The Schwalbe Energizer Plus is a tire specifically designed for use on E-Bikes. All sizes of the Energizer Plus have the ECE-R75 certification which means these tires are certified to be used on e-bikes up to a speed of 50 km/h. The Energizer compound used on this tire, as its name implies, was designed to offer a low rolling resistance while still providing plenty of grip for security and fast cornering.
The Energizer Plus uses a 3 mm thick anti-puncture layer which is the same protection that is used in the Schwalbe Marathon GreenGuard (read review). When comparing the Energizer with the Marathon tires, the Plus part seems a little misleading because the Marathon Plus (read review) uses an even thicker 5 mm anti-puncture layer. Energizer without the Plus part would have been a better name for this tire.
After physical inspection of the Energizer Plus and checking all of its specifications, it appears to be very similar to the Marathon GreenGuard. The biggest differences seem to be in the rubber compound and a different, more modern looking tread pattern. Let's test this tire and see how it compares to the classic Marathon.
|Supplied By||Supplied by Schwalbe|
|New or Used||New|
|Specified Weight||730 grams|
Size and Weight Measurements
|Size and Weight Measurements (Bike Wheel: 622-17C, Pressure: 60 psi / 4 bar)|
|Specified Weight||730 grams|
|Measured Weight||742 grams|
|Measured Width||35 mm|
|Measured Height||36 mm|
|Tread Depth||2.0 mm|
|Total Tire Thickness Center||7.0 mm|
|Total Tire Thickness Sidewall||1.50 mm|
Just like the Marathon 37-622, specified weight of the 37-622 Energizer Plus is 730 grams. My sample came in at a slightly heavier 742 grams. The measured width on a 17C rim, at an air pressure of 60 psi is 35 mm. The measured height is 36 mm. Both width and height are exactly the same as the Marathon.
Tread depth comes in at 2.0 mm. The total thickness of the tire, measured at the center of the tire, is 7.0 mm. The total thickness of the sidewalls is 1.5 mm. All of these measurements come in very close to the numbers of the Marathon.
Rolling Resistance Test Results
|Rolling Resistance Test Results (Speed: 29 kmh / 18 mph / 8 m/s, Load: 42.5 kg / 417 N)|
|Inner Tube||Conti Tour 28 (170 gr butyl)|
|Rolling Resistance 90 psi / 6 Bar||
|Rolling Resistance 75 psi / 5 Bar||
|Rolling Resistance 60 psi / 4 Bar||
|Rolling Resistance 45 psi / 3 Bar||
|Rolling Resistance 30 psi / 2 Bar||
|Use the formula: RR (watts) = CRR * speed (m/s) * load (N) to calculate rolling resistance at a given speed and load|
Rolling resistance is very low. Although the Marathon has a slightly lower rolling resistance, the Energizer Plus is able to come within 0.2 - 0.3 watts of the rolling resistance of the Marathon. The small differences between these tires can probably be attributed to the slightly lower weight of my sample of the Marathon (729 gr Vs 742 gr). I think it's safe to say these tires perform near equal in the rolling resistance test when both tires have the same weight.
When compared to other tires, the Energizer Plus performs very strong in the rolling resistance test. Tires from other brands that offer similar puncture resistance have a substantially higher rolling resistance.
Puncture Resistance Test Results
|Puncture Resistance Test Result (higher is better)|
|Puncture Resistance Tread||14|
|Puncture Resistance Sidewall||4|
|Puncture Factor Tread *||98|
|Puncture Factor Sidewall *||6|
|* Puncture Factor = Puncture Resistance * Total Tire Thickness
Puncture Factor provides a more realistic puncture resistance score for touring tires
In the puncture resistance test, the Energizer scores very close to the Marathon as well. Both tires score 14 points in the tread test. With a score of 4 points in the sidewall test, the Energizer Plus performs slightly worse than the Marathon which came in at 5 points. The 1 point difference is too small to come to a conclusion
Because the Energizer Plus is slightly thinner in both the tread area and sidewalls, Puncture Factor is lower as well. With a Puncture Factor Tread score of 98 points, it comes in a bit lower than the Marathon (102). Puncture Factor Sidewall comes in 2 points lower at 6 points Vs the 8 points the Marathon scored.
From the outside, the Schwalbe Energizer Plus and Schwalbe Marathon look like different tires, but on the inside, they appear to be almost the same. In the rolling resistance test, both tires perform exactly the same when compensating for the slightly higher weight of my sample of the Energizer Plus. It does seem like the Energizer has slightly less tread depth and is a little thinner in both the tread area and sidewalls. Of course, this could also be the result of production tolerances.
Pricing of the Energizer Plus seems to be in line with the Marathon (read review). I think it would be safe for long-time Marathon users to try the Energizer Plus and see how the Energizer rubber compares to the Marathon rubber. Have you tried both tires? Consider to leave a comment as I'm curious to your opinion.
VERDICT: Highly Recommended