set of Nanos that have to be about 3 years old, holy crap those things last a long time. I have Fat Franks, I like the way the look, but they really are a cruiser tyre. the worst for Fat Franks is rain. In my experience they have a tendency to slide around.

    I used a set of Schwalble Marathon Cross from Portland to LA and in Humboldt did the 12hr race. I was impressed with the tyre, but at 37c they are a bit too small for my liking. obviously they should be on a CX bike.

    at about $70-80 each for Super Motos, I having a hard time pulling the trigger.

    with Vulpines I typically get about 5000 miles out of a set. obviously rotating front to rear, etc...

    while thinking about repainting the bike, etc... new tires come to mind. I wonder what the TL Super Moto would be like with CaffeLatex, on Crossmax.
    www.AsanaCycles.com
    "Bicycle Lifestyle, realized." D.G.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metrotuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    Looking to get Super Moto's to try out, run slime tubes so don't mind the lack of puncture. Definitely don't miss the reflective tape! Just rode 60 miles over and down the ridge/canyon on road with Racing Ralph 29x2.4's via SS MTB, hanging with a road bike geared ten inches higher, no problem. The rear is an oldie + first generation that is wider and more volume balloon than the new generation RR 2.4 on the front (perhaps from mileage/age).
    Lead actor Will of the Sun, Author Platform Pedal Shootout 900K+ views

  99. #99
    DTP
    DTP is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    91
    FINALLY was able to run the tires today, its very quiet (compared to racing ralph), the bike feels very light and it has tons of grip (on concrete).

    initial run will be tom! i will keep you guys posted!

  100. #100
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851

    WTB doesn't show Vulpines on website

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfPropelledDevo View Post
    I keep going round and round over these tyres.
    they are expensive.

    I'm at a point where I'm considering disassembling my Hunter 29er, having it repainted, blah blah blah.
    I've been using Nano's and Vulpines for a long time now.

    Currently I'm on a set of Nanos that have to be about 3 years old, holy crap those things last a long time. I have Fat Franks, I like the way the look, but they really are a cruiser tyre. the worst for Fat Franks is rain. In my experience they have a tendency to slide around.

    I used a set of Schwalble Marathon Cross from Portland to LA and in Humboldt did the 12hr race. I was impressed with the tyre, but at 37c they are a bit too small for my liking. obviously they should be on a CX bike.

    at about $70-80 each for Super Motos, I having a hard time pulling the trigger.

    with Vulpines I typically get about 5000 miles out of a set. obviously rotating front to rear, etc...

    while thinking about repainting the bike, etc... new tires come to mind. I wonder what the TL Super Moto would be like with CaffeLatex, on Crossmax.
    ...anymore so the decision may get a bit easier. They are currently still out there and available to buy though in stores and on ebay. WTB » Products – Tires » WTB

    These Super Motos are indeed expensive ($81 w/ shipping on the link that was posted) so I may be saving my pennies for when my one remaining Vulpine wears out. 690 grams is really not heavy for a massive 29" Big Apple type tire. The Vulps and BAs are the best tires I've tried yet for combined urban, light trail and gravel road riding.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 7

Posting Permissions

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