Introduced in 2005 Nobby Nic has since won the heart of many mountainbikers, especially in Europe. Since its introduction its gone through several changes, knobs have gotten longer, and their direction has been altered among other things. In 2010 it got the AM-label as well - it was no longer just a xc tire - and that puts it in the spotlight here on All Mountain Next.
Ive been running this tire for 2 months now, in soft and loose conditions, both dry and wet, and this is actually a decent performing tire, I have a hard time putting my finger on a single bad thing about this tire for these conditions - well besides the medium rolling resistance. The logs does its job in the corners, in off camber situations, and the tire hasn't let me down a single time yet regarding grip, to my surprise, and Ive been trying to push this tire hard. Its not a fast tire on hardpack, so dont expect Maxxis Highroller/Specialized Chunder performance. Do, however, expect mistake swallowing performance. I must note the predictable braking as well.
What I don't like about this tire is, that its prone to punctures, just like the Schwalbe Fat Albert. Ive had more punctures during these months testing time, than I had during an entire year(!). The other thing I disliked, is the fact that this tire fell completely apart - oh just a minor thing, eh? The sidewalls got more and more torn, started to disintegrate, and a few weeks ago I could measure a complete 30cm long hole along the sidewall - that has to be some kind of record. I have no idea why the tire died this fast, my trails are not hard on tires. This makes me think that somethings fishy in the Schwalbe factory. It all ended in a catastrophic failure. Avoid.
Ive been running this tire for 2 months now, in soft and loose conditions, both dry and wet, and this is actually a decent performing tire, I have a hard time putting my finger on a single bad thing about this tire for these conditions - well besides the medium rolling resistance. The logs does its job in the corners, in off camber situations, and the tire hasn't let me down a single time yet regarding grip, to my surprise, and Ive been trying to push this tire hard. Its not a fast tire on hardpack, so dont expect Maxxis Highroller/Specialized Chunder performance. Do, however, expect mistake swallowing performance. I must note the predictable braking as well.
What I don't like about this tire is, that its prone to punctures, just like the Schwalbe Fat Albert. Ive had more punctures during these months testing time, than I had during an entire year(!). The other thing I disliked, is the fact that this tire fell completely apart - oh just a minor thing, eh? The sidewalls got more and more torn, started to disintegrate, and a few weeks ago I could measure a complete 30cm long hole along the sidewall - that has to be some kind of record. I have no idea why the tire died this fast, my trails are not hard on tires. This makes me think that somethings fishy in the Schwalbe factory. It all ended in a catastrophic failure. Avoid.
Size: 2.25"
Tested on: Rear
Claimed weight: 545 gram
Actual weight: 564 gram
Score: 0/6
Very lightweight, perhaps too lightweight for its own good.
(click to enlarge)
Great performance...while it lasts..
(click to enlarge)
Failure bound to happen. It started with this sidewall tear. It developed into 2 ruptures, then it began on the other side as well. Fabric became more and more thin. Until...
(click to enlarge)
..Until the tube itself was popping out. I knew then, it was time to retire this tire to the bin. Absolutely not All mountain compatible. Riding forgiving xc? Well then perhaps yes.
(click to enlarge)
Which version did you used exactly?
ReplyDeleteThere few models of the NN "evolution line" with different structures and compounds. Watch the Schwalbe website.
But for me, one of disadvantage of the NN is it's slippery "PaceStar" compound on wet rocks/roots
You are right, should have been more specific. Review updated. Thanks : )
ReplyDeleteIts indeed the Pacestar compound.
What tire pressure(s) where you using?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember exactly, but allways within whats recommended by Schwalbe.
ReplyDeleteNice review, thanks! How did you find the width? Was it a real 2.5? How does it's width compare to other tires? (2.5 or other) Have you tried the snakeskin version?....if so, any more durable?
ReplyDeleteSorry, meant 2.25 above!
ReplyDeleteHi there, Schwalbe tires are huge, the 2.25 was definitely leaning more towards a 2.3" imo. Perhaps even more.
ReplyDeleteNo snakeskin?
ReplyDeleteI find snakeskin reinforcement to be a huge improvement for Schwalbe tires.
I will try a snakeskin version next time. Hopefully its better.
ReplyDeleteI've ran the Snakeskin version for about 6 months now and have put ~1100 miles on them No tears on the sidewalls and no issues with burping (Stan's Arch rims). There were times when I thought I would rip the sidewall on rocks but they just keep going. I just bought The non-snakeskin version today to save some weight. The difference is almost 200grams between both tires. The non snakeskin version we weighed at 520gm and the snakeskin version came in at 610gm. Hopefully I won't have any issues with these.
ReplyDeleteThe front tread on mine still look decent, but the tire doesn't perform anywhere near it did when it was new so they must go...probably have about 400 miles too much on them. Oh and front was GSC, rear PCS.
Yes, I guess I should have gone for the snakeskin version, the non snakeskin version featured in this review just came apart : /
ReplyDelete