• 11-28-2011
    GregoryMB
    Road tires for mtn bike - which size Big Apples?
    Hi guys,

    I'll be building a singlespeed out of an old specialized allez in a few months, but in the meantime I'm doing a ton of commuting on my Scott Scale elite 29er. I use nevegals on the trail, but don't want to wear them down too quickly.

    I've decided that the schwalbe big apples look like a lot of fun, and are pretty quick. They make the tire in a 2.0 and a 2.35. Given that I want to be able to use my front derailleur, I'm thinking I have to go with a 2.0 in the back. I assume I'll do the same up front, but is there any reason to put the fat 2.35 up front? I always seem to see the wider version of these tires, and I haven't heard from many people with the 2.0s.

    Thoughts?
  • 11-29-2011
    CommuterBoy
    I say go as fat as you can. I have the 2.35's on both ends of my Access 29er. I can fit a front derailleur even with fenders (did it when the bike was in 'touring' mode), but I don't use one on the commute. The bigger, the squishier. I love these tires, you'll have fun riding them either way.
  • 11-29-2011
    jeffscott
    If you are not riding gravel just asphalt...then go narrow and hard...way more fun....38mm slicks just rail corners and are way fast.
  • 11-29-2011
    eBikeStop
    I ride a 2.0 big apple on the rear of my commuter. However, due to the trail that I take to get to work, I use a 2.25 Michelin Wild Racer (old version) on the front because of the dirt parts. I like the slick rear for the reduced friction and noise. What are you riding on? If it is all street style then I agree with jeff. Narrow and Hard. You will love the speed increase.
  • 11-29-2011
    Dogbrain
    I run the Forte Metro-K on 29r rims for commuting in the winter. They are nice and I even take them on short sections of gravel/hardpack. Very flat resistant and you can get a full set for half the price of Big Apples. They are large enought that I feel confident when riding over cracks in the road, drainage grates, etc., yet thin and hard enough to roll really nice. There are other Forte tires with larger volume.
  • 11-30-2011
    GregoryMB
    Thanks guys - my commute is all asphalt (unfortunately). Sounds like 2.0s might be the way to go. I'd love to take a spin on the 2.35s but I'm just not sure they're as practical for a commute.
  • 11-30-2011
    slimhazy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GregoryMB View Post
    Thanks guys - my commute is all asphalt (unfortunately). Sounds like 2.0s might be the way to go. I'd love to take a spin on the 2.35s but I'm just not sure they're as practical for a commute.

    I have the 2.35s on my Karate Monkey. They're enormous. I've also used the Serfas City Drifter in 29x2.0 and like them a lot, but they're not as slick. I think that size in the Big Apples might be better all-around for commuting.
  • 12-01-2011
    canyoneagle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eBikeStop View Post
    If it is all street style then I agree with jeff. Narrow and Hard. You will love the speed increase.

    The speed increase is largely perceived rather than real, particularly in the context of commuting, where real world conditions pretty much negate any increase in riding speed.

    I would agree that narrower tires at higher pressure "feel" faster, perhaps because they feel "livelier". No doubt there - narrower tires have a different feel that many like. I love the feel and sound of 23-25mm tires spinning on a well built wheel - it is intoxicating.
    However, for my commute, with potholes, pavement seams, rocks, gravel, glass metal and a mixture of route options, me likey my fatties.
    My commute time is not influenced by my choice of bike or tires - it is literally exactly the same, whether I'm on my road bike or on my 29er with 2.35 big apples. In truth, I have way more fun on the bike with the 2.35's <<<<for commuting>>>>. Now, if we're talking about a weekend ride up Big Mountain Pass? Bring on the road bike, baby! ;)

    So - I'd say go as big as you can - I've commuted on everything from 23's to the big apples and fat is where it's at, IMO. If you can fit 'em, give the 2.35's a try.
  • 12-01-2011
    Spinnyspinspin
    Each Big Apple does weigh about a pound (the 2.35's are 75 grams heavier than the 2.0's), so if that kind of thing matters to you at all might be a deciding factor. I have a co-worker who runs the bigguns on his Monocog and he loves them. Not Schwalbe's highest level of puncture protection, but they make damn good tires.
  • 12-02-2011
    bikefun
    What did you decide on? Curious about the Scwalbe's.Nice tires but I always thought of them being heavy and not very agile. Thoughts..?
  • 12-02-2011
    eBikeStop
    I have found narrower tires to make a major difference in my commute time. I do agree that outside conditions can factor. The tire change for me on a 25 min commute (all bike path) brought it down almost 4 minutes on average. Especially since Gregory mentioned that he is on all asphalt (no mixed routes), the tire can really make a difference.
  • 12-02-2011
    GregoryMB
    Well, I haven't put in the order yet, but I am leaning toward 2.0s. I am reticent to go through with it because of the 2.35 fun factor. I find out in a couple months where I'll be moving, and the bay is a real possibility. With those hills, I'm thinking the 2.0s will indeed be smarter...then again, I could be in chicago. Polar opposites I suppose.
  • 12-03-2011
    JAGI410
    I have the 2.35's on my Xtracycle and there are times I wish I would have got the 2.0's instead. The fender clearance is very low, and I've got stuck in the mud a couple times because of that. The 2.0's at 40psi would be plenty fast and comfortable for everyday use, or pump them up to 55-60 for extra speed.