Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Tires for the Big Dummy - 2.35 Big Apples or Hookworms

Expand Messages
  • Wes T
    Bill, I ve ready many different viewpoints on the effects of tire pressures with respect to flats and rolling resistance, enough so that I have no desire to
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 26, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      I've ready many different viewpoints on the effects of tire pressures with respect to flats and rolling resistance, enough so that I have no desire to delve into that debate. However, I will say that running Big Apples at max pressure kind of defeats the purpose of having Big Apples in the first place. So onto my soapbox:
      Go tubeless! I'm not sure why there is such a resistance among bikers to accept this conversion but let me tell you, from one of the converted, there's no better solution that I have found!

      I'm lucky enough to only have to go into work once a week (the rest of the week I work from home). Last year I would flat almost every trip into work. Sometimes they'd be slow leaks, sometimes fast leaks, and one time I got three flats in one day! Every time it was nastly little thorn burr things that seems to effortlessly penetrate any tire I tried to run. What's worse, I could never see these thorns at all, so I had no idea what section of my route to avoid. It finally got to the point where I was running "spin skin" liners, thorn resistant tubes and slime. While this setup did work to prevent flats my wheels were rediculously heavy and slow. Last winter I decided to try tubeless (ghetto tubeless to be exact - using non-tubless specific tires & rims) and I have never looked back since. To date I have converted 7 wheelsets over to tubeless and have had exactly 1 flat on a tubeless tire and that was a 1" wide sidewall gash that I got glancing off a loose brick! I don't have an exact total of miles, but between all my bikes I conservatively estimate over 3000 miles on tubeless tires with one flat and over half of those miles are offroad single-track.

      Besides the superior puncture sealing qualities, the other advantage to tubeless is you can run rediculously low tire pressures. Just yesterday I was thinking the tires were a little squishy on my X so I thought I would add a little air to them - come to find out I had been running around (probably for a couple days) with around 15psi on a cargo bike! Really, the only disadvantages I see with tubeless are, it takes more time to setup the wheel initially and it's more of a pain if you want to switch out tires often...but I can't imagine anyone really being in love with the idea of switching out tires on an xtracylce anyway.

      OK, soapbox over

      Go here if you want a home-brew tubeless sealant (or you can put it into tubes as well) -- works very well.
      http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=406115

      You can also go here if you want to know more about ghetto-tubeless
      http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=514336

      Wes

      --- In rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com, Bill Bonney <billbonney@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > > Another weird fact--all of those leaks were in the back tire. Could
      > > it be that my cargo was increasing the contact patch of my back tire
      > > enough to increase the odds it would snag and then embed the
      > > staples? The front never had a leak. That just seems so improbable
      > > to me.
      > >
      > Interesting that you mention this, I read this article on Sheldon
      > Brown's site a long time ago. It's an email from Jobst Brandt on the
      > subject "More Flats on Rear Tires "
      >
      > "For example, nails seldom enter front tires. When dropped from a
      > moving vehicle, nails slide down the road, and align themselves
      > pointing toward traffic, because they prefer to slide head first as
      > they would when laid on a slope. The front tire rolling over such a
      > lengthwise nail, can tilt it up just in time for the rear tire to
      > encounter it on end. I once got a flat from a one inch diameter steel
      > washer that the front tire had flipped up so that the rear tire struck
      > it on edge. When following another wheel closely, the front tire can
      > get the "rear tire" treatment from the preceding wheel."
      >
      > see http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rear-flats.html
      >
      > Maybe this is the reason for the improbability?
      >
      > I have done 4000kms on 1.5inch Schawble Marathon tyres and one slow
      > flat from some 'nano' thorn. I believe that you can avoid lots of
      > flats by just having a higher tyre pressure. One nearer the maximum
      > rating for the trye and not the lower end.
      >
      > Cheers
      >
      > Bill
      >
    • Sean Moore
      Very cool Wes! My stepson wants to do ghetto tubeless on his BMX bike so maybe we will give it a shot. Dave: If you run a cotton ball around the inside of
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 26, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Very cool Wes!  My stepson wants to do ghetto tubeless on his BMX bike so maybe we will give it a shot.

