New posts

Schwalbe AM Tires

Jan. 25, 2011, 4:26 p.m.
Posts: 10309
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

This might be jumping the gun, but hey, it gives us an excuse to think about dry trails. :)

Anyone have experience with the Nobby Nic and Fat Albert? Differences between tread patterns? I know they have different rubber compounds, so maybe the softer compound on the Fat Albert would make it a little better for those damp but not soaking days?

I have a set of 2.35 snakeskin/gooey muddy marys that I'm very happy with for the slop and wet, but I'm wanting something a little smaller/faster for the transition to spring/summer.

I'm thinking the 2.25" and Double Defense versions for both.

Check my stuff for sale!

Jan. 25, 2011, 4:53 p.m.
Posts: 14605
Joined: Dec. 16, 2003

I rode the Wicked Wills for a bit last year, they were pretty good until it got sloppy. Maybe better for the dryer side of damp though.

Jan. 25, 2011, 5:36 p.m.
Posts: 2574
Joined: April 2, 2005

ww is a dry only tire. pretty sure schwalbe is advertising it like this.

Jan. 25, 2011, 7:07 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 6, 2005

I have been running a set of Fat Albert tires on my Summer Season and they are phenomenal in the current weather - at least on trails with dirt. I haven't ridden the North Shore yet. But, all-in-all they have great grip and hold corners well and don't slide on roots while climbing. I can also run pretty low pretty pressure as they are pretty big volume in 2.25 version.

Jan. 25, 2011, 10:18 p.m.
Posts: 10309
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

I have been running a set of Fat Albert tires on my Summer Season and they are phenomenal in the current weather - at least on trails with dirt. I haven't ridden the North Shore yet. But, all-in-all they have great grip and hold corners well and don't slide on roots while climbing. I can also run pretty low pretty pressure as they are pretty big volume in 2.25 version.

hmm, any pics of them mounted?

Check my stuff for sale!

Jan. 25, 2011, 10:33 p.m.
Posts: 402
Joined: Nov. 28, 2002

I've been running a 2.25 NN rear and a 2.4 FA front since mid-summer on my Blur LT. I really like the FA a lot - lots of grip in all conditions, especially excellent in dry and loose conditions. The NN I'm kind of neutral on. Rolls well enough, is pretty light, and has ok grip, but I find that I sometimes have some trouble getting it to hook up particularly when there is any moisture (compared to my old Maxxis Advantage, which was a pretty nice grippy tire, if a bit heavier). I've been thinking of switching up to 2.25 FA Rear but there's always that worry that a really grippy rear tire is just going to be Too Damned Slow (especially on a bike that I typically pedal all day long). Just gotta try it I guess…

Jan. 25, 2011, 10:41 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 6, 2005

hmm, any pics of them mounted?

Only this one so far. I can snap one of the wheel/tire only.

Jan. 25, 2011, 10:44 p.m.
Posts: 10309
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Only this one so far. I can snap one of the wheel/tire only.

nah that'll do just fine. :rocker:

Check my stuff for sale!

Jan. 26, 2011, 8:57 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 4, 2010

have run both the 2.25 nn f/r and the 2.25 fa f/r ust. running the FA f/r set up as my winter xc tire and am lovin it. great grip, doesn't pack up, and climbs like a beast. not looking for top end speed right now so don't have an issue with the extra weight and rolling resistance. haven't ridden in it in the dry so won't comment on performance but expect it to run as a advertised, grip[HTML_REMOVED] speed. will switch FA tires to AM bike when it drys out on the shore and revert back to Rocket Rons for racing.
As for nn… i ran them ghetto tubeless for the BC bike race 2yrs ago. Had issues with them holding pressure and feeling squeemish. Not sure they are the best tire for BC conditions. They run neither fast nor slow and their grip is not great or not bad. For a tire as expensive as they are I'd drop down to a RR if you're racing or go with Ignitors if your after the best of both worlds.

Jan. 26, 2011, 9:20 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: April 21, 2008

Nobby Nics are the worst.

Me. Car/Web Work. Twitter. FFFFound.

Jan. 26, 2011, 10:13 a.m.
Posts: 10309
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

The Worst?!?

Check my stuff for sale!

Jan. 26, 2011, 10:46 a.m.
Posts: 14115
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

Nobby Nics are the worst.

worse then Kenda Collosal, or Nokian Gazzy's ???

i find that hard to beleive..cuz those 2 tires are some truely horrificaly bad tires.

Jan. 26, 2011, 12:13 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: April 21, 2008

I tend to be hyperbolic. They suck.

Me. Car/Web Work. Twitter. FFFFound.

Jan. 26, 2011, 12:16 p.m.
Posts: 5731
Joined: June 24, 2003

A lot of guys like the Racing Ralph 2.25 in the summer and even in winter on the back with a 2.25 Nobby Nic on the front. I understand that most of the Schwalbes for 2011 will have a tubeless ready bead making them easier to use as a tubeless tire.

I've been using standard single ply 2.25 Schwalbes as tubeless with Stan's sealant and they work very well with respect to the ability to hold air and maintain pressure. Some combo's of tire and rim are a challenge to air up though so I am looking forward to tubeless ready Schwalbes. I like the Nobby Nics just fine myself.

L. Ron: Nobby Nics are the worst compared to…?

Debate? Bikes are made for riding not pushing.

Jan. 26, 2011, 12:19 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 18, 2007

The Nobby Nic's are a great light grippy tire in dry to moist conditions, but are like greased lightning in the wet. I haven't tried the Fat Alberts yet, but am going to be running them this summer in the new TrailStar compound. I love the Muddy Mary's in the Gooey rubber, but they are a slow pedaling tire. Thus, I think the FA will be the new 'most conditions' champion.

Forum jump: