the Schwalbe Big One / G-One 2.35" 29'er

[Reid]

I will build this posting form as the day goes on, as I meet with, and maybe succeed against, little problems that will crop up.

The goal is to mount Schwalbe Big One 29 x 2.35" tires on both front and rear and without tubes.

Am working on the rear wheel first because it poses the greatest challenge to make fit.

First to fit it in the frame and later rework the fender as needed to pair with the relatively huge tire.

These ultra-lightweight beach racing tires are definitely not Tubeless Easy,

 

[Reid]

My CCS's rear wheel, maybe because of the crash three months ago, is not perfectly centered between the chain stays.

When a fatter tire is mounted rub issues will result. You are seeing a 2" wide tire, not the much taller 2.35" tires I am mounting today. View is from the bottom of the bike,

The dropout




The leading edge of the dropout is filed by hand,

Stock removed to let the wheel laterally rotate to bring the tire into perfect center.
(we kind of want this to be right, anyway. The bike is out of alignment otherwise and less efficient.)


See the gap this process is causing? I'll fashion a shim from that aluminum strip, to hold the desired alignment.
(This job will not weaken or harm anything.)

To be continued....

 

[Dunbar]

I once entertained building a gravel bike around these tires. Truly amazing how low the rolling resistance is combined with, say, 20psi of inflation pressure should make for a magic-carpet ride. You are a brave man for trying to install them. Given how hard to fix a flat I don’t know that I would run them on a rear hub motor e-bike but I suppose the tubeless setup, with sealant, should mitigate some of that concern.

 

[Asher]

I once entertained building a gravel bike around these tires. Truly amazing how low the rolling resistance is combined with, say, 20psi of inflation pressure should make for a magic-carpet ride. You are a brave man for trying to install them. Given how hard to fix a flat I don’t know that I would run them on a rear hub motor e-bike but I suppose the tubeless setup, with sealant, should mitigate some of that concern.

Whatever the outcome of Reid's valiant efforts , I strongly believe Juiced and every other manufacturer serious about making the ultimate fast commuter bike, should design their bikes around these tires, i.e. 2.35" wide 29ers. Charge $50 more, put on 30mm wide rims (still narrow enough to take the biggest Marathon Plus in 700 x 45c) and eliminate the front suspension. I don't know if you can put sealant in the tires before shipping, but if not, include sealant separately. Spend another ~$200 on a Deore or SRAM 1x groupset, and there will be little difference between the Juiced and far more premium bikes.

Also, I looked at Schwalbe's range and there's only one tire out of dozens that's wider, 2.6" Nobby Nic, and it's an off-road tire. So I doubt Schwalbe is going to go any wider in the near future. And the Nobby is not a fast roller. Schwalbe does have wider tires, up to 2.8", for the smaller 27.5" diameter wheel.

"These ultra-lightweight beach racing tires are definitely not Tubeless Easy,"

Lol.

Thank you to the Dutch for having a sport that inspired these!

 

[Reid]

Fat yet thin,

(Tubeless sealant is working great at keeping the air in; all the pinhole leaks sealed up instantly.)


However, is it time to retire from today's attempt to fit such a wide and large circumference tire?

There is like zero clearance. But I am going to make it work or spoil the frame in trying. I just got home from Home Depot with a Husky C clamp. I propose to put a pressure point of sorts on the fixed jaw and a thick pad of hardwood under the movable screw's swivel and apply that side to the outside and press the chainstays a bit thinner. A couple of mm, really, on each side, will do it! What would MacGyver do? Am no MacGyver but then I am not shy to try to make simple mechanical things serve me, and not the other way around.

 

[Asher]

Ha that's a fine clearance if you never want to move. Or make it a 'sideless' tire...

I appreciate your efforts .

I guess the maximum tire width if you're not Reid is 2-2.15". And it's clearly width not height that's the problem, so a wider rim would make it worse.

Oh well, maybe the CCS will get updated and we can sell ours to people on the waiting list .

