Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is highly worth mentioning because it represents a huge departure from what we have come to love about schwalbe, name they have been true to size or larger than stated. I have used several SG casings in the past, and the 2.35 was a "large volume" tire. It appears those days are over.

I purchased several 2.35 and 2.6 Super Trail Nobby Nic and Big Betty. (27.5)

The 2.35 measured under 2.2 at 50 psi. Even worse, it is a short tire. This has much the same volume as a Vittoria 2.1. Complete fail. Mounted the 2.6

The 2.6 has at 30 psi for 3 days and 2 rides. It is measuring 2.38. Also low profile. Just fucking awful at 1100g.

Can anyone else confirm this sizing incompetence?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
I have the Super Trail 2.35 mounted currently and it's true to size, in addition to being a rad tire overall.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
rim width is almost inconsequential. It is appropriate for the tire sizes we are discussing. 26-28mm. Any wider and the profile would be even shorter. Wrong direction.
 

·
Trail Ninja
Joined
·
6,167 Posts
Got an old 2.3 Fat Albert Snakeskin with 5k miles on the front. Measures 2.3 casing and tread with CushCore. 15-18 psi

Newly bought and mounted 2.4 Eddy Current Front SG Soft on the rear with 200 miles. Measures 2.3 casing 2.5 tread, no insert. 30 psi for weeks

21i rim

Not supertrail, but I figure it relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Don't care about the weight. That is the cost of durability. Please stay on topic. Has anyone had the same experience of severely undersized Super Trail ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
The biggest problem I've seen with Schwalbe tires is their weight. Their tires are too damn heavy!
Yeah, they know that most bikes that are sold these days are E-bikes and that they have heavy owners.
I won't buy Schwalbe tires anymore. The old SG were great, durable and much lighter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
OP, ýou're measuring the tread at its widest, not the carcass correct?

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk
The knob width and the carcass width is about the same in this case. I am worried about ordering 2.8 tires now. If they come in true to size I will be equally irritated. For you weight conscious riders, this is a niche line of tires. For those who have trouble destroying carcasses before half the tread is worn, like me, and don't want a 1500g full DH tire. All vertical, sharp edge rocky hardpack, 180mm travel, often over 100F. When you are running porcupine rim, or losing 1000' per mile, over rock gardens, and hate trailside tire repair (like me), a 1100g tire like this is what I want in the back at my 200lbs The old Hans SG was great for the rear. I'm not clear what happened. These were suppose to be an improvement in compound, but it seems the redesigns have resulted in a lower profile (harsher) tire. I may try the 2.8 and see if that helps.

Initially what drew me to the super trail was the seeing that the speedgrip compound was finally being offered on a burly tire. RR is more important to me than rotational weight.

By the way, has anyone tried (and liked) the new big betty? Front or rear? My conditions are hardpack, rocky desert riding
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
Are you measuring before or after full stretch? I'm going to make an assumption that schwalbe is reducing volume and width a bit to help offset the weight gain from the thicker casings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Are you measuring before or after full stretch? I'm going to make an assumption that schwalbe is reducing volume and width a bit to help offset the weight gain from the thicker casings.
sitting 3 days at 50 psi, 2 rides at 26 psi. the 2.6 measures 2.36 and lower profile than I like. This is never going to get to 2.6, or even close. The 2.35 that I first tried had less volume than a CC race tire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,165 Posts
I suspect your method of measuring is contributing to your measurements. You stated carcass and tread are similar, when in reality there is at least a 1/4" difference between the two.
GL.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
sitting 3 days at 50 psi, 2 rides at 26 psi. the 2.6 measures 2.36 and lower profile than I like. This is never going to get to 2.6, or even close. The 2.35 that I first tried had less volume than a CC race tire.
Sounds like schwalbe has changed the volume and width I'm sure to save weight, but I'll bet you'll see more stretch. I usually have to do at least 10 rides that really flex the casing before I see full stretch regardless of brand or how many nights they sit at high psi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,014 Posts
My 2.35 hans measured 2.48 at the widest, still over 2.4x at the carcass. I keep seeing threads that the tires are tiny now and WAY heavier.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top