Thanks! I'm using the 2.1" (53 mm) version of the Thunder Burt Super Race TLE on my Canyon Grizl gravel bike. At least for this purpose, I find it an almost ideal tyre that is very speedy on and off tarmac, while being sufficiently robust, but light. Cheers.
I used Thunder Burts for a gravel race on my Canyon Lux MTB. It was hard to find a pressure where they are comfortable. I ended up at 0.9 bars (13 psi) which is quite low.
@@Kosmologika My experience is similar to yours in that I find even a 0.1 bar difference very noticeable with these fat tyres, either in comfort, "bobbing", or rolling speed. I settled on 1.65 bar in the front and 1.75 bar in the back for the 53 mm tyre as a good compromise on all these aspects.
@jelegheert.. I'm considering using these (2.10) for gravel racing.. My question to you.. What is your weight and your bike weight? And just what kind of gravel have you used these without suffering punctures? light smooth gravel? moderate gravel? I'm about 63 kilos and my bike that I'm building for gravel racing is about 8kilos. Also, what is the inner width of your rims? I'm wondering if that makes any significant difference? I'll be using them on a wide (27mm) inner width carbon rim.
@@williammorris4419 Hi! I am 62 kg and my Grizl must be ~8.5 kg with pedals and mounts. My rims are Wheelsfar carbon rims onto DT swiss hubs with Sapim spokes, 45 mm deep, 27 mm wide internal, 32 mm external. It's a good rim width for 45-50mm tyres and results in a nice tyre shape. Setup tubeless with 100 mL Schwalbe Doc blue per tyre. No rim tape since the rims have no holes in them (this by the way is very effective for retaining tyre pressure). The tyres roll really really fast on tarmac. Since most of my rides have quite a bit of tarmac in them, this was important to me. For the gravel, it's fire roads, forest double track, the occasional single-track. Not super smooth, but I avoid overly technical MTB-like terrain. In the time that I've had them, not a single puncture or problem ... I find them very robust, maybe surprisingly so for a fast and light XC tyre. The only downside you could say is the thread, which is okay for light to moderate gravel, once it gets chunky or muddy it's not optimal. Hope this helps!
I understand vibration is a valid point and it comes int play concerning the overall performance. That's 100% for stiff hard-tail bikes, but that doesn't apply much on full suspansion bikes since on bumpy terrain you can use the traction setting to improva grip and confort. That would mitigate the disadvantage of vibration. But that's just my opinion, so no science here 🙂 What do you think ?
Yeah. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Suspension goes some way to reduce the negative impact of vibration, for sure. However, having suspension doesn’t eliminate it all. I think the limits of suspension is best seen in the testing done within the automotive industry. Cars weigh a lot. Tires are big and heavy. Even the lightest cars have way more robust suspension than what we find on mountain bikes. So, if companies that manufacture tires for cars and trucks are seeing that tire vibration is causing driver fatigue and reducing rolling efficiency, it’s a good indication the problem exists on bikes. Having driven the same model BMW with both run flat tires and standard tires, I can say from experience that run flats absolutely transfer more vibration to the driver. This is due to the extra thick sidewalls which are needed to allow the tire to be driven flat. Michelin explains vibration quite well on their website. They talk about how tire vibration is both inefficient from a rolling resistance standpoint but also that it causes driver fatigue. And the frequency of the vibration determines how the tire behaves and how it impacts ride feel. The driver fatigue they talk about is the same as the rider fatigue I talked about in my video. What surprised me is that this is an issue for drivers that are heavily insulated by car suspension and super plush seats 😊 The Road.cc article talks about how different rubber compounds respond better or worse to vibrations at different frequencies. Their point being that the choice of tire compounds, the tread size and pattern, and the overall design of the tire including the casing, all impact how well a tire controls vibrations. Here are the links… thetiredigest.michelin.com/performance-noise-and-comfort road.cc/content/feature/rolling-resistance-how-choose-right-tyres-279289
I tried to use the old Thunder Burts about 9 years ago, when they were much lighter than the current models. they were noticeably faster than my go-to Racing Ralphs, but flatted way to easily. I even managed to flat one on pavement. I was about 64 kilos back then and riding the 27.5 size 2.10 with about 25 psi. I've decided to try the new Super Ground Addix Speed again this year for gravel race day only in the 29er 2.25, since it was rated highly in the rolling resistance tests, and they are a heavier tire now. Hopefully that weight gain will translate into a more durable tire than my previous experiences. I'd like to hear any feedback from anyone who has used them on smooth to semi-rough gravel and on pavement or concrete roads, as that is what I will be racing on in several areas of Thailand.