 

[Reid]

Yep, Asher. Impractical to fit to a CCS, generally speaking.

But I am going to make it work on this bike,

Front tire is a Schwalbe G-One Speed SnakeSkin 29" x 2.0 mounted a couple of weeks ago. I will be changing it out soon for the larger tire size, topic of this thread.

Rear tire is the thread topic, Schwalbe Big One (obsolete 2016 name for today's identical G-One Speed 29" x 2.35" LiteSkin beach racing tire), perhaps the very lowest rolling resistance bicycle tire in production on asphalt today.

Also, please look at the volume difference between the nominal 2" and 2.35" sizes in the video above?

Eyeballing it, to me the rear seems like more than 50% more volume than the front tire.

It is like a fat tire bike now but on Reasonableness Steroids. Juiced cannot slightly modifiy the CCS to take this sized tire without burring the present product line distinction. Nonetheless, all CCS bikes would look better and run better with a Schwalbe SnakeSkin G-One 29" x 2.35" if the frames were only made to take this size of tire.

The bike was easy to pedal before with its pair of 2" wide G-Ones. Now, however, is astonishingly easier yet to pedal.

Even with the higher overall gear ratio caused by the larger circumference of the Big One, the CCS subjectively feels like each gear is two gears lower than before, so to speak.

I am sold on the rear tire and will make it work with more clearance because I like the reduced pedaling effort and the very silky suspension.

To finish crushing in the ID of the chainstays I need something stronger and more powerful than a Husky C clamp. The one I got today at Home Depot (lifetime replacement warranty on all Husky handtools, no matter what) has a malleable iron frame and this soft iron frame bent sideways on me--although it lasted long enough to get the basic clearance needed.

However, I need about 3mm more each side for practial use of this setup.

This would be so easy a job, to adjust for the needed width of the 2.35" nominally wide tire, if I only had the right tool for crushing in the ID of the chainstays...

....has anybody any experience? What do the pros use?

Does this job ever get done by others, or is it a no-no?

Aluminum is ductile in one direction, pretty much OK metal for this sort of additional forming.

 

[Asher]

It is like a fat tire bike now but on Reasonableness Steroids. Juiced cannot slightly modifiy the CCS to take this sized tire without burring the present product line distinction. Nonetheless, all CCS bikes would look better and run better with a Schwalbe SnakeSkin G-One 29" x 2.35" if the frames were only made to take this size of tire.

The bike was easy to pedal before with its pair of 2" wide G-Ones. Now, however, is astonishingly easier yet to pedal.

Even with the higher overall gear ratio caused by the larger circumference of the Big One, the CCS subjectively feels like each gear is two gears lower than before, so to speak.

I am sold on the rear tire and will make it work with more clearance because I like the reduced pedaling effort and the very silky suspension.

So you find these take less power to pedal than the slightly narrower ones, wow! How is that even possible?

Given that, slimmer tires are just borderline... Obsolete.

I've never ridden a fat bike, but I imagine these have most of the upside (comfort, stability, especially with wider rims) and *none* of the downsides, higher rolling resistance and higher weight. And something called autosteer that I don't know about.

Stromer and Trek already stock their ebikes with wide slick tires, but I think these schwalbes are top in class. Vee does a 2.8" slick but it's almost double the weight at 900+ g and I doubt it's anywhere near as smooth.

Despite riding for 100 or so miles with a bulbous, non-flat profile, the little mohawk or lip of rubber in the middle is still there on my tire. So its not wearing very fast.

Retire the CCS and replace it with the Swift Current S . I could do with a little more aggressively forward frame, but mainly it's about the rims and tires.

 

[Nova Haibike]

Boy, you better hope you never break a spoke.

 

[Reid]

If I ever do it's a walk back to home plate to bat again.

 

[Bruce Arnold]

Reid, what about a screw spreader? Would something like this get you that extra 3mm?

