Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    The Riddler
    Reputation: Kaparzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    759

    Schwalbe Skinny Jimmy -- Review?

    Anyone got something to say about the Scwalbe Skinny Jimmy?

  2. #2
    Code Burr
    Reputation: thebronze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaparzo
    Anyone got something to say about the Scwalbe Skinny Jimmy?
    sort of,
    I run a big jim on the rear, 2.25, a 2.25 RR up front.
    It handles everything very well in our dry N Texas climate.
    Climbs well, brakes, corners excellent, and is pretty fast for a full knobby,
    but a little more drag than the RR, thats why its in the rear, very durable too.
    BL-Lotsa traction, little drag...........

    Why would you want the skinny jimmy?
    I'll never go below 2.25 again, its way too comfortable.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaparzo
    Anyone got something to say about the Scwalbe Skinny Jimmy?
    Skinny will be an understatement. I have some Jimmy Lites, and they don't come near the stated 2.1" size. I'd put them closer to my Geax 1.85's. They are light, though, and roll well for the knob height. I thought they felt a little squirrely, but I don't have enough time on them to say more.

    The Skinny's will be even smaller, probably more a large cross tire. If that's your terrain, cool. FWIW, the 2.25" Racing Ralphs I picked up are about a 2.1", light, and ride very nicely. They seem to deserve some of the hype they're getting, and hopefully they'll get more dealers to carry Schwalbe in the states.
    Jon.

  4. #4
    Ebo
    Ebo is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,730
    [QUOTE=jw25]Skinny will be an understatement. I have some Jimmy Lites, and they don't come near the stated 2.1" size. I'd put them closer to my Geax 1.85's. They are light, though, and roll well for the knob height. I thought they felt a little squirrely, but I don't have enough time on them to say more.

    I also run Jimmy Lites in a 2.1 front and rear on my SS. They are fairly narrow for a 2.1, but they do track well and are supple at about 35-36psi. No input on the Jimmy Skinny's.

  5. #5
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,566
    Quote Originally Posted by thebronze
    sort of,
    I run a big jim on the rear, 2.25, a 2.25 RR up front.
    Why would you want the skinny jimmy?
    I'll never go below 2.25 again, its way too comfortable.
    Then its time to wake up and measure your tires... I own both those models and they're 2.1" at the absolute widest point of the tread. There's no way in hell those tires would ever measure out as 2.25 unless you tried inflating them on a VERY wide rim (like a sun doublewide), which kind of defeats their usage as lightweight XC tires.

    A racing ralph 2.25 is barely 2mm wider in actual width than a Panaracer Trailblaster 2.1 (which therefore, isn't actually 2.1", but its closer to its claimed size than anything Schwalbe sells) and doesn't work as well I've found so far. I'm going to give them a couple more rides on drier trails but its very likely the ralphs are coming off and my trailblasters are going back on.

    As to the big jims, well, soon as I order a set of Hutchinson Elite Gold Scorpion 2.3s, they're going on instead of the jims (since the Hutchinson's weigh the same and are really 2.4" in width).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaparzo
    Anyone got something to say about the Scwalbe Skinny Jimmy?
    I've been running a Big Jim on the front of my rigid SS XC ride and a Little Jim on the rear. Both are nice and light. I was a bit skeptical about the Little Jim when I mounted it and realized truly how narrow it was. On the trail it hooks up very well, rolls nicely, but isn't too rough. I weigh about 200 lbs and run it at about 35-40 psi and haven't pinchflatted yet. I also raced in the mud last weekend and its narrowness paid off. If you are looking to smooth out the trail a bit, I would suggest something with a bit higher volume.

    Simon

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,653
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    -snip-
    A racing ralph 2.25 is barely 2mm wider in actual width than a Panaracer Trailblaster 2.1 (which therefore, isn't actually 2.1", but its closer to its claimed size than anything Schwalbe sells) and doesn't work as well I've found so far. I'm going to give them a couple more rides on drier trails but its very likely the ralphs are coming off and my trailblasters are going back on. -snip-
    DeeEight, I've got a Trailblaster 2.1 hanging on the wall that I used on the rear for a short time, but didn't like giving up traction in one direction because of the ramped center knobs (brake, or climb, pick one), and they seemed a bit squirrely in loose stuff. What do you like/dislike about these tires, what end of the bike are they best, what conditions etc? (maybe I was using the wrong pressures too).

