Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I use big bettys and they're awesome,my cannondale rz has limited clearance so I need a set of lower volume tires for rz.I do not want to go any smaller than 2.3/2.4 as I like large volume tires.I did try a albert 2.4. and it fit,but would like to hear some reviews before I purchase a set.
I just read a few less than stelar reviews,but I'd like to hear more....please pass on any feedback
 

·
Bad Case of the Mondays
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
AMCAT said:
I use big bettys and they're awesome,my cannondale rz has limited clearance so I need a set of lower volume tires for rz.I do not want to go any smaller than 2.3/2.4 as I like large volume tires.I did try a albert 2.4. and it fit,but would like to hear some reviews before I purchase a set.
I just read a few less than stelar reviews,but I'd like to hear more....please pass on any feedback
I've got a 2.4 Fat Albert rear specific (one of the newly redesigned versions) on the rear of my 5Spot right now. It is a big tire. I've run Big Bettys up front for years and I love them.

The FA on the back is a traction monster, it really grips. I rode it the other night in 4" of snow and cleaned every climb on the trail, which many other riders spun out on. For a big, somewhat heavy tire it rolls pretty well although it is noticeably slower than a fast rolling tire like a Nobby Nic. I also have this tire in the 2.25 version, and it rolls marginally better and is a little lighter too. The newer design has much better straight line traction, albeit it at a slower rolling experience than the older design.

The downside....
As mentioned, a little piggy and slow. Doesn't clear mud real well either, but does grip pretty well in the soft stuff.

I tend to run big, heavy tires (Big Betty DH casing up front) so I don't mind too much the slow rolling or the weight, I just want the traction. Having said that, I still prefer the 2.25 version of this tire. Its still a big volume tire and has tons of traction but rolls a bit better and is lighter. I much prefer the FA to the BB on the rear, but like the BB much better on the front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
hitechredneck said:
i would like feedback on the big bettys im waiting for a pair for my enduro. was thinking fat alberts for my rize for next set. I know that a local guy did a review here on mtbr for them in the pro review section. Another friend runs one and likes it. Have you looked at a nobby nic for a rear?
big bettys kill !!! awesome tire,track and corners well,and tons of volume make a super comfee ride...another great tire is the muddy mary,I run the 2.35 and they're awaesome !!
I would love to stick with the bettys they are no go with the rz ,I'll give the Fat alberts a shot.:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
dwyooaj said:
if the bettys wont fit the 2.4" fat alberts may not either, I dont think they're really smaller.
My 2.4 fat alberts are noticeable smaller than my big bettys,and I believe mine are the curent model as they're marked snakeskin and evo lined.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Jdub said:
I've got a 2.4 Fat Albert rear specific (one of the newly redesigned versions) on the rear of my 5Spot right now. It is a big tire. I've run Big Bettys up front for years and I love them.

The FA on the back is a traction monster, it really grips. I rode it the other night in 4" of snow and cleaned every climb on the trail, which many other riders spun out on. For a big, somewhat heavy tire it rolls pretty well although it is noticeably slower than a fast rolling tire like a Nobby Nic. I also have this tire in the 2.25 version, and it rolls marginally better and is a little lighter too. The newer design has much better straight line traction, albeit it at a slower rolling experience than the older design.

The downside....
As mentioned, a little piggy and slow. Doesn't clear mud real well either, but does grip pretty well in the soft stuff.

I tend to run big, heavy tires (Big Betty DH casing up front) so I don't mind too much the slow rolling or the weight, I just want the traction. Having said that, I still prefer the 2.25 version of this tire. Its still a big volume tire and has tons of traction but rolls a bit better and is lighter. I much prefer the FA to the BB on the rear, but like the BB much better on the front.
jdub...thx for the info,I'm also a big fan of the big betty on the front,and use the muddy mary for winter and early spring riding.My F.A. is noticeable smaller than my bettys,it was a recent purchase,and marked evo lined and snakeskin so I think its the newly redesigned model...
I tired the big betty on the rear of my cannondale rz and there was very little (if any) clearance,then I mounted the F.A. and it fit fine.Are your 2.4 F.A. & B.B. close in size
 

·
screamer
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
FA highly recommended

The FA is a great tire, very forgiving over a wide range of conditions. As others have said, climbing traction is excellent, but if you're coming from a Big Betty braking traction might be the more important consideration. In my experience, this is what separates good aggressive trail tires from great ones, and in this regard the Fat Albert is the best I've tried without a significant weight premium. For its size and tread, it's pretty much the lightest out there. The snakeskin is very durable in rocky conditions, and as I said the braking traction over loose is fantastic. It might not be as good as say a Big Betty or a Minion, but those tires are in a different category. It's equivalent traction to a Weirwolf 2.3, which is almost 200g heavier (and noticeably narrower).