I've got to say my heart is in my throat, watching you do this. I'm not anywhere near enough of an engineer to know whether it should give me the willies or not, but it does.

Here's where I sure agree with @Ravi Kempaiah. I hope you're recording all this, photos, videos and notes, every step of the way.

 

[Reid]

Thank you for that idea, Bruce. It may be the ticket!

Here a few minutes ago,

Going to Home Depot to return the sprung clamp and see if they have something larger so I might make a bit more clearance today, to tide me over till I can crush the stays righteously.

Will do a roll-out test of the effective circumference at 25PSI (dot of paint on the tread) and adjust the tire size setting of the display because the bike definitely does not read speed accurately at the moment, going faster than the indicated speed because of the taller tire.

At 25 PSI the rear does not deflect much at all. But it sure does absorb irregularities well and gravel and loose stuff really are taken in perfect stride.

I don't want to be hyperbolic in these declarations of subjective opinion. But this onion skin tire is a revelation of no-rolling resistance.

It is impossible to overstate how much nicer this tire is than what was there before. I have never ridden a nicer rolling bike.

And if this seems like overstatement, just imagine, folks what it would feel like to ride a bike with tires as thin as balloon rubber, were such thinness possible; how effortless it would be to pedal, for there would be no resistance to speak of from the flexure of the tire. Nor resistance, loss of energy, in lifting the bike over each little irregularity. So, if that is the impossible ideal, to float like a boat over shoals, this semi-flotation tire is nearly as close to ideal as is practical for a street tire to be.

A thorn will not flat me. A terrific gash or a sheet metal screw or big nail, of course will. But I am on clean streets and only get a screw or a nail at very long interval. And our gravel here is soft, crushed oolitic limestone with no tendency to cut tires.

And at 25PSI and with the bike's already solid past history, am sure I will never break a spoke. So, if I can gain the two or three more mm of clearance I think is needed, I should be good to go! And then I'll decide whether I should refit the rear fender (probably yes). My ride to HD in a minute more is in the wet. Will see if I get any road dirt on my safety yellow shirt's backside...it would be nice to go fenderless for a while, just for a change of looks.

 

[Dunbar]

I agree, I rode the Ocean Current with its stock balloon tires it rides very nice. I wish the Cross Current had room for a 2.5-3 inch wide tire. I think that many people still falsely assume wider tires at lower pressures are inherently slower which has been repeatedly shown to be false. From my road cycling days I remember reading countless anecdotes of people inflating their tires to very high pressures because they thought it “felt” faster when, in reality, they were measurably slower.

 

[Asher]

This might be a good alternative as well:

29x2.20" from Continental, 465g. ~20% more rolling resistance, bigger than the 2.0" but possibly narrow enough to fit in the back. I'd still go with the 2" Schwalbe G though. I also like that Schwalbe is about bicycle (and wheelchair) tires only .

https://www.continental-tires.com/bicycle/tyres/mountainbike-tyres/speed-king-2-2

 

[Reid]

Asher, I agree it is almost sure to fit the CCS with ease.

And it has knobs off the sides for assistance with gravel!

Here is a pretty good price,

https://www.bike-discount.de/en/buy/continental-speed-king-racesport-29-x-2,2-folging-159139?varid=160687

BTW, I got the front Big One mounted today, no issues. I will have to work some to make the fenders fit and so I will delay that job indefinitely and see if I can still enjoy riding in the rain w/o fenders. The bike looks better, of course, without fenders. The rack seems to stop all the nasty stuff from finding the back of my shirt.

Tubeless Tip I have not read about elsewhere: have found that if I stuff crumpled paper towels (for instance) into the casing for the initial seating process, the first inflation is successful in seating the beads. Then I take out the temp. stuffing (it pushes the beads to lay close to the bead hooks) and fill it up. Snap. Got the idea from the practice I have heard that others use: they install a Gaadi type tube for a new and stubborn tire's first bead seating. These folded tires, you see, have kinks in them that work against bead seating until the tire gets a first inflation and unkinks a bit. The failure of a newly unfolded tire to lay passively right up to the bead hook means so much air leaks by in the initial filling attempt that even a high volume air source may be unable to pop the beads into place.