        Dave:  If you run a cotton ball around the inside of the tire before putting the tube in you can usually find any and all little sharp things.  They tear off bits of the cotton ball and give themselves away.

        --
        Sean Moore
        moore.sean@...


        On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Wes T <watrout@...> wrote:
         

        Bill,

        I've ready many different viewpoints on the effects of tire pressures with respect to flats and rolling resistance, enough so that I have no desire to delve into that debate. However, I will say that running Big Apples at max pressure kind of defeats the purpose of having Big Apples in the first place. So onto my soapbox:
        Go tubeless! I'm not sure why there is such a resistance among bikers to accept this conversion but let me tell you, from one of the converted, there's no better solution that I have found!

        I'm lucky enough to only have to go into work once a week (the rest of the week I work from home). Last year I would flat almost every trip into work. Sometimes they'd be slow leaks, sometimes fast leaks, and one time I got three flats in one day! Every time it was nastly little thorn burr things that seems to effortlessly penetrate any tire I tried to run. What's worse, I could never see these thorns at all, so I had no idea what section of my route to avoid. It finally got to the point where I was running "spin skin" liners, thorn resistant tubes and slime. While this setup did work to prevent flats my wheels were rediculously heavy and slow. Last winter I decided to try tubeless (ghetto tubeless to be exact - using non-tubless specific tires & rims) and I have never looked back since. To date I have converted 7 wheelsets over to tubeless and have had exactly 1 flat on a tubeless tire and that was a 1" wide sidewall gash that I got glancing off a loose brick! I don't have an exact total of miles, but between all my bikes I conservatively estimate over 3000 miles on tubeless tires with one flat and over half of those miles are offroad single-track.

        Besides the superior puncture sealing qualities, the other advantage to tubeless is you can run rediculously low tire pressures. Just yesterday I was thinking the tires were a little squishy on my X so I thought I would add a little air to them - come to find out I had been running around (probably for a couple days) with around 15psi on a cargo bike! Really, the only disadvantages I see with tubeless are, it takes more time to setup the wheel initially and it's more of a pain if you want to switch out tires often...but I can't imagine anyone really being in love with the idea of switching out tires on an xtracylce anyway.

        OK, soapbox over

        Go here if you want a home-brew tubeless sealant (or you can put it into tubes as well) -- works very well.
        http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=406115

        You can also go here if you want to know more about ghetto-tubeless
        http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=514336

        Wes



        --- In rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com, Bill Bonney <billbonney@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > > Another weird fact--all of those leaks were in the back tire. Could
        > > it be that my cargo was increasing the contact patch of my back tire
        > > enough to increase the odds it would snag and then embed the
        > > staples? The front never had a leak. That just seems so improbable
        > > to me.
        > >
        > Interesting that you mention this, I read this article on Sheldon
        > Brown's site a long time ago. It's an email from Jobst Brandt on the
        > subject "More Flats on Rear Tires "
        >
        > "For example, nails seldom enter front tires. When dropped from a
        > moving vehicle, nails slide down the road, and align themselves
        > pointing toward traffic, because they prefer to slide head first as
        > they would when laid on a slope. The front tire rolling over such a
        > lengthwise nail, can tilt it up just in time for the rear tire to
        > encounter it on end. I once got a flat from a one inch diameter steel
        > washer that the front tire had flipped up so that the rear tire struck
        > it on edge. When following another wheel closely, the front tire can
        > get the "rear tire" treatment from the preceding wheel."
        >
        > see http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rear-flats.html
        >
        > Maybe this is the reason for the improbability?
        >
        > I have done 4000kms on 1.5inch Schawble Marathon tyres and one slow
        > flat from some 'nano' thorn. I believe that you can avoid lots of
        > flats by just having a higher tyre pressure. One nearer the maximum
        > rating for the trye and not the lower end.
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        > Bill
        >


      • kipchogenotkip
        Hey Morgan, Cool data! I m very curious how your numbers changed with the bar swap? Also, I m curious how your riding experience changed with the bar swap?
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 26, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hey Morgan,

