Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

380g thunder burt 29er tyre - is this too light?

7K views 14 replies 8 participants last post by  WillTheGreat 
#1 ·
hi, just wanted to share my concerns here with this tyre. i just recently bought two thunder burt tyres for my 29er, both lite evo version 127tpi and are supposed to be 435g each.

one is over by 4g and the other is under weight by 55g, comparing the two tyres together you can clearly feel the wieght difference but the 380g tyre is also clearly very thin on rubber where the skin is that holds the tread pattern.

my question is should i be concerned about using this tyre?

its so thin that you can feel it flex extremely supple compared to the thicker 439g one, this may be a good thing for rolling resistance or a bad thing since it could rip very easily.

not sure what to do? should i use this on the bike? i do some cross country racing and local off road segments (Sutton Park) and some trail riding on follow the dog (Cannock Chase) all in the UK.

if i do use it should i use it as a front or rear tyre?

sorry about the upside down pics, its uploaded from my mac. it looks normal on my mac only when its uploaded to the forum it inverts.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#2 ·
Super light race day only tires are always risky if you race anywhere that can deliver a puncture. It's part of that gamble with running super light tires in competition. Geoff Kabush seems to have had the market cornered on flatting in World Cup races from running super light Maxxis tires and losing any advantage they might have given him if they stayed inflated. That said, if you're worried about having it go flat, it would likely be easier to ride it out if it were a rear rather than a front flat.

You also may find someone else on this forum who wanted to swap that very light one for one with a weight closer to the spec weight.
 
#4 ·
Still using the rocket rons 2.25's at the mo. But thinking of switching soon as the weather gets more stable and dry. I used these last year a lot around Cannock on my 27.5 bike and they were fine but they weighed 425g each, which was 10g over the stock weight. Basically this 29er tyre is 45g lighter than those 27.5 thunder burts, well I probably use it on the rear and see how it goes.
 
#5 ·
i've contacted schwalbe about this. they say weight can change by 8%. but it s obviously more. they don't give a **** about that. i had a 27.5 thunder burt that weighted 480 (instead of 415) and you a 29 at 380 instead of (435). there is something wrong with them. my furious fred was the same ****. i ended by replacing them with more professional brand and wont go back for schwalbe . my black mamba hutchinson are perfect . and schwalbe need a control quality desk .
 
#6 ·
and schwalbe need a control quality desk .
True! Year or two ago I had Thunder Burt which wobbled like crazy (no it wasn't mounted wrong). I mean it was wobbling so much it was basically impossible to ride. Schwalbe didn't give a sh** about it. Luckily I bought them through Bike-discount.de (as all other tires), and contrary to Schwalbe, they did care and without question replaced my tire. But no matter how bad Schwalbe service is and no matter how non-existing their quality controls is (it's impossible to say they have QC at all, as if they would have it, they would be at least a bit better then they are), I still somehow like their tires (Rocket Ron is still my favorite front tire).
As for OP, personally I really like Thunder Burt for rear tire, as it has surprisingly lot of grip and it rolls super fast, but for me, it's just way too fragile, so unfortunately I dropped them and switched to Conti Race King (not as fast as Thunderbut, but still faster then Racing Ralph, and way less fragile). If they would have a bit heavier and less fragile Thunder Burt, it would be really great choice.
 
#8 ·
They do have a heavier less fragile version. It's called Snakeskin. Claimed weight is 515g, but of them are around 550g.
I know, but even that one is thin like paper, and it didn't last much more then week for me. And I wasn't riding anything remotely bad and rocky. It might work good for some super light under 50kg rider, but with my 75kg I'm obviously in too heavy category for this tire... unfortunately. :)
 
#10 ·
Does it matter where he purchased it from? First, Schwalbe does no longer make the particular version this thread refers to. The new lightweight version is called LiteSkin. It's heavier than the old one and not tubeless ready. Second, purchasing Thunder Burt tires always from the same store, I've received some that were under 415g and others that were over 470g. Ordering tires from the same store as him wouldn't guarantee anything. Prove is that the second tire that he got is 59g heavier.
 
#12 ·
No, Schwalbe doesn't list the LiteSkin version as Tubeless Ready. The reason being the old version wasn't easy to seal either and people were complaining. So they improved the SnakeSkin version and called it Tubeless Easy, and gave up calling the lightweight version Tubeless Ready, because it really isn't (it has porous sidewalls and takes as much effort to seal as a regular tire).
 
#15 ·
Wow good catch. Their North American website still has the old description that omits the disclaimer "we cannot guarantee that LiteSkin tires used with commercially available sealants will be safely and permanently sealed".
https://www.schwalbetires.com/bike_tires/off-road_tires/thunder_burt

That disclaimer doesn't inspire confidence even though I haven't experienced problems with the tires I've purchased.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top