Russ

I've got an old hardtail mountain bike that I use for commuting. I've got a Xtracycle on order, which I'll be installing soon.

I've been running 1.5" Nimbus Armadillos for the last year or so, but I got a flat in back the other day (construction staple), and when I pulled off the wheel, I noticed that the tread was missing in a couple of spots. My LBS was out of the Armadillos, so I decided to order on line.

Did some research on bike forums, and decided to go with the Big Apple instead. But I can't figure out whether to get the 2.0" or the 2.3". Any advice or experience one way or the other?

Donkey Hodie

I had the 2.35's for about a week, but sold them to my buddy who wanted them for his mountain bike to ride down stairs, off benches, and for basic urban commando type street riding. I switched to the 2.0 apples, and I love them. I ride a surly 1x1 with a nexus inter8 internal hub. The difference between the 2.35s and the 2.0 apples was definitely noticeable to me. The 2.35s felt slower and to me, they felt like they had a higher rolling resistance than the 2.0s. The 2.0s felt noticeably more nimble and quick, and they look a hell of a lot smaller on my wheels than the the 2.35s did. They are both great tires, but for my use, I prefer the 2.0s for the quicker feel. I mostly ride for exercise, and commuting. The 2.35s would be better for aggresive urban street riding like bombing down stairs or dropping off picnic tables. Both will get you to where you need to go comfortably(I just wouldn't try riding as hard on the 2.0s as I would on the 2.35s).

Russ

I went ahead and ordered the 2.0 inch version - found a pretty good price through AEBike.

I decided to order a Brooks B17 at the same time, I've had my eye on one for a long time, and AEBike's price for those is pretty good too (even better than used ones on eBay sometimes!).

Donkey Hodie

Nice. I've got the b.17 standard. The brooks + big apples = comfort.

gbcb

Yup, I've got the B17 / Big Apple combination too... it's great!

Edit: 2.0s, and don't feel the need for anything bigger.

JeffS

The 2.0's are plenty big. I've run them, and I wouldn't even consider getting the 2.3's.

Donkey Hodie

Most of the people on the mountain bike forums run the 2.35 big apples...but most of those guys like to do serious urban assault with their street mountain bike set ups, for example: riding down stairs and making 3-6 foot drops. That is what my buddy wanted them for. He also wanted the 2.35's for training in order to get in shape on the rails to trails bike path (more weight than the 2.0's and lower rolling resistance).

Halloween

I have Big Apple 29x2.0s on my GF Cobia commuting machine.

They're purrrrrfect!

workingbike

With the extra volume that the Big Apples have, do you need to go up a size on the tube?

acroy

I've heard the 2.0's are best compromise - great ride, faster than 2.3's
If you're used to the flat protection of the Nimbus Armadillos, be prepared to be dissapointed in the Big Apples. you might consider a Mr Tuffy's liner.
Cheers

Russ

The big apples have a kevlar belt - I gather that this is a new development.

acroy

Yes, apparently the older non-Kevlar versions were pretty weak.
However, even with the Kevlar belt, it won't measure up to the Armadillos. I went from 'dillos to Marathons (not the Marathon Supreme) and the puncture incidence went way up.
not trying to scare you or anything.... just letting you know. the 'dillos are pretty special: much better at flat prevention than any regular keval-belted tire out there, that i have used anyway.

HardyWeinberg

My 26x2.0 apples have rolled with ease over crap that ate up several transworld cities before I gave up on their inverted tread. The one puncture I have had was a drywall screw straight through to the head, tough to picture anything surviving that. Unfortunately the hole in the treadwall was so big that I got another puncture a week later from a big piece of glass that fit right into the same hole. Knock on formica haven't had that happen again...

I would try the 2.35s if I didn't doubt fender clearance, but I'm extremely happy w/ the 2.0s. I can burn, for me anyway, w/ the 2.0s for an hour at 18-20 mph, or 3+ hrs at 16 mph, so I don't really think they're limiting me in any meaningful way.

Doug5150

The Big Apples only make sense if you have "downhill" width rims--such as, 32mm or wider.

Fat tires at low pressures on narrow rims handle crappy, and there's no advantage to running fat tires at high pressures--you might as well just use a narrower tire that handles decently on the rim you've got, and save yourself the rotating weight difference of the fat tires.