          Cool data! I'm very curious how your numbers changed with the bar swap? Also, I'm curious how your riding experience changed with the bar swap? What speeds are you averaging in this research?

          peace,

          kipchoge


          --- In rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com, Morgan <mcgurme@...> wrote:
          >
          > Ever since the discussion late last spring about comparing these two
          > tires, I have been comparing the two. I had the Hookworms on my Big
          > Dummy for almost 3 months, then now the 2.35 Big Apple (rear) and 2.0
          > Big Apple (front) for the past month. I've been making quantitative
          > measurements using my electric assist kit, measuring how much power I
          > used over time with each tire. I also noticed ride feel differences.
          >
          > Here are my observations:
          > - I was very surprised to find out that the Big Apples seem more
          > absorbing of road shock than the Hookworm. The Hookworm seems to have
          > a lot more air volume - but it does not seem as supple. The Big
          > Apples are very supple, and handle better IMHO.
          >
          > - The acceleration is better on the Big Apples, they feel lighter
          >
          > - I gained about 0.75 to 1 watt hour per mile of efficiency on the Big
          > Apples. With the Hookworms I was averaging 17 watt hours per mile
          > with my electric assist, and with the Big Apples I averaged around 16
          > or just barely over. BUT, my average speed was also a bit higher on
          > the Big Apples, so if I had kept the speed down, the efficiency gain
          > would have been even better.
          >
          > - I didn't have a flat with the Hookworms in 3 months of riding over
          > glass, gravel, rocks, grass, potholes, etc. However, after 3 weeks of
          > riding the Big Apples, I had a flat on the rear due to penetration of
          > a big glass shard. It may have been a fluke, but it made me concerned
          > (changing the tire with my Nuvinci setup is not totally trivial).
          >
          > I didn't capture efficiency data on the Big Apples for very long,
          > because after a few weeks I swapped out my cruiser handlebars for some
          > Titec H-bars. The lowered riding position dramatically improved my on-
          > bike efficiency and speed, so I could no longer make fair comparisons
          > between the two tires. However, during the time I did compare, the
          > Big Apples clearly produced a small but measurable gain in efficiency.
          >
          > I'm sticking with the Big Apples on my Big Dummy for now, unless I
          > have more puncture issues.
          >
          > That's my $0.02. BTW, we have the used Hookworms that I demoed for
          > this experiment for sale (only 3 months/400 or so miles) for cheap.
          > And we have a few of the Big Apples in stock too.
          >
          > Morgan
          > http://www.cycle9.com
          >
          >
          >
          > > Tires for the Big Dummy - 2.35 Big Apples or HookwormsPosted by:
          > > "David Dannenberg" ddannenberg@... djdannenbergWed Sep 23, 2009
          > > 8:33 am (PDT)
          > >
          > >
          > > I use the huge Hookworms--2.5" I think with 29er fenders. A close fit,
          > > but no problem and I ride dry in rain, snow, mud, salt...
          > >
          > > David
          >
        • David Dannenberg
          Bought the kit months ago. Failed the first time I tried to set it up and simply need to schedule some time with someone experienced to help me with it. Thanks
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 26, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Bought the kit months ago. Failed the first time I tried to set it up
            and simply need to schedule some time with someone experienced to help
            me with it. Thanks for the reminder. Ought to do it before the next
            rear tire flat in the cold rain miles from home on the loaded BD with
            the Rohloff...

            Dave
          • Morgan
            Hey, Sorry for the slow response. The bar swap seemed to reduce my watt hours per mile by almost 2, from just over 16 to just over 14 wh/mi, a greater than 10%
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey,
              Sorry for the slow response.

              The bar swap seemed to reduce my watt hours per mile by almost 2, from just over 16 to just over 14 wh/mi, a greater than 10% difference.  However, my average speeds also increased by about 0.5 mph, from a typical number of around 16.7-16.8 mph to mid-17 mph range, sometimes even close to 18.  That's in mixed country and city riding, with a bunch of stops in the city.  On the country road stretches, I find that I can maintain a higher speed with significantly less total energy input.  There is a long stretch with a very slight down slope.  With the cruiser bars, on that stretch I would have to use the electric assist to get much over 19 mph.  Now I can maintain 22-23 mph on that stretch with no assist if I tuck down just a bit.