 

[Nova Haibike]

I think that many people still falsely assume wider tires at lower pressures are inherently slower which has been repeatedly shown to be false.

By the same token, I don't think you can assume that going as wide as possible is faster either. There is not only rolling resistance that has to be accounted for, but also wheel weight and aerodynamics.

 

[Asher]

I was curious about the relationship between tire mass and width, and the relationship basically breaks down after about 45mm on these tires. Did a little research. Rims do get heavier, by ~50g for every 10mm increase in internal diameter, based on Duroc Ringle rims.

For the graphs, I multiplied the internal diameter by two, to roughly correspond to the tire-rim pairing, i.e. you'd pair 30mm ID rims to 60mm/2.35" wide tires. Also, these rims are designed for mountain biking, where presumably rim size corresponds to intended use/terrain. Since for road, the terrain is all the same, as in it won't vary by rim width, the weight gain from going wider may be even less, for rims expressly designed for road use.

Under real world conditions, the fastest, let alone optimal (as in considering comfort too) width might well be higher than 60 mm. All the top tier commuter ebikes I can think of - Stromer, Trek, Specialized - use 2"+ tires. We're only just starting to see tires designed for minimal rolling resistance, maximum comfort, with less concern about weight... Pirelli designed tires for Stromer's ST5. We only have these tires because the Dutch are weird enough to race bikes on the beach .

Maybe in 2019 when Juiced outsells Pedego, it can commission a 3" G-One Speed from Schwalbe .

 

[Dunbar]

By the same token, I don't think you can assume that going as wide as possible is faster either. There is not only rolling resistance that has to be accounted for, but also wheel weight and aerodynamics.

I’ve heard all of the common arguments in my road cycling days. Even if you believe there is a small aerodynamic penalty (the data isn’t so clear on this question) it’s so small as to be irrelevant on an electric bike. Maybe you aren’t aware that these tires have a very low rolling resistance. Probably 30-40W total savings over the stock tires which is enormous for a pair of bicycle tires. The rolling resistance is lower than all but the very best (and very fragile) tubular skinny race tires which is kind of unreal for a balloon tire.

 

[Nova Haibike]

I'm not saying wider isn't better, I'm saying I haven't seen testing to show where the sweet spot is. Of course what size is "best" it is likely going to be different between an e-bike and a regular bicycle, and it will also be different depending on what kind of surface we're talking about But I think it is safe to assume that 4" or more is too wide, as well as plus sized tires.

 

[Asher]

I'm not saying wider isn't better, I'm saying I haven't seen testing to show where the sweet spot is. Of course what size is "best" it is likely going to be different between an e-bike and a regular bicycle, and it will also be different depending on what kind of surface we're talking about But I think it is safe to assume that 4" or more is too wide, as well as plus sized tires.

You can't know what the sweet spot is until you've gone past it - and we clearly haven't, given the praise lavished on these tires, which are the widest available of their kind. Existing tires that are bigger are qualitatively different, so the performance of existing plus and fat tires is irrelevant.

I couldn't find what the Stromer Pirellis are, but they look fairly wide too.

This is much like phone screen sizes, which increased in size (area) by 67%, original iphone vs iphone 8. For the past year or two, the screens have only gotten bigger due to bezels (the frame) disappearing, not because of the handsets getting much bigger. Dell made a big phone before big phones were popular, and it was mocked by reviewers who didn't adjust to it (or maybe there were simply other problems with it).

I think eventually it will be like phones, where you'll have a range of sizes where personal preference prevails - but I doubt that anyone would prefer say, the 2" G-One for ebiking, over the 2.35", provided you can fit either one on your wheel and frame. The same way there isn't much of a market for 3.5-4.3" phones.