For a ~25mm wide rim, tires around 1.5" are about right.
-----
The Schwalbe Marathon Plus is also another flat-resistant tire to consider, and it comes in 1.75" width, which is more reasonable on a typical ~25mm rim.
~

JeffS

Spoken like someone with no experience on the tire in question.

What's the purpose of running low pressure at all on the street? It's flat pavement, not rooty singletrack...

acroy

if only it was flat....
i've come to love riding bigger tires at lo pressure for commuting - the pavement i ride is nasty. I think other have the same experience. for instance, at one point in my commute i ride for a short distance on the sidewalk. it has a sharp break, at least 1.5" tall. the fat tires soak it up, i hardly have to unweigh the bike while going over it.
personally i'm using 1.75" at 50psi right now. especially with all the rain recenlty, the streets are getting very potholed, and corners have sand and scree & rocks. the wide tire is much more confident through all this garbage.
cheers

Russ

That sort of makes sense, except...my bike was born as a mountain bike, with big, fat, knobby tires. If the wheels worked with those, I can't imagine that they wouldn't work with the 2.0 wide tires, which are narrower than the originals.

Halloween

There isn't really any guesswork involved here...

Schwalbe's Big Apple specs. chart.

Measuring Bicycle Rim Sizes, by Sheldon "ISO/E.T.R.T.O." Brown.

Russ

Great tip. If I'm reading this right, both sizes of 26" big apple (50mm and 60mm) call for a ETRTO size 559 rim. That's the number printed on my rims, so I should be good to go.

Edit: Just realized that the 559 refers to the tire/wheel diameter, not width. This table https://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#width covers width. So for the narrow Big Apple (50mm), the minimum wheel width would be 21mm, with 25 or a bit larger a better fit.

Donkey Hodie

well I have my big apple tires on my sun CR-18 rim which has written on it: 559 x 22.5mm
So does this mean my rim is too small for my tires?

It doesn't feel bad. I run my apples at max pressure, and they feel great.

Donkey Hodie

referring to Russ' edit and sheldon's chart: so then i should be fine with the 22.5 mm wheel width of my sun cr-18 rims.

Doug5150

It's because it's highly likely your bike was delivered with rims that were too narrow in the first place.

It's just like the Sheldon Brown page says about MTB rim widths: years ago all MTB's came with rims that were MUCH wider than road rims, MTB's were around 40-50mm (like "cruiser" bikes have now!) and road rims were all ~25mm. But bike makers got into a marketing "weight" race, so they started putting narrower and narrower rims on MTB's (because the narrower rims were lighter) until now many MTB's come with rims that are just as narrow as road rims--even though the tires on typical MTB's are often twice as wide as road tires.

A lot of people with MTB's don't know this, because they've never rode anything but MTB's with too-narrow rims. Most MTB nowadays (even some susrprisingly expensive ones) come with rims that are WAY too narrow.
------
It's not that you can't put fat tires onto narrow rims--you can.... -but when you air those fat tires down to 30 psi, the tires will get all squirmy in turns--and on wide rims they wouldn't do that. And using fat tires at low pressures is the whole reason for using fat tires.
~

Donkey Hodie

so are you saying that it makes no sense to run 2.0 big apples at max pressure period? (regardless of rim size)

Are you saying that 2.0 big apples are meant to be run at lower pressures like 30psi?

I don't think I would want to run them that low just because I wouldn't want that much more of a plush ride. My 2.0 apples feel great at max pressure so far(60-70 psi), and I still feel like they soak up bumps more than my other bike's continental contacts at 1.75. Plus they feel surprising fast and nimble at the same time.

When I run the apples at max pressure, are you saying it would be the same as running skinnier tires at max pressure?

Maybe I'll have to test that out myself someday in the near future.

Halloween

Oh, man, I remember when that weight weenie business started!
I had to buy new rims because my OEM rims had given up the ghost.

I had some scary moments until I figured out what was making my tires swim all over the place.
I hunted down some 'retro' wide rims ASAP.


I run my 29x2.0 Big Apples at 70psi (the sidewall labeled max.).

A smoooooth and cushy ride!


Edited to fix coding.

dynaryder

Yes. And I would run them at max pressure on the street. If you're riding in snow,or offroad in sand or mud,lower pressure will give you extra traction. But on the street you'd want the max pressure to reduce rolling resistance.