MTB slick tyres and town bikes

EssexSuffolk

Hi,

I've decided my town bike (which I use a lot!) needs it's chunky, energy wasting, tyres replacing and am looking at a set of these:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/Conti ... 360008376/

By going for the 1.3 size, is there any disadvantage over the 1.6 (my understanding is the 1.3s will be quicker than the 1.6)? Any other opinions on this tyre?

Another, slightly vaguer question, but ideal for this forum! My town bike was free, and is an old steel framed Raleigh MTB with twist shift gears etc. It all works fine apart from the fact that it feels heavy and the cantilever brakes are woeful. Will some slick tyres improve this weighty feel drastically and can cantilever brakes ever match V-brakes? A new shiny aluminium commuter bike appeals (trek 7.3 perhaps), but the idea of just junking a serviceable bike doesn't sit right with me. Opinions welcome!

Thanks!

alfablue

I tried them, they lasted 4 months before the rear had squared off, they punctured frequently too, I think the rubber and casing is too flimsy. The 1 year antipuncture guarantee is a waste of time, it would mean being tyreless whilst sending it back / taking to shop, and I would have had to do this several times. I went back to Specialized All Conditions Pro's (26x1) that I used before - thousands of miles, no punctures. On offer for £35 for 2 here

meanwhile

EssexSuffolk wrote:

Hi,

I've decided my town bike (which I use a lot!) needs it's chunky, energy wasting, tyres replacing and am looking at a set of these:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/cycle/7/Conti ... 360008376/

By going for the 1.3 size, is there any disadvantage over the 1.6 (my understanding is the 1.3s will be quicker than the 1.6)? Any other opinions on this tyre?

Your understanding is common but wrong: tyre width and mechanical drag forces aren't related. What matters is the contact patch size (a function of weight) and the hysteresis energy requirement of the tyre compound. A wider tyre will have the same size contact patch as a narrower one: the patch will be shorter and more circular, giving better handling. That's neglecting the effects of aerodynamics and not considering acceleration, because they make bugger all difference. I weigh 220lb, so I prefer 1.6s. Specialized tyres had a so-so reputation for speed and grip the last time I heard. You might as well try Contis and inject them with Slime if they give you any hostility.

Another, slightly vaguer question, but ideal for this forum! My town bike was free, and is an old steel framed Raleigh MTB with twist shift gears etc. It all works fine apart from the fact that it feels heavy and the cantilever brakes are woeful.

Then they are mis-adjusted. And/or you need new cables and/or pads.

Or you have a VERY cheap bike with.... ugh... steel rims.

Will some slick tyres improve this weighty feel drastically and can cantilever brakes ever match V-brakes? !

V's are a sort of canti. They need less grip force, but unless you are incredibly weak or are riding for hours very fast offroad, this shouldn't matter. Correctly adjusted decent old school cantis can provide more stopping power than most riders can handle without going over the bars. Slicks and - and a clean and lubed power train - will make your old bike go faster.

As for Conti Sports Contacts - they're fast and the people I've heard from who used them didn't have terribly many problems with flats. If any. They may have been lucky or AlfaBlue unlucky. Who knows? That's tyres for you. Creatures of mystery, tail-biting serpenty things, alveoli with attitude.

If your old bike is **good** steel - double butted cromo - then treasure it. People queue up to spend £300-£500 on retro steel frames like Cotics and Surlys.

Biscuiteer

Slicks will make a difference. I used to ride Sport Contacts too. Can't remember what width they were but I didn't ever have terrible puncturing problems with them. Got loads and loads of little cuts over the tyre surface but hardly anything ever got deep enough to puncture the tube inside. Really liked them as a tyre but could never be bothered to use the guarantee though - just repaired the puncture and got back on the bike.

Set up the brakes properly and maybe treat yourself to some new cables and pads but bear in mind that some olld centre-pull cantis can be pigs to adjust. I hated adjusting mine - I'd get everything lined up; toe-in, height, angle and distance from rim, only to have the brake block pulled out of alignment as I tightened the bolt the last little bit. Keep tweaking the brakes' barrel adjusters and frequently wipe the road grime off the rims and pads to improve their performance too. Btw, you may need different brake levers if you're thinking of getting Vs.

roger_merriman

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

with the old brakes rather depends how good they are, some cheaper brakes are simply flex too much.

a good V will always be better than a normal canti but a half decent canti should be feel powerful at least on road any way. with cheaper brakes there is too much flex from levers etc.

biondino

meanwhile wrote:

A wider tyre will have the same size contact patch as a narrower one: the patch will be shorter and more circular, giving better handling.

