SCHWALBE TYRES MEGATHREAD: read this thread before posting new ones

[outtacontrol]

Really? I find Larsons hopeless when the soil gets damp. They seem to clog up quickly and then don't clear. To be fair though they are a summer tire and defiantly not suited to mud etc.
They are a good tire when it is dry though

I didn't say they were suited to mud. Our trails are very dry and rocky, but occasionally we ride in the rainforest where the soil is always moist. I find the larson is quite effective in that damp soil and wet roots, compared to the SB8, which is very ordinary.

There are probably plenty of tyres that would be better than the Larson in that type of soil, but I am happy to run it, considering the climbing advantages that it gives me for 90% of my riding.

 

[Mmmm-sik-as]

Schwalbe Tyres

Just after opinions on Schwalbe tyres. Am thinking of a front Nobby Nic and rear either Racing Ralph or Rocket Ron for xc riding and racing.

Also after opinions on size. I currently run a 2.20 tyre on the front, but do prefer a larger tyre. Was thinking of going to a 2.4 Schwalbe as I have read the 2.25 runs a bit narrower than other brands.

Is the 2.4 too wide or weighty for XC? Should I run a thinner tyre on the back?

Thanks!

 

[harmonix1234]

I love my Schwalbes, and since I discovered Rocket Rons it's all I use.
They do have a spot at about 10 o'clock that loses a bit of bite, but once you get used to them you can drift a little and push push past the drift spot onto the side knobs with confidence. They are quite a playful tyre.

People will generally say 2.4 is traditionally too big for XC, but one mans XC is another mans AM.

If you're a big fella, the bigger bag will be great.
If you like running low pressures, the bigger tyre will be great.
If you ride a hardtail, and want some more comfort, the bigger tyre will be great.
If you ride in rocky terrain, the bigger tyre will be great.

Some XC racers might be scared away by such a tyre because of their larger weight / more rotating mass, but a big bag tyre feels so good, and is also good if you are finding your feet (or wheels) on the trails as a new rider.

I ride 2.25's and sometimes I wish I had a bigger bag tyre, but I NEVER find myself wishing for a skinnier tyre. That's for XC.

As for running skinnier on the back, it is debated, but a popular option.
I myself, like a matched pair so that I can swap them over.
I wear through my rears tyres faster than my fronts, so I swap them over every now and then.

Hope this helps.

 

[sidetrack]

After 4 years on Crossmax Ive been riding on Racing Ralph s for 5 months now. Just as fast with more bite in the corners. 3rd set now at about 10-15 hours a week so wear is pretty good as well.

 

[Smiker]

I rate them. I run Rons up front in a 2.25, usually an Evo run tubeless. Out back I use a 2.1 Ralph, Evo with double defence casing- again run tubeless.

They handle almost all conditions that I end up in, without needing to change. I would happily run a larger rear tyre, but I'd rather not reduce clearance for mud.

Smiker

 

[cinetico5]

I've been running 2.4 Ralph's for about 10 months, tubeless with Stan's. I have raced all the CTS races, Gravity 12 hour, Jeep 24 and Lysty Dirt Crits on wed nights. They are about to be used for the Odyssey next weekend.

They are great tyres and the 2.4 size is surprisingly fast.

 

[Chuckie]

I run Nobby Nic on the front in 2.4 and Racing ralph 2.25 on the back!!

I luv the Nobby Nic's but havent spend enough time on the Ralph yet!!

 

[cullis]

Great tires

I agree with all the comments above. I ran Maxxis Crossmarks for 2-3 years for their rolling speed, but discovered the Schwalbes about 18 months ago when they came with a new bike I bought. I always run tubeless and run a Rocket Ron Evo, 2.25, upfront and a Racing Ralph Snakeskin Evo, 2.25 rear.

They are fast rolling tyres, with much better traction than the crossmarks (especially in sand/mud) and are surprisingly tough as I have only had 1 sidewall tear since I started using them and I ride quite rocky trails.

When you combine the above with the fact that they are one of the lightest tyres out there, then they are very hard to go past.

 

[JessD]

rons are my all weather faves

Rocket Rons...I use them at Stromlo, at forrest, at Lysterfield, at the you yangs...anywhere in fact and they cut mud fine for me and they also displace mud nicely.
I like the feel the give on corners, they drift and then grip which pops you out of the corner just perfect!

 

[Win]

Rocket Rons...I use them at Stromlo, at forrest, at Lysterfield, at the you yangs...anywhere in fact and they cut mud fine for me and they also displace mud nicely.
I like the feel the give on corners, they drift and then grip which pops you out of the corner just perfect!

Well, with those wise words I went to the shed and fitted a pair to mine.
I'm surprised they are lighter than Ralphs as they have a deeper tread

 

[normdouglas]

To my knowledge... Rocket Rons are just about the lightest TRUE UST tyre on the market.

 

[Mmmm-sik-as]

Thanks for all the advice! Very helpful...I appreciate it greatly.

I nearly went the Rocket Rons but I have invested in a Nobby Nic front and Racing Ralph rear for the moment... I must say the 2.25 Nobby Nic is narrower than I thought, I may eventually go up to a 2.4 but will see how I feel on these as I will test them out on the Otway Odyssey this weekend.

If it is particularly wet or muddy (forecast rain for the Otway) , would it be better to run a Nobby Nic on the rear as well? This is what I was advised to do.

Also, can I ask what the advantage is of running a thinner tyre on the back? I know a lot of people do this.

Thanks again for all of your great advice!