              With both sets of bars, when I slow intentionally down to the < 15 mph range, energy usage goes waaay down to 6-8 watt hours per mile.  Speed makes a big difference with either bar, but it makes more difference with the upright bar.  Since I like to ride fast, especially on the country road, the bars make a big difference.  If I weren't such a speedaholic, or if I only rode in the city, the bars probably wouldn't make much difference.

              It is no wonder that cars are such energy hogs... always traveling around at > 30 mph.

              In all, I really like the H-bars.  They have both a "comfort" position and a tuck position, and several others just to rest the wrists and hands.  The only downsides of these bars are that they are a bit heavy (unless you get the titanium version from Jeff Jones), and they aren't compatible with some shifter types.  They do work well with the Nuvinci shifter, however.

              Regards,
              Morgan


              Tires for the Big Dummy - 2.35 Big Apples or Hookworms

              Posted by: "kipchogenotkip" kipchoge@...   kipchogenotkip

              Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:53 am (PDT)



              Hey Morgan,

              Cool data! I'm very curious how your numbers changed with the bar swap? Also, I'm curious how your riding experience changed with the bar swap? What speeds are you averaging in this research?

              peace,

              kipchoge

            • Allen Wade
              Hey All, Check out the Kenda Kiniption . They have a psi rating of 30-80, thread all the way down to the rims, and come in a 26x2.3 They were designed for
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 30, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey All,
                Check out the Kenda "Kiniption". They have a psi rating of 30-80, thread all the way down to the rims, and come in a 26x2.3 They were designed for 26" street jumping. So far I love them, no flats, low resistance, and good traction!

                Peace,
                Big Al
                -----Original Message-----
                Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:53:09 pm
                To: rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com
                From: "Morgan" <mcgurme@...>
                Subject: [rootsradicals] Re:Tires for the Big Dummy - 2.35 Big Apples or Hookworms

                Hey,
                Sorry for the slow response.

                The bar swap seemed to reduce my watt hours per mile by almost 2, from
                just over 16 to just over 14 wh/mi, a greater than 10% difference.
                However, my average speeds also increased by about 0.5 mph, from a
                typical number of around 16.7-16.8 mph to mid-17 mph range, sometimes
                even close to 18. That's in mixed country and city riding, with a
                bunch of stops in the city. On the country road stretches, I find
                that I can maintain a higher speed with significantly less total
                energy input. There is a long stretch with a very slight down slope.
                With the cruiser bars, on that stretch I would have to use the
                electric assist to get much over 19 mph. Now I can maintain 22-23 mph
                on that stretch with no assist if I tuck down just a bit.

                With both sets of bars, when I slow intentionally down to the < 15 mph
                range, energy usage goes waaay down to 6-8 watt hours per mile. Speed
                makes a big difference with either bar, but it makes more differenc
              • Rick | Xtracycle, Inc
                This will void your H-bar warranty, but I was able to get my Rolhoff shifter onto the bars by very carefully filing away some of the large weld near the bull
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 30, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  This will void your H-bar warranty, but I was able to get my Rolhoff shifter onto the bars by very carefully filing away some of the large weld near the "bull horn" joint.

                  Again, you will void your warranty and possibly kill yourself, but so far I haven't noticed any stress cracks and enjoy the riding position the bars offer.

                  Rick

                  On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Morgan <mcgurme@...> wrote:
                   

                  Hey,
                  Sorry for the slow response.

                  The bar swap seemed to reduce my watt hours per mile by almost 2, from just over 16 to just over 14 wh/mi, a greater than 10% difference.  However, my average speeds also increased by about 0.5 mph, from a typical number of around 16.7-16.8 mph to mid-17 mph range, sometimes even close to 18.  That's in mixed country and city riding, with a bunch of stops in the city.  On the country road stretches, I find that I can maintain a higher speed with significantly less total energy input.  There is a long stretch with a very slight down slope.  With the cruiser bars, on that stretch I would have to use the electric assist to get much over 19 mph.  Now I can maintain 22-23 mph on that stretch with no assist if I tuck down just a bit.