Except this isn't true in the real world, is it? A 2-inch wide slick MTB tyre at 45psi will have vastly more in contact with the road than a 23mm tyre at 100psi. Won't it?

EssexSuffolk

Thanks for all the responses, some useful info there. Encouraging words on the cantilevers, I'll definitely persist with them.

Any other recommendations for fast(ish), strong tyres? I realise there's a compromise to be made between these 2 factors; I think puncture resistance is what is most important as far as I'm concerned.

meanwhile

roger merriman wrote:

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

Then you should phone Schwalbe and offer them your services as Technical Director. Because the detailed tech doc on their UK homepage says that's nonsense. Yes everyone believes it - but it isn't true.

The doc is at http://www.schwalbe.co.uk/pdf/techinfo.pdf and you want page 15:

Why do wide tires roll better than
narrow ones?
The answer to this question lies in tire deflection.
Each tire is flattened a little under load. This creates
a flat contact area.
At the same tire pressure, a wide and a narrow tire have
the same contact area. A wide tire is flattened over its
width whereas a narrow tire has a slimmer but longer
contact area.
The flattened area can be considered as a counterweight
to tire rotation. Because of the longer flattened area of
the narrow tire, the wheel loses more of its “roundness”
and produces more deformation during rotation.
However, in the wide tire, the radial length of the
flattened area is shorter, making the tire “rounder” and
so it rolls better.

And to answer your next question:

Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide
tires roll better?
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure,
but narrow tires can be inflated to higher pressures than
wide tires. However, they then obviously give a less
comfortable ride.
In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over
wide ones at higher speeds, as they provide less air
resistance.
Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to
accelerate because the rotating mass of the wheels is
lower and the bicycle is much more agile.
At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better
with wider tires. In practice, the energy saving is even
greater than in theory as the elasticity of the tires
absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be trans-
ferred to the rider and so saves energy.

This means that in commuter riding - rather than in a high speed peleton or criterion race - the wider version of a tyre will be faster. It will also brake better, be more comfortable, and do a better job of protecting the rider against holes and debris in the road.

The problem is that people think tyre drag is frictional. It isn't - it's hysteresis energy, which is very different. Plus tyre compound matters enormously, and in the old days MTB slicks were made out of really nasty stuff, while thing racing tyres weren't, and people concluded the difference was width.

meanwhile

EssexSuffolk wrote:

Thanks for all the responses, some useful info there. Encouraging words on the cantilevers, I'll definitely persist with them.

Any other recommendations for fast(ish), strong tyres? I realise there's a compromise to be made between these 2 factors; I think puncture resistance is what is most important as far as I'm concerned.

I'm shopping around for fast slicks at the moment as well. Given I like 1.5s I'll go for Rubinos. If you're a skinny dude with very smooth streets to ride, a masochist, or an idiot, then you might look at the narrower Conti Durakins in 26. These are 1.1? But Conti Sports generally have an ok rep. Some people like Specialized Fat Boys, although I tend to distrust anything Spec these days as their design is too marketing driven. These three tyres - and maybe the Sports - seem to be about as fast rolling as 26ers, being made out of the same grade compound as road race training tyres.

Oh - and wider tyres usually puncture less. The lower pressure means the rubber can bend around sharp things more. Pretty obvious, but often forgotten.

If otoh you want more puncture resistance look at the Contact Security and - if you can stand the price - the Marathon Supreme.

roger_merriman

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

Then you should phone Schwalbe and offer them your services as Technical Director. Because the detailed tech doc on their UK homepage says that's nonsense. Yes everyone believes it - but it isn't true..

big snips

even in the same range the wider tire tends to max out at lower PSI and higher weight, so as 'wrong' as it is thinner does tend to be faster.

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

A wider tyre will have the same size contact patch as a narrower one: the patch will be shorter and more circular, giving better handling.

Except this isn't true in the real world, is it? A 2-inch wide slick MTB tyre at 45psi will have vastly more in contact with the road than a 23mm tyre at 100psi. Won't it?