 

[wacko_jacko]

Running a thinner tire in thick mud allows the tire to cut down and dig into the harder soil beneath the mud. A wider tire will tend to sit on top of the mud and you won't have as good traction, and may also tend to clog up around the frame and fork, stopping the wheels from turning. But that is only for deep sticky mud; when there is just a lot of water on the trail, a wider tire is going to be better as it will get you over the slippery roots and rocks better and you can run lower pressure with less risk of bashing your rims.

A Nobby Nic will definately be better than a Ralph for getting up the steep muddy climbs in the first 40km for OO, but after that the Forrest trails won't be too bad I reckon and a 2.25 Ralph would be ok for the 2nd half.

 

[stinkytodamax]

Liking the Rocket Ron Racing Ralph F & R combo

I've been running 2.1's of the Rocket Ron (f) and Racing Ralph (r) on my Charge hardtail I'm loving them at the moment, great traction and super light.

I've had a side wall tear which has put me off them a bit but overall very happy as a most conditions setup. If it were wetter I'd put a Rocket Ron on the rear as well and I think that combo would very nicely cut through mud.

I thought that 2.1 would have been to narrow for XC/Trail riding but so far I have been amazed by the grip on offer especially once you get the front laid down and settled. I actually like the feel of these tyres better than my 2.3 Specialized tyres on the stumpjumper.

I feel like I'm braking less and cornering faster than before.

I think I'll try the 2.25 or 2.4's next.

 

[LabRat]

I love my Schwalbe's to death!
After trying heaps of Maxxis and Conti tyres I moved to the NN/RR combo and they have been awesome. So fast and grippy!
I used to run 2.1 Nobby Nic (front) and Racing Ralph (rear), however I thought it was just a bit too skinny for some of the rides I was doing out at the You Yangs.

I have had 2.4 Nobby Nic (front) and 2.4 Racing Ralph (rear) for about 6 months now, and can't say I have noticed a drop in my speed, but they are so grippy and such a delight to ride (even after 50km rides), I don't think I will ever go back to skinny tyres

 

[Steve_N]

I love my Schwalbes, and since I discovered Rocket Rons it's all I use.
They do have a spot at about 10 o'clock that loses a bit of bite, but once you get used to them you can drift a little and push push past the drift spot onto the side knobs with confidence. They are quite a playful tyre.

People will generally say 2.4 is traditionally too big for XC, but one mans XC is another mans AM.

If you're a big fella, the bigger bag will be great.
If you like running low pressures, the bigger tyre will be great.
If you ride a hardtail, and want some more comfort, the bigger tyre will be great.
If you ride in rocky terrain, the bigger tyre will be great.

Some XC racers might be scared away by such a tyre because of their larger weight / more rotating mass, but a big bag tyre feels so good, and is also good if you are finding your feet (or wheels) on the trails as a new rider.

I ride 2.25's and sometimes I wish I had a bigger bag tyre, but I NEVER find myself wishing for a skinnier tyre. That's for XC.

As for running skinnier on the back, it is debated, but a popular option.
I myself, like a matched pair so that I can swap them over.
I wear through my rears tyres faster than my fronts, so I swap them over every now and then.

Hope this helps.

I concur with harmonix on this. I run a 29er RR 2.4 on the front and 2.25 on the back. The 2.25 just clears the stays on my Lenz. A 2.4 wouldn't fit. Hands down one of the best tyres I've ever used. Good grip, low rolling resistance and low weight (680g on the nose for the 2.4) all add up to a great tyre.

Do it...

 

[Geoff Gump]

Has anyone directly compared the evolution carcass to non-evo tyres? Would it be worth the extra ~20-30 buks for evo?

 

[Shaman]

Schwalbe's

Has anyone directly compared the evolution carcass to non-evo tyres? Would it be worth the extra ~20-30 buks for evo?

Sure have, if you're talking about the performance series of treads then have tried those, the old style Evo's, the newer tubeless ready EVO's, Snakeskins, DD's and full USTs.

The performance series give you most of the performance of the EVO's but the sidewall is perilously thin. They are very light (~460g for the RoRo 2.1) but protection is the tradeoff. Also, the bead isn't quite as strong and is the only tyre I've ever rolled as a tubeless setup.

The UST and DD's feel totally bulletproof but there is a weight penalty. Both sealed up fine with a track pump when setting up tubeless.

Currently running the newer style Tubeless ready RaRa 2.25 snakeskins and reckon they are the pick of the bunch. Tighter bead which feels very solid on the rim, nice big bag which feels great at about 30psi but good strong sidewall too.

Fantastic tyres but never quite felt at home on the Ron's, feel a little squirmy to me.

 

[fergo]

I've got the RoRo combo in EVO UST. At the moment I havent got sealant inside and the tyres are not deflating at all so I'm confident they are sealed properly.

With Bike Buller Fest this weekend, should I put some sealant inside? Can I expect to get punctures on the Buller tracks? I will be carrying a tube as backup, but some advice as to who uses sealant with UST would be appreciated.

 

[jathanas]

I've got the RoRo combo in EVO UST. At the moment I havent got sealant inside and the tyres are not deflating at all so I'm confident they are sealed properly.

With Bike Buller Fest this weekend, should I put some sealant inside? Can I expect to get punctures on the Buller tracks? I will be carrying a tube as backup, but some advice as to who uses sealant with UST would be appreciated.

Love the RoRo's. Count me as a fan.

UST just guarantees that the tyre will inflate without sealant.

You'd want a cup of Stans in the tyre so that if you end up getting a puncture it will fix itself. That's the whole magic of tubeless and I wouldn't go to an event without some sealant in my UST tyres.

If it's a sidewall tear you're stuffed, but a tiny one might repair itself if you tilt the bike over so that sealant can get to the hole

Good luck on the weekend.