Hey Mike. I've been riding on Schwalbe for over a decade, predominantly on Ralph's and Ron'sor Ray's. I tried Burt's once on the advice from a friend who used them many times. The first attempt was in an 8hr, which resulted in a flat on the 1st lap, so I tore them off and went back to Ralph/Ray. To be fair, the Burt was not snakeskin
If used on a 29" hardtail MTB and put on the line against most gravel bikes/tyres out there on more technical "gravel" events like IstraLand or Tuscany Trail or Torino Nice Rally you quickly find out that the advantages of the gravel bike are compensated by the lower rolling resistance and higher comfort.
For XC...I don't like the Racing Ralph. It has pretty good traction, but quite poor rolling resistance and not the most supple feel. I have't tried the new Rick, but others say it's a better and more versatile option over the Thunder Burt. For gravel...I haven't tried either tire, but the Thunder Burt is quite a common choice. Both the Racing Ralph and Rick seem to have too aggressive of a tread for gravel especially since you're already going with a wide tire. Using the Maxxis Aspen and Reckon tires have been a bit of a revelation for me this season as both perform so much better than any of the Schwalbe tires I've tried (Ray, Racing Ralph & Thunder Burt). Even though I ran a wider tire than I did with any of the Schwalbes, the Maxxis tires have a better ride feel and seem faster. Plus, I prefer the rubber compound on the Maxxis and the higher TPI is just a better casing. I don't think TPI is talked about enough in tire reviews. It makes a huge difference, regardless of the discipline of riding you choose. A high-quality, high-TPI tire will just roll better, faster and feel a heck of a lot better than a lower TPI tire. Schwalbe builds most of their MTB tire casings to 67 TPI/EPI, which is close to the lowest you'll find on any legit MTB tire. It's just too low, in my opinion, for a tire that isn't cheap.
Unfortunately for most of us we don’t have multiple wheel sets to swap out each morning depending on the conditions and trail, so these very specific models the brands are producing makes it hard for us to go with the right “compromise” setup. I am running a Ray/Ralph combo now and feel my front is good but my back is too good, so I am going to run a Ray/Burt combo to see how it goes. We can ride for 10kms on tarmac before we get to our trails which are very steep forestry dirt tracks, and we live in a very dry area. It’s more so on the edge of gravel and MTB, rather than XC/trail (except for the gradients). Maybe the new Rick XC will become the right tyre, but I will have trouble sourcing them where I live. How do you measure your opinion on vibration, and without understanding the different weighted impacts of the 5 variables in the equation your opinion could be swayed by the wrong factor.
I agree that my assessment is far from scientific, but I do think you can, to some degree, feel the individual impeding forces that are in play. Gravity and wind are the simple ones. But the other three appear in fairly obvious ways as well. The difference in rolling resistance between tires is noticeable on smooth trails. A semi-slick tire will definitely feel faster than a knobby one when spinning at a constant speed and not riding over rocks and roots. The rate at which wheels spin up or decelerate also feels very different when comparing lighter and heavier wheels, and demonstrates the impact of inertia forces. As for vibration, if you pay attention to how the tire behaves over small and medium bumps, I think you can get a feel for how good the tire is at vibration damping. Big bumps don't help much as it brings the fork suspension too much into play and then it's hard to tell if the suspension or the tire/wheels are contributing.
I have used it but only on the rear with a Racing-Ray or Ralph on the front. Right now i am using the Vittoria Peyote rear and Mezcal front. Would never try any in the front.
You can use tubes in any tubeless tire. It’s just not the most efficient setup as the tires are a bit heavier than their comparable clincher model. Better to use the GP5000 clincher version if using inner tubes.
Thanks! I'm using the 2.1" (53 mm) version of the Thunder Burt Super Race TLE on my Canyon Grizl gravel bike. At least for this purpose, I find it an almost ideal tyre that is very speedy on and off tarmac, while being sufficiently robust, but light. Cheers.
Good to hear from someone that’s used it as a gravel tire. Thanks for commenting.
I used Thunder Burts for a gravel race on my Canyon Lux MTB. It was hard to find a pressure where they are comfortable. I ended up at 0.9 bars (13 psi) which is quite low.
@@Kosmologika My experience is similar to yours in that I find even a 0.1 bar difference very noticeable with these fat tyres, either in comfort, "bobbing", or rolling speed. I settled on 1.65 bar in the front and 1.75 bar in the back for the 53 mm tyre as a good compromise on all these aspects.
