bwgride

While not narrow, I use Schwalbe Big Ben (2.15") on my Surly LHT. They roll very well on and off road, are durable, and add comfort from the balloon-tire design. Highly recommended, excellent tire.

Big Ben HS 439 | Schwalbe North America

ted m

I'm getting ready to order tires and I appreciated this thread. What are the advantages of the Big Ben over the Schwalbe big apple?

I'm 330lbs down from 365 and I was thinking of sticking with a fatter tire until I lose more weight. I have the 2" big apple I my utility bike and they have worked well for me. They are not as fast I sippose, but they have carried me and a lot of groceries quite a few times.

I'd like to try a smaller tire but I'm kind of nervousness outbut until I getunder 300#

corwin1968

It appears that the major difference is that the Big Ben has more tread and is heavier. Unless you need more tread (ie, riding off-pavement), I would stick with the Big Apples. Also, if you are happy with the way the BA's ride (they are comfy but heavy), then there is no need to move to thinner tires. If the BA's are too heavy (my experience), there really isn't much limit to how skinny you can go. I weigh 400 lbs and I'm currently riding 40mm tires and I've ridden 32mm tires with no problems. If you switch to a narrower tire, you may find you've been spoiled by the plush ride of the Big Apples.

If your wheels are 26"/559mm, then Compass is coming out with a 54mm high performance tire later this month or next month. The Rat Trap Pass buries the Big Apple as far as weight (weighs less than half the BA) and it should also blow the BA away for speed and maybe comfort. You would be giving up flat protection though and that's a major issue for some people.

ted m

I do ride off pavement quite often. I've done it several times on the big apples, but I did wipe out once riding on wet grass. I always wondered if I was pushing my luck off-road on the big apples.

corwin1968

I've ridden my BA's on dirt with no problems but I keep to relatively hard packed stuff and I don't ride on anything that is wet. The folks at Rivendell swear by the Big Ben's for the off-road riding they do and they clearly consider it superior to the BA but the BA is considered adequate for off-road riding as long as you aren't getting into loose or muddy stuff.

I will also say that as a big guy, based on my fairly limited amount of off-road riding, wider is better. If I spent any time at all off the pavement and my bike fit 50mm tires, I would never ride less than 50mm tires. If you hit a softer spot, narrower tires will dig in and slow or stop you where fatter tires might just roll right over it.

ted m

Thank you. I think I will get the big bens. Im probably 60% off road right now. And I'm not married to one tire forever anyway.

I have a second 26" rear wheel I think will fit my troll. I was wondering if I could make a second set of wheels and mount narrower tires on them for all pavement rides.

LeeG

In the big picture another set of tires isn't a great expense and it's fun to see how the bike handles with different tires. I find there are other tires that roll easier and don't feel as squiggly on drawbridge grates as Continental Touring tires. The Panaracer T-serves are light and durable enough for light touring, Continental Sport Contact in a 1.4" rolls fast but not the most puncture resistant, Schwalbe Supreme is good but pricey, the Schwalbe Racer is very comfy.

fietsbob

only dis advantage to Continental Travel Contact, was the tread design .

Which had people volunteering their observation that it was a Knobby tire was worn slick ,

not knowing the smooth center band, for paved roads , and a row of knobs on the edge for un paved roads ,

is there by design..

sonatageek

Marathon Supreme in 26x2.0 is light, tough and rolls well. I have found them to be a 'fast' tire and I like being able to drop the pressure down if I am going through rough terrain (like many of the roads in my general area).

tmac100

I used Schwalbe Marathon 26 X 2.00 tires recently between Perth and Peterborough, South Australia. 2700 km in a month. I have always used Schwalbe. The key for me is to keep them at about 62~65 psi. Too low and I had sidewall failures. Now with the Schwalbe digital pressure gauge I can keep the pressure measured accurately.

DropBarFan

Kinda surprising that Schwalbe sidewalls would break from using lower pressure; I assumed they were designed for use even down to 45 psi depending on load etc.

hilltowner

Same here and also for use on gravel with no complaints (when I can run it softer). I'm into my second pair. The first seemed to wear more rapidly than I expected but I also used them for year-round commuting so I'm not sure how that affected my impression. I must admit I liked the pair of Ritchey Inverts that I first started touring with (and only used for summer touring). But those are not made anymore.