Sure, a Nobby Nic will roll better, but in my experience what you give up is the braking traction: again, that's more of a light-duty trail tire in a different category. (I really like the 2.4 NN on the rear, but for rocky & loose conditions the FA is a better performer.)
 

·
Bad Case of the Mondays
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
AMCAT said:
.My F.A. is noticeable smaller than my bettys,it was a recent purchase,and marked evo lined and snakeskin so I think its the newly redesigned model...
I tired the big betty on the rear of my cannondale rz and there was very little (if any) clearance,then I mounted the F.A. and it fit fine.Are your 2.4 F.A. & B.B. close in size
Here is a quick camera phone picture I took of my 2.4 Big Betty front tire held up to my 2.4 Fat Albert rear tire. Both mounted on DT 5.1 rims at 30 psi.

I would not call the difference in size of the two as noticeable, but as you can see from the picture the BB is slightly larger.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
863 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
chas_martel said:
FA 2.4 UST's are perhaps my favorite tire. I can't wait to give the TLR versions a try.

Great all around tire in my opinion. Not much that it does wrong for trail/AM work.
Very good news,I think I'll make the fat albert my trail/am tire for 2011...schwable has there act togehter in a big way
 

·
Bad Case of the Mondays
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
hitechredneck said:
what are trail types that the Big Betty does not do well? On the other end where does it excell?
The Big Betty does pretty well in most conditions in my experience. Keep in mind there are (or have been) many different compounds available. I personally have had Gooey Gluey, Double ORC and Triple Nano. The GG sticks like no other front tire I've ever used, but it wears out faster than other tires and is a pretty slow roller. The Triple Nano seems to be a good balance between the GG and the Double ORC.

The downsides of the BB really aren't about the trail types, more so about the weight and the slow rolling nature of the tire. It works great on smooth hardpack, but there are lots of lighter and faster tires that would work well on that same trail too. If you don't mind the extra 300 - 500 grams of weight, they are tough to beat but they are pretty heavy tires compared to many other tires that are used on the 5-6" bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,301 Posts
Jdub said:
The Big Betty does pretty well in most conditions in my experience. Keep in mind there are (or have been) many different compounds available. I personally have had Gooey Gluey, Double ORC and Triple Nano. The GG sticks like no other front tire I've ever used, but it wears out faster than other tires and is a pretty slow roller. The Triple Nano seems to be a good balance between the GG and the Double ORC.

The downsides of the BB really aren't about the trail types, more so about the weight and the slow rolling nature of the tire. It works great on smooth hardpack, but there are lots of lighter and faster tires that would work well on that same trail too. If you don't mind the extra 300 - 500 grams of weight, they are tough to beat but they are pretty heavy tires compared to many other tires that are used on the 5-6" bikes.
Yeah, I agree that on SMOOTH HARDPACK lots of tires would work better....good thing I don't have much of that around, otherwise I might ride a CX bike, not a mountain bike. Who needs 2.4 knobbies for smooth hardpack?

I'd like to see any tire with 500g less weight provide the type of sidewall support, volume and rolling properties of a BB.

The BB 2.4 TC was 900g (give or take)...what tire is going to let me run low pressures and a big footprint at 400g? At 600g?
The 2.35 Nev is what...750g and lasts about 2 rides before shedding knobs.
 

·
local trails rider
Joined
·
12,300 Posts
I believe FA, as almost any tire, is good in some conditions and not so good in others. I, too, read the reviews where it wasn't very good on loose rock, especially the Rear. There isn't much loose rock or shale where I live, so I am doing well with FA 2.4" Front and Rear. Forest singletrack with all the organic stuff in place, roots, rocks, some bedrock, sometimes a bit wet too. Works for me.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
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