@jelegheert.. I'm considering using these (2.10) for gravel racing.. My question to you.. What is your weight and your bike weight? And just what kind of gravel have you used these without suffering punctures? light smooth gravel? moderate gravel? I'm about 63 kilos and my bike that I'm building for gravel racing is about 8kilos. Also, what is the inner width of your rims? I'm wondering if that makes any significant difference? I'll be using them on a wide (27mm) inner width carbon rim.
@@williammorris4419 Hi! I am 62 kg and my Grizl must be ~8.5 kg with pedals and mounts. My rims are Wheelsfar carbon rims onto DT swiss hubs with Sapim spokes, 45 mm deep, 27 mm wide internal, 32 mm external. It's a good rim width for 45-50mm tyres and results in a nice tyre shape. Setup tubeless with 100 mL Schwalbe Doc blue per tyre. No rim tape since the rims have no holes in them (this by the way is very effective for retaining tyre pressure). The tyres roll really really fast on tarmac. Since most of my rides have quite a bit of tarmac in them, this was important to me. For the gravel, it's fire roads, forest double track, the occasional single-track. Not super smooth, but I avoid overly technical MTB-like terrain. In the time that I've had them, not a single puncture or problem ... I find them very robust, maybe surprisingly so for a fast and light XC tyre. The only downside you could say is the thread, which is okay for light to moderate gravel, once it gets chunky or muddy it's not optimal. Hope this helps!
I had to run the 2.25 version on my hardtail at 0.9bar with a Cushcore insert to reduce trail chatter and increase speed.
Good to hear it’s not just me. 0.9 bar is mighty low pressure.
@@bikesbymike Are the Aspens faster. If so i'd like to buy them
@ Even though they are a bit heavier and bulkier, I do find the Aspens faster than the Burts on all terrain.
Great review! thanks!
Thanks for watching!
I understand vibration is a valid point and it comes int play concerning the overall performance. That's 100% for stiff hard-tail bikes, but that doesn't apply much on full suspansion bikes since on bumpy terrain you can use the traction setting to improva grip and confort. That would mitigate the disadvantage of vibration. But that's just my opinion, so no science here 🙂 What do you think ?
Yeah. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Suspension goes some way to reduce the negative impact of vibration, for sure. However, having suspension doesn’t eliminate it all.
I think the limits of suspension is best seen in the testing done within the automotive industry. Cars weigh a lot. Tires are big and heavy. Even the lightest cars have way more robust suspension than what we find on mountain bikes. So, if companies that manufacture tires for cars and trucks are seeing that tire vibration is causing driver fatigue and reducing rolling efficiency, it’s a good indication the problem exists on bikes. Having driven the same model BMW with both run flat tires and standard tires, I can say from experience that run flats absolutely transfer more vibration to the driver. This is due to the extra thick sidewalls which are needed to allow the tire to be driven flat.
Michelin explains vibration quite well on their website. They talk about how tire vibration is both inefficient from a rolling resistance standpoint but also that it causes driver fatigue. And the frequency of the vibration determines how the tire behaves and how it impacts ride feel. The driver fatigue they talk about is the same as the rider fatigue I talked about in my video. What surprised me is that this is an issue for drivers that are heavily insulated by car suspension and super plush seats 😊
The Road.cc article talks about how different rubber compounds respond better or worse to vibrations at different frequencies. Their point being that the choice of tire compounds, the tread size and pattern, and the overall design of the tire including the casing, all impact how well a tire controls vibrations. Here are the links…
thetiredigest.michelin.com/performance-noise-and-comfort
road.cc/content/feature/rolling-resistance-how-choose-right-tyres-279289
Looking forward to the Aspen review! In hindsight, do you think you would have rather ran the Aspens in the five years you've ridden the Thunder Burt?
Yes! Aspens any day. Just did a week of mountain biking with them and I have zero complaints.
I tried to use the old Thunder Burts about 9 years ago, when they were much lighter than the current models. they were noticeably faster than my go-to Racing Ralphs, but flatted way to easily. I even managed to flat one on pavement. I was about 64 kilos back then and riding the 27.5 size 2.10 with about 25 psi. I've decided to try the new Super Ground Addix Speed again this year for gravel race day only in the 29er 2.25, since it was rated highly in the rolling resistance tests, and they are a heavier tire now. Hopefully that weight gain will translate into a more durable tire than my previous experiences. I'd like to hear any feedback from anyone who has used them on smooth to semi-rough gravel and on pavement or concrete roads, as that is what I will be racing on in several areas of Thailand.