I have a question. I have been using my second pair of Greenguards starting with 1000 mile tour last summer and just competed a shorter 200 miler yesterday. I swapped them front for rear for this year's ride. I had discovered the front had not seated well on last summer's ride and I couldn't eliminate a slight wobble to the tread alignment no matter how hard I tried so I hoped it would be less noticeable on the rear for this most recent ride. Instead I discovered a slight hump to the rear (now front) tire when I swapped them. Again, I couldn't eliminate it with repeated deflations and reinflations with much much fiddling in between.

I now suspect they were seconds and are just not up to spec. I got them at discount through Tree Fort Bikes. Is this reasonable to assume? I'm reluctant to buy another possible pair of seconds (if that is indeed the problem) but was happy enough with the first pair to risk a non-discounted price if I can be sure that everything will work as expected. Any comments?

Tourist in MSN

I assumed that Schwalbe does not knowingly sell seconds. But, I really have no clue. Some of my Schwalbe tires were less than a third of suggested retail price when I bought them after they had been discontinued. Those have been just as good as the others.

I always want my most worn tire on the rear, the last thing I want to risk is a blow out on a front tire. If I had a tire with an odd bump to it, if I continued to use it, I would not have it on the front. When I replace a tire (virtually always a rear), I often take the front and put it on the rear, then the new tire goes on the front.

Jim Kukula

Here is my nifty table for tire pressures, based on Frank Berto's graphs plus some of my own theorizing: Interdependent Science: Bicycle Tire Pressure

65 psi seems very high for a 2 inch tire. But it depends on the load. If you have like 400 pounds total on the two wheels, then yeah 65 psi would be about right.

Depends also on road conditions. Suspension will help smooth the ride on rough roads, so lower psi is more efficient then. On smooth roads, higher pressure will be more efficient.

Max pressure also depends on rim width. Fat tires on narrow rims tend to pull the rims apart, so best not to push the pressure too high. Fatter rims can handle more pressure, just because of the geometry.

nfmisso

Sure, why not? If you keep the same rear hub, you should be able to swap the rear wheels with minimal if any RD tweaking.

Keep in mind that narrower tires will require higher pressure and will result in a firmer ride. They will also transfer more force to the spokes. I am 350#, using 40 spoke wheels with Velocity Aeroheat rims and Wheelmaster "tandem" hubs. My best 559 wheel has Wheelsmith DB15 spokes on the left and DB14 spokes on the right, and has about 2K miles on it with no issues. I started off with SS14 spokes on both sides; the DB spokes provide the extra compliance needed so that no one spoke is taking excessive load before other spokes start sharing the load. A "weaker" (in the center area) spoke results in a STRONGER wheel.

badger_biker 

To the OP I went with 2.0 Continental Travel Contacts on my Panasonic and thus far have been very happy with them. The smooth center tread is great for on road travel and they feel much more stable than narrower 1.5 inch tires I've run in the past. No regrets on the purchase.

hilltowner - I was very interested in your experience because I recently purchased a pair of 27 x 1 1/4 in. Schwalbe green guards and they are next to impossible to get seated without some kind of rise. I even contacted Schwalbe about one which had a wide section in the tread. It was almost 3/16 " wider and appeared to be bad cords. To their credit they were straight forward in replacing it.

I don't know if the reflective band is not parallel with the bead or what but I cannot get them to look like they don't bulge away from the rim in spots. I will note that I am mounting them on old Weinmann straight sided rims and maybe if they had a hook I could get a more even seat. Overall my experience hasn't been too good and I think I would opt for other options in the future. I do however like the tread pattern and puncture resistance but I'm running them at 70 psi max for fear of them blowing off my straight rims and I can't say they are any more comfortable than some Continental Gatorskins of the same size.

Tourist in MSN

I see that nfmisso already responded.

I will just add that I have two sets of wheels for my LHT, Mavic A719 rims with robust 37mm wide touring tires and the other wheels are narrower (cheaper) rims that I mounted 28mm wide supple Continental smooth tires that actually measure 25mm wide. In my case I have a cassette on each set of wheels, that increased the cost a bit.

My faster wheels are not that much faster when I look at total time of travel, but they feel a lot faster and I think I am often in a slightly higher gear when riding them.

Keep in mind that you have to reset the bike computer with different tire circumference data each time you switch wheels.

Tourist in MSN

My Hutchinson Globetrotters have a reflective stripe that is not in the right spot and makes things look rather weird, but it is only the reflective strip that is problematic. The rest of the tire is quite symmetrical and of consistent width.