Partially wrong and partially incomplete. The 23 will only have a narrower patch at a higher pressure. But the high the pressure the more energy is required to bend the tyre rubber flat as it passes through the patch - this is what hysteresis energy is. Except at speeds where minimal changes in air resistance are important a 23mm is also a bad bet. I was looking at some test yesterday (lost the link) and a 28 was the fastest tyre in a test of bunch of premium 700c's. Virtually everyone rolls on too narrow a tyre, because they think looking more like a 150lb TDF racer who rides in a peleton will make them go faster always.

biondino

meanwhile wrote:

This means that in commuter riding - rather than in a high speed peloton or criterion race - the wider version of a tyre will be faster.

Unless you commute at over 20kph, of course!

alfablue

meanwhile wrote:

EssexSuffolk wrote:

Thanks for all the responses, some useful info there. Encouraging words on the cantilevers, I'll definitely persist with them.

Any other recommendations for fast(ish), strong tyres? I realise there's a compromise to be made between these 2 factors; I think puncture resistance is what is most important as far as I'm concerned.

I'm shopping around for fast slicks at the moment as well. Given I like 1.5s I'll go for Rubinos. If you're a skinny dude with very smooth streets to ride, a masochist, or an idiot, then you might look at the narrower Conti Durakins in 26. These are 1.1? But Conti Sports generally have an ok rep. Some people like Specialized Fat Boys, although I tend to distrust anything Spec these days as their design is too marketing driven. These three tyres - and maybe the Sports - seem to be about as fast rolling as 26ers, being made out of the same grade compound as road race training tyres.

Oh - and wider tyres usually puncture less. The lower pressure means the rubber can bend around sharp things more. Pretty obvious, but often forgotten.

If otoh you want more puncture resistance look at the Contact Security and - if you can stand the price - the Marathon Supreme.

I think a wider tyre will come into contact with more sharp objects, and will run at a lower pressure permitting more penetrations. I have found Specialized tyres to be fantastic, I have used All Conditions Pro's on all my bikes for years with zero punctures. I have tried Conti's, Hutchinsons and Schwalbe Marathons for short periods during this time and had punctures (most on Cont Contact Sports, which also wore very fast - having the same (soft) rubber compound as race tyres may make them grippy but reduces durability.

meanwhile

roger merriman wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

Then you should phone Schwalbe and offer them your services as Technical Director. Because the detailed tech doc on their UK homepage says that's nonsense. Yes everyone believes it - but it isn't true..

big snips

even in the same range the wider tire tends to max out at lower PSI and higher weight, so as 'wrong' as it is thinner does tend to be faster.

Yes, my mistake. I thought that putting the final point from Schwalbe in italics would be enough to make it clear that wider in the real world, at commute speeds, is faster. As for your specific point - well, who knows what you mean by "max out"? Maximum speed? Contact patch size? Or something actually relevant like hysteresis energy requirement?

Anyway, pretty good article here:

http://www.rouesartisanales.over-blog.c ... 03651.html

"Narrower tires of 23 mm and less, decrease rolling performance and require higher inflation pressures, which adversely effect riding comfort. Gains are made in aerodynamics requiring less energy for maintaining speeds exceeding 40 km/h or 25 mph."

Basic lesson: only light riders riding fast enough for aerodynamic effects to be important benefit from narrow tyres. A 160-180lb club rider would probably go faster on a fast compound 26-28 even at racing power - although he might not realize this until he checked the clock because most riders mis-interpret a harsh ride as "fast", which is why so many frames today are pains in the butt.

biondino

meanwhile wrote:

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

A wider tyre will have the same size contact patch as a narrower one: the patch will be shorter and more circular, giving better handling.

Except this isn't true in the real world, is it? A 2-inch wide slick MTB tyre at 45psi will have vastly more in contact with the road than a 23mm tyre at 100psi. Won't it?

Partially wrong and partially incomplete. The 23 will only have a narrower patch at a higher pressure. But the high the pressure the more energy is required to bend the tyre rubber flat as it passes through the patch - this is what hysteresis energy is.

But the patch of flat tyre rubber will be smaller! I'm trying to understand this, really I am - it's one of those things which seems so counter-intuitive. So let's see if I get this right - the higher the tyre pressure, the more energy is required to make the tyre bend/flatten when it comes into contact with the ground, and this provides a force impeding the bike's movement.

rhext

If you have two tyres at the same pressure, the contact patch area will be the same regardless of the width of the tyre. Effectively, the tyre flattens at the bottom until the contact area*the PSI=the weight of the bike plus the rider.

