Medium Nitto Big Rear Rack on my Hunqapillar + 2.35 Big Apples

[René Sterental]

Taking advantage of the higher placed bottom braze-ons for the rear rack on my 58cm Hunqapillar, I decided to install the medium sized Nitto Big Rear Rack instead of the large one that I have on the Atlantis. The main reason was that I noticed on photos that some of the rear racks appeared to fit closer to the seatpost and therefore, the "handle" on the top didn't interfere with larger saddlebags. I ordered one, installed it yesterday and couldn't be more satisfied.

The medium Sackville Saddlebag still doesn't fit as well as it does on its purposely designed for Nitto R-14, but it is less tilted than on the large rack. Still not to my liking, but bearable aesthetically. Functionally it works well. The medium rack doesn't interfere with the Acorn large saddlebag and works perfectly with the Carradice Longflap Camper.

I also installed the 2.35 Schwalbe Big Apple Liteskin tires to test them out and am happy to report that the clearance is 5mm on each side. I only managed to test ride them around the neighborhood and was initially shocked at how incredibly more cushy they are after having ridden the bike with the 40mm Marathon Extremes. The Extremes I had pumped to 50F/80R and the BAs are pumped to 25F/40R. I'll have to test them out on the road and trails when I get back from a business trip to Chicago next weekend, so stay tuned for a report. I'll also have to play around with the tire pressure. The Excel calculator based on the BQs optimal tire pressure for my weight + the bike recommends 20F/33R, so I'm quite close.

The initial feeling was a bit more sluggish than with the Extremes, but that may have to do more with their plushness than with any actual speed reduction. I was just riding back and forth on the street in front of my house. When leaning the bike over for tight turns with one leg down, the tire was "squirming" - making rubber noises. I don't know if squirming is the right term, but it seems that the contact patch is so large that the rubber just makes noises as you turn it since one side is being displaced more than the other. I was planning to use the 50mm BAs on the Hunqapillar unless I wanted to run knobbies (I got a pair of 29x2.25 Schwalbe Nobby Nics) but I may end up just leaving the 60mm BAs instead.

Photos can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/3v28e6l

René

[Michael Hechmer]

Weight does matter, especially when accelerating a tire.  The 2.35 Big Apple weighs 830 grams or 1.8 lbs. each of rotating weight.  By comparison the very comfortable 26x1.5 Marathon Racer I have on my tandem weigh only 390 grams.  That is going to make a huge difference when you ride uphill or try to accelerate a wheel.

Michael

[PATRICK MOORE]

I've used the 2.35s extensively, both "Lite" and "Even Heavier" and:

1. Yes, they are tanks compared to lighter tires: my Fargo feels like
a new bike with the otherwise very doggy 32 mm Pasela Tourguards,
especially up hills.
2. Compared to knobbies, even good-pavement-rolling knobbies like the
Exiwolf, the BAs roll very well. I notice a perhaps 1-2 mph difference
overall on the flats, perhaps not even that, depending on what other
tires I am comparing them to.
3. They are cush! I run mine at no more than say 20/25 F/R on
pavement, as low as 12/16 or so on sand. Heck, I even have run them at
12/16 on pavement. They still roll surprisingly well, tho' you do
bounce at high rpm, and they sag a bit on tight corners.
4. They are more puncture resistant -- using resistance to goatheads
as the benchmark -- than any other tire I've met.

Lastly, I am comparing my BA Liteskins with other tires with the BAs
mounted on also very heavy, 800 gram SnoCat rims -- it is these that
allow the very low pressures.

I am pleased to hear that the Hunq accepts the 60s, tho' 5 mm/side
ain't much (the Fargo, and even the old Diamond Back 26-er) take 65
actuals with fenders and with room for mud. From Rene's photos it
looks as if the 60s take up all the room there is, but if I were to
get a Hunq it would be for use as (odd as this may sound) an off road
gofast, so I'd not need fenders.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/qSo6IIT3vF0J.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
patric...@resumespecialties.com

A billion stars go spinning through the night
Blazing high above your head;
But in you is the Presence that will be
When all the stars are dead.
(Rilke, Buddha in Glory)

[robert zeidler]

+1 I don't see the advantage of these super fat tires. I would be in
the group that completely disagrees with the tests in BQ that fatter
tires roll faster etc. If that were truly the case the mfg's would not
hesitate to hype that to no end, and totally re-tire the world,
especially the racing community.

Comfort is another matter altogether, but you can even get 23c's to be
comfy is you experiment w/ pressures. Striking the balance in terms
of width, pressure, typical road surfaces, weight of rider and stuff
is the key.

As always, YMMV.

[PATRICK MOORE]

2.35s are overkill on all except the roughest or softest surfaces, but
there the certainly do make a difference as I know from experience. No
one, certainly not BQ, maintains that fatter is better beyond a
certain point. I use BAs instead of knobbies because I do have to ride
on pavement to get to the dirt, and I hate driving a knobby over
several miles of pavement. A 2.35 BA does better in sand than a 2.35
knobby does on pavement.

As to the BQ rollout tests, take them for what they are, but do you
have a reason beside "no one else does it" for disagreement?

I personally am very interested in BQ's latest assertion that
*diameter* does not matter a great deal: if I knew that 559X60s rolled
as well in sand as 622X60s (IME they do not) I would give up my search
for a lightweight 29er and simply rebuild the very nice old DB Axis
Team frameset I have on a shelf into a light, off road (here in the
ABQ valley, that means deep sand) single speed. Anyone?

--