Hey Mike.
I've been riding on Schwalbe for over a decade, predominantly on Ralph's and Ron'sor Ray's. I tried Burt's once on the advice from a friend who used them many times.
The first attempt was in an 8hr, which resulted in a flat on the 1st lap, so I tore them off and went back to Ralph/Ray.
To be fair, the Burt was not snakeskin
Right. I used to use Racing Ralph/Rays where I needed more traction, but found them quite slow. The Rick may be a good all around XC tire.
If used on a 29" hardtail MTB and put on the line against most gravel bikes/tyres out there on more technical "gravel" events like IstraLand or Tuscany Trail or Torino Nice Rally you quickly find out that the advantages of the gravel bike are compensated by the lower rolling resistance and higher comfort.
What do you think of the Schwable Racing Ralph or the new Rick Pro for xc & for gravel?
For XC...I don't like the Racing Ralph. It has pretty good traction, but quite poor rolling resistance and not the most supple feel. I have't tried the new Rick, but others say it's a better and more versatile option over the Thunder Burt. For gravel...I haven't tried either tire, but the Thunder Burt is quite a common choice. Both the Racing Ralph and Rick seem to have too aggressive of a tread for gravel especially since you're already going with a wide tire.
Using the Maxxis Aspen and Reckon tires have been a bit of a revelation for me this season as both perform so much better than any of the Schwalbe tires I've tried (Ray, Racing Ralph & Thunder Burt). Even though I ran a wider tire than I did with any of the Schwalbes, the Maxxis tires have a better ride feel and seem faster. Plus, I prefer the rubber compound on the Maxxis and the higher TPI is just a better casing.
I don't think TPI is talked about enough in tire reviews. It makes a huge difference, regardless of the discipline of riding you choose. A high-quality, high-TPI tire will just roll better, faster and feel a heck of a lot better than a lower TPI tire. Schwalbe builds most of their MTB tire casings to 67 TPI/EPI, which is close to the lowest you'll find on any legit MTB tire. It's just too low, in my opinion, for a tire that isn't cheap.
Unfortunately for most of us we don’t have multiple wheel sets to swap out each morning depending on the conditions and trail, so these very specific models the brands are producing makes it hard for us to go with the right “compromise” setup. I am running a Ray/Ralph combo now and feel my front is good but my back is too good, so I am going to run a Ray/Burt combo to see how it goes. We can ride for 10kms on tarmac before we get to our trails which are very steep forestry dirt tracks, and we live in a very dry area. It’s more so on the edge of gravel and MTB, rather than XC/trail (except for the gradients). Maybe the new Rick XC will become the right tyre, but I will have trouble sourcing them where I live. How do you measure your opinion on vibration, and without understanding the different weighted impacts of the 5 variables in the equation your opinion could be swayed by the wrong factor.
I agree that my assessment is far from scientific, but I do think you can, to some degree, feel the individual impeding forces that are in play. Gravity and wind are the simple ones. But the other three appear in fairly obvious ways as well.
The difference in rolling resistance between tires is noticeable on smooth trails. A semi-slick tire will definitely feel faster than a knobby one when spinning at a constant speed and not riding over rocks and roots. The rate at which wheels spin up or decelerate also feels very different when comparing lighter and heavier wheels, and demonstrates the impact of inertia forces. As for vibration, if you pay attention to how the tire behaves over small and medium bumps, I think you can get a feel for how good the tire is at vibration damping. Big bumps don't help much as it brings the fork suspension too much into play and then it's hard to tell if the suspension or the tire/wheels are contributing.
I have used it but only on the rear with a Racing-Ray or Ralph on the front. Right now i am using the Vittoria Peyote rear and Mezcal front. Would never try any in the front.
That's an interesting and not often mentioned tire combo. I'll have to give that one a go!
can I use an inner tube using this tire? or should it be used as tubeless?
You can use tubes in any tubeless tire. It’s just not the most efficient setup as the tires are a bit heavier than their comparable clincher model. Better to use the GP5000 clincher version if using inner tubes.
Will you, or have you tested the Schwalbe 29er Ricks?
No. I haven't tested it and have no plans to.
Thx, looks like Im staying with 2.2 race kings on my gravelbike.
Its faster then all gravel tires above 40mm but ok.
I had seen a top 5 U23 World Cup rider run this at Lake Placid front and rear!
Ah-interesting. My recollection is that it was a pretty fast and non-technical course.