So tyre width makes less difference than it seems like it should, and fatter is definitely more comfortable. What makes a big difference is tread and compound. MTB tyres tend to have large knobbly bits and are often made of stickier compound, both of which lead to higher rolling resistance. They also tend to be much fatter than road tyres, and that gives an impression that thin is fast and fat is slow.

glauciaregina9

I would highly recomment Specialised Nimbus Armadillo tyres. I've been using them for years on my commuter MTB.

Never punctured, and roll well - nice and quick on my MTB compared to a 1.8" 'knobbly' tire.

Probably not the lightest, and not the narrowest, but I believe this is irrelevent when you take into account the reliability.

Last for ages too, in terms of wear.

http://www.evanscycles.com/search?query ... &x=24&y=11

biondino

rhext wrote:

If you have two tyres at the same pressure, the contact patch area will be the same regardless of the width of the tyre. Effectively, the tyre flattens at the bottom until the contact area*the PSI=the weight of the bike plus the rider.

So tyre width makes less difference than it seems like it should, and fatter is definitely more comfortable. What makes a big difference is tread and compound. MTB tyres tend to have large knobbly bits and are often made of stickier compound, both of which lead to higher rolling resistance. They also tend to be much fatter than road tyres, and that gives an impression that thin is fast and fat is slow.

Yeah but thin and wide tyres AREN'T run at the same pressure so it's not a valid comparison, that's the thing.

rhext

biondino wrote:

Yeah but thin and wide tyres AREN'T run at the same pressure so it's not a valid comparison, that's the thing.

Speak for yourself! The fat ones on my MTB are run at the same pressure as the thin(ish) ones on my road bike.

But even pressure's not that important once you get past a certain threshold (article on BikeRadar front page this very day in fact).

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

A wider tyre will have the same size contact patch as a narrower one: the patch will be shorter and more circular, giving better handling.

Except this isn't true in the real world, is it? A 2-inch wide slick MTB tyre at 45psi will have vastly more in contact with the road than a 23mm tyre at 100psi. Won't it?

Partially wrong and partially incomplete. The 23 will only have a narrower patch at a higher pressure. But the high the pressure the more energy is required to bend the tyre rubber flat as it passes through the patch - this is what hysteresis energy is.

But the patch of flat tyre rubber will be smaller! I'm trying to understand this, really I am - it's one of those things which seems so counter-intuitive. So let's see if I get this right - the higher the tyre pressure, the more energy is required to make the tyre bend/flatten when it comes into contact with the ground, and this provides a force impeding the bike's movement.

You've got it. ***Friction between the road and tyre doesn't exist at all.*** It's all about this bending energy.

One of the interesting things is that a circular patch is more efficient than a long eliptical one (it also corners better). This is one reason why small wheel Moultons are so fast, and recumbents are often built with small wheels. A modern racing bike is quite a poor design and has to be protected by restrictive rules, even against other upright designs.

And don't forget the importance of tyre compound and wall thickness (thinner walls bend more easily). These can halve the energy used against rolling resistance, even testing inside premium racing tyres:

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html

Otoh, there is an optimum upper tyre width too! But most people ride a bit too narrow for racing and much too narrow - if "serious" cyclists - for anything else. The unserious, of course, generally ride cheap tyres made of poor compound, or really nasty things with tread, even while on the road.

roger_merriman

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

Then you should phone Schwalbe and offer them your services as Technical Director. Because the detailed tech doc on their UK homepage says that's nonsense. Yes everyone believes it - but it isn't true..

big snips

even in the same range the wider tire tends to max out at lower PSI and higher weight, so as 'wrong' as it is thinner does tend to be faster.

Yes, my mistake. I thought that putting the final point from Schwalbe in italics would be enough to make it clear that wider in the real world, at commute speeds, is faster. As for your specific point - well, who knows what you mean by "max out"? Maximum speed? Contact patch size? Or something actually relevant like hysteresis energy requirement?

Anyway, pretty good article here:

http://www.rouesartisanales.over-blog.c ... 03651.html

"Narrower tires of 23 mm and less, decrease rolling performance and require higher inflation pressures, which adversely effect riding comfort. Gains are made in aerodynamics requiring less energy for maintaining speeds exceeding 40 km/h or 25 mph."