                  With both sets of bars, when I slow intentionally down to the < 15 mph range, energy usage goes waaay down to 6-8 watt hours per mile.  Speed makes a big difference with either bar, but it makes more difference with the upright bar.  Since I like to ride fast, especially on the country road, the bars make a big difference.  If I weren't such a speedaholic, or if I only rode in the city, the bars probably wouldn't make much difference.

                  It is no wonder that cars are such energy hogs... always traveling around at > 30 mph.

                  In all, I really like the H-bars.  They have both a "comfort" position and a tuck position, and several others just to rest the wrists and hands.  The only downsides of these bars are that they are a bit heavy (unless you get the titanium version from Jeff Jones), and they aren't compatible with some shifter types.  They do work well with the Nuvinci shifter, however.

                  Regards,
                  Morgan


                  Posted by: "kipchogenotkip" kipchoge@...   kipchogenotkip

                  Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:53 am (PDT)



                  Hey Morgan,

                  Cool data! I'm very curious how your numbers changed with the bar swap? Also, I'm curious how your riding experience changed with the bar swap? What speeds are you averaging in this research?

                  peace,

                  kipchoge




                  --
                  graphic structuralist | rick@...
                  888 537 1401 x709 | the original longtail company
                • Andrew Kreps
                  On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:52 PM, ryan.alward@att.net ... I used the SKS fenders with no problem on the Big Dummy with the 2.35 Big Apples. I did custom mount
                  Message 8 of 27 , Oct 5, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:52 PM, ryan.alward@...
                    <ryan.alward@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I have read that the 2.35 Big Apples can fit on the BD with fenders if you use the largest SKS fenders.
                    >

                    I used the SKS fenders with no problem on the Big Dummy with the 2.35
                    Big Apples. I did custom mount work with zip ties and pieces of
                    bicycle tubes for a quiet install.

                    > One reason why I want new tires is because I have been getting a couple flats lately. I want something with more flat protection. It seems like the Big Apples would have better flat protection.

                    The Big Apples may or may not offer better flat protection than the
                    tires you're using. I had four flats in two weeks using these tires,
                    after 2 months of flawless service. Use a Mr Tuffy or one of those
                    Panaracer Kevlar strips if you're serious about flat protection. Or
                    go Armadillo.
                  • ryan.alward@att.net
                    I got my 2.35 BA S mounted last night. I was able to still use my wide planet bike fenders. There isn t much clearance inthe rear but they work. I noticed
                    Message 9 of 27 , Oct 5, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I got my 2.35 BA'S mounted last night. I was able to still use my wide planet bike fenders. There isn't much clearance inthe rear but they work. I noticed the slightest rubbing on the rear on my way to work this morning. A minor adjustment and the should be perfect.

                      Thanks everyone for the input!!

                      --- In rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Kreps <andrew.kreps@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:52 PM, ryan.alward@...
                      > <ryan.alward@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I have read that the 2.35 Big Apples can fit on the BD with fenders if you use the largest SKS fenders.
                      > >
                      >
                      > I used the SKS fenders with no problem on the Big Dummy with the 2.35
                      > Big Apples. I did custom mount work with zip ties and pieces of
                      > bicycle tubes for a quiet install.
                      >
                      > > One reason why I want new tires is because I have been getting a couple flats lately. I want something with more flat protection. It seems like the Big Apples would have better flat protection.
                      >
                      > The Big Apples may or may not offer better flat protection than the
                      > tires you're using. I had four flats in two weeks using these tires,
                      > after 2 months of flawless service. Use a Mr Tuffy or one of those
                      > Panaracer Kevlar strips if you're serious about flat protection. Or
                      > go Armadillo.
                      >
                    • David Dannenberg
                      I use 29er fenders with the 2/5 Hookworms on the BD. David
                      Message 10 of 27 , Oct 6, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I use 29er fenders with the 2/5" Hookworms on the BD.

                        David
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.