Racing Ralph/Ray combo in 2.25 or 2.35??

Really got back into MTBing since lockdown have have worn the old Racing Ralph’s out on my 2012 29er Anthem.

Looking at the new Ralph rear/Ray front combo, and wondered what difference I’d notice if I went for the 2.35 vs 2.25 that are already on it. I guess more grip, but will they roll slower? Also the giant pxc2 rims are 19mm id, will they be ok with 2.35?

Mainly chilterns riding.
Cheers.

I’d suggest staying with the narrower version(we have both on kids bikes but on wider rims) as the 2.35s will be an odd shape on such narrow rims.
Rolling resistance difference is not noticeable.

I was about to post a similar thread, I even have a Giant Anthem…. watching with interest.

I’m a weight weenie so the fact the 2.25 Racing Ray Evo weighs 625g but the 2.35 version weighs 770g means it’s a no brainer decision. I wouldn’t be adding 300g rolling weight for 0.1 inch increase in width in tyre…

I’m not sure what versions you were thinking of bennyboy but the difference looks to be ~80g per tyre (tyres vary a lot too so if weight really mattered then buy a load of the tyre width you actually want and just keep the lightest 😉 )

702g
https://r2-bike.com/SCHWALBE-Tire-Racing-Ray-29-x-235-ADDIX-SpeedGrip-EVO-SnakeSkin-TLE-2020

620g
https://r2-bike.com/SCHWALBE-Tire-Racing-Ray-29-x-225-ADDIX-SpeedGrip-EVO-SnakeSkin-TL-Easy-2019

I’m a weight weenie so the fact the 2.25 Racing Ray Evo weighs 625g but the 2.35 version weighs 770g means it’s a no brainer decision

A 2.1 Thunderburt weighs 435g. No brainer decision.

Indeed 😉

I was comparing the 2020 Racing Ray Evo Snakeskin / 2020 Ralph Evo Snakeskin 2.25 x 29 vs same 2.35 version according to the Schwalbe website. 2.35 x 29 Evo Snakeskin is 770g according to Schwalbe website stats.

If the Schwalbe website is wrong about their own tyre & infact it’s only 80g difference between 2.25 vs 2.35 then thicker version maybe more appealing.

A Thunder Burt is a sh*t tyre no matter the width, so yeah, no brainer not to fit one of those! 😀

I’ve switched between 2.1/2.25 old style Racing Ralphs on a very racey 29er and noticed the difference in rolling speed but also a very marked difference in comfort. I currently run 2.1 Thunderburt rear/ 2.1 Old Racing Ralph front and this is a rocketship combo…but only because my local standard issue loop would be 35/40 miler with 50% gravelly backlanes to link single track honeyspots- This setup feels harsh, noticeably harsher, but I forgo comfort for KOM’s and near road bike speed on road sections.

If I was using the bike mostly offroad then 2.25 would be the perfect compromise, I would only consider 2.35 for use on particularly rough terrain.

But then thinking about it..don’t listen to me I’m definitely weird, Ive left the Thunderburt on the rear for 2 winters just for low grip slidey kicks and see it as Skillz training.

Nino Shurter sometimes runs 2.4’s… and wins. So obviously the OldSkool skinny=fast crowd have it all wrong.

Went for the 2.25 Ralph/ray combo in the end. Didn’t consider the thunderburts, might try them next time. Think my 19mm id rims are probably a bit narrow for the 2.35.

Thunderburt is definitely a special usage type tyre, it’s not the most sensible – Ralph’s are a much better allrounder for Xc tyre riding. The half a mill of a ‘burt’s’ tread is gone in 1000 miles mixed usage, and I’ve had a few issues with porous sidewalls on ‘burts’ lighter casing that needed flexible superglue to seal up – In contrast all the Ralph’s I’ve had (probably 10 or so) have been trouble free and great in most situations.

Didn’t consider the thunderburts, might try them next time.

I wasn’t being serious about them, just pointing out that weight is not the only consideration. Haven’t tried them, they sound pretty shit unless you are racing XC on dry hardpack.

Have seen pics of World Cup Xc racers running Burt rear with new Racing Ralph on the front, or indeed new Racing Ralph both front and rear rather then the Ray front- which I assume is for less rolling resistance of Ralph over Ray. Given how technical modern Xc courses can be I find it interesting how little grip these riders can get away with in order to be fast, but yeah it would have to be dry, tiny but of moisture and its spin city.