  8. #8
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,281
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Then its time to wake up and measure your tires... I own both those models and they're 2.1" at the absolute widest point of the tread. There's no way in hell those tires would ever measure out as 2.25 unless you tried inflating them on a VERY wide rim (like a sun doublewide), which kind of defeats their usage as lightweight XC tires.

    A racing ralph 2.25 is barely 2mm wider in actual width than a Panaracer Trailblaster 2.1 (which therefore, isn't actually 2.1", but its closer to its claimed size than anything Schwalbe sells) and doesn't work as well I've found so far. I'm going to give them a couple more rides on drier trails but its very likely the ralphs are coming off and my trailblasters are going back on.

    As to the big jims, well, soon as I order a set of Hutchinson Elite Gold Scorpion 2.3s, they're going on instead of the jims (since the Hutchinson's weigh the same and are really 2.4" in width).
    Schwalbe is not the only company with "small" tire sizing. Panaracer, IRC, Conti, the smaller Geax models, Nokian, older Kendas, among others all are smaller than their stated size.
    The 2.1 Panaracers and 2.1 Schwalbes are nearly the same. The 2.25 Schwalbes are bigger than their 2.1s.
    The Racing Ralph 2.25 is most definitely bigger than the Skinny Jimmy 1.9, Which I think was the point.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #9
    Code Burr
    Reputation: thebronze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Then its time to wake up and measure your tires... I own both those models and they're 2.1" at the absolute widest point of the tread. There's no way in hell those tires would ever measure out as 2.25 unless you tried inflating them on a VERY wide rim (like a sun doublewide), which kind of defeats their usage as lightweight XC tires.
    Why would I want to measure my tires?
    Schwalbes measurement of a 2.25 is not in inches.
    This might explain their sizing, its a clip from their website:


    Size Markings



    What do the various size markings on bicycle tires mean?

    Nowadays, bicycle tires sizes should all fall in line with ETRTO's (European Tire and Rim Technical Organization) tire and rim standards. Yet the older English and French tire size markings are still used.

    An ETRTO size marked 37-622 indicates the width of 37 mm and the tire inner diameter of 622 mm. This designation is clear and allows an unequivocal match with the corresponding rim size.

    Inch size designations are less accurate. A tire marked 28 x 1 5/8 x 1 3/8 indicates an approximate outer diameter of 28 inch, the tire section height of 1 5/8-inch, and the tire section width of 1 3/8-inch. Inch sizes can also follow the pattern 26 x 2.10, which, in this case indicates only tire's outer diameter and the tire's section width.

    Inch sizes are ambiguous and lack accuracy. For example, the diameters 559 mm (MTB), 571 mm (Triathlon) and 590 mm (Touring) are all designated 26 inch. Tires with diameters 622 mm and 635 mm are both designated 28-inch, yet, surprisingly, tires with a diameter of 630 mm are designated 27-inch.

    A French size marked 700 x 35C, indicates the approximate tire outer diameter of 700 mm and the tire section width of 35 mm. Not all tire sizes exist as French size designations, for instance MTB sizes.

    Size Designations Overview

    ETRTO Inch French
    Size designation 37-622 28x1 5/8 x1 3/8 700x35c
    Outer diameter - Approx. 28 inch Approx. 700 mm
    Inner diameter 622 mm - -
    Tire section width Approx. 37 mm Approx. 1 3/8 inch Approx. 35 mm
    Tire section height - Approx. 1 5/8 inch -

Similar Threads

  1. Cuervo / DHR / V10 review (long)
    By Scott@GO-RIDE.com in forum Downhill - Freeride
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2004, 10:03 AM
  2. Conti Explorer vs. Schwalbe Skinny Jimmy
    By Knut in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2004, 08:33 AM
  3. Not happy with Schwalbe cust. service!!!
    By Homebrew in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-31-2004, 12:06 PM
  4. Not happy with Schwalbe cust. service!!!
    By Homebrew in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-30-2004, 03:18 PM
  5. Not happy with Schwalbe cust. service!!!
    By Homebrew in forum Passion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-30-2004, 10:02 AM

Posting Permissions

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