Basic lesson: only light riders riding fast enough for aerodynamic effects to be important benefit from narrow tyres. A 160-180lb club rider would probably go faster on a fast compound 26-28 even at racing power - although he might not realize this until he checked the clock because most riders mis-interpret a harsh ride as "fast", which is why so many frames today are pains in the butt.

your assuming a rather low bar of 12 mph which some one who has thin tires might average with cafe stops but they will also be in all likely hood be faster than that for a fair point of the distance.

you will struggle to find racing tires past 25mm look at schwalbe range of tires all of the fast tires are top out at max at 25mm. past that you move into the slower tougher touring range.

that PDF also explains why as a trend thiner is faster as it has less air resistance is lighter and can run a higher pressures. wether one can use that well thats another issue altogether!

meanwhile

roger merriman wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

for a like for like a thinner tire will be faster yet the wider will offer more grip.

Then you should phone Schwalbe and offer them your services as Technical Director. Because the detailed tech doc on their UK homepage says that's nonsense. Yes everyone believes it - but it isn't true..

big snips

even in the same range the wider tire tends to max out at lower PSI and higher weight, so as 'wrong' as it is thinner does tend to be faster.

Yes, my mistake. I thought that putting the final point from Schwalbe in italics would be enough to make it clear that wider in the real world, at commute speeds, is faster. As for your specific point - well, who knows what you mean by "max out"? Maximum speed? Contact patch size? Or something actually relevant like hysteresis energy requirement?

Anyway, pretty good article here:

http://www.rouesartisanales.over-blog.c ... 03651.html

"Narrower tires of 23 mm and less, decrease rolling performance and require higher inflation pressures, which adversely effect riding comfort. Gains are made in aerodynamics requiring less energy for maintaining speeds exceeding 40 km/h or 25 mph."

Basic lesson: only light riders riding fast enough for aerodynamic effects to be important benefit from narrow tyres. A 160-180lb club rider would probably go faster on a fast compound 26-28 even at racing power - although he might not realize this until he checked the clock because most riders mis-interpret a harsh ride as "fast", which is why so many frames today are pains in the butt.

your assuming a rather low bar of 12 mph

That should "You're" not "your" and I didn't mention 12mph and nor did Schwalbe. A realistic commute speed is probably 15-18. It's certainly below the 25mph figure quoted above. Which is more than twice the 12mph figure you've pulled from your posterior.

you will struggle to find racing tires past 25mm look at schwalbe range of tires all of the fast tires are top out at max at 25mm. past that you move into the slower tougher touring range.

If you'd read this thread you'd find that it's about a mountain bike, and that you can get fast compound slicks in up to at least 1.5'' now in 26'' - these are tyres whose compound and wall thickness make them roughly comparable to the more enduring race training tyres.

And if you'd looked at the data page I linked too you would have seen that the 28mm 700C tested faster than any of the narrower tyres...

that PDF also explains why as a trend thiner is faster as it has less air resistance is lighter and can run a higher pressures. wether one can use that well thats another issue altogether!

It's pretty clear that you still don't understand what was actually said...

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

This means that in commuter riding - rather than in a high speed peloton or criterion race - the wider version of a tyre will be faster.

Unless you commute at over 20kph, of course!

No, the speed at which the very small aero reduction will become, important than the RR increase is more like 20-25mph. Which you should know, because the figure has already been quoted for you. So more like 40kph - which requires 4x the energy output, which is what you should be thinking about.

Roadies - well, it doesn't require much of a brain to ride for several hours looking at nothing but your front wheel and, occasionally, during an extra exciting bit, another chap's bottom...

meanwhile

alfablue wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

EssexSuffolk wrote:

Oh - and wider tyres usually puncture less. The lower pressure means the rubber can bend around sharp things more. Pretty obvious, but often forgotten.

If otoh you want more puncture resistance look at the Contact Security and - if you can stand the price - the Marathon Supreme.

I think a wider tyre will come into contact with more sharp objects,

That's true.

and will run at a lower pressure permitting more penetrations..

That's silly. Filling a structure with compressed gas will not make the material it is made out of stronger, which is what is required to resist penetration. It will make the material less able to bend even marginally, which will increase the penetrating force. If you don't believe you can experiment with a few balloons: the material will not get steel-like strength as you increase pressure...

roger_merriman

meanwhile wrote:

It's pretty clear that you still don't understand what was actually said...

read that PDF, read this part.

Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide
tires roll better?
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure,
but narrow tires can be inflated to higher pressures than
wide tires. However, they then obviously give a less
comfortable ride.
In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over
wide ones at higher speeds, as they provide less air
resistance.
Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to
accelerate because the rotating mass of the wheels is
lower and the bicycle is much more agile.
At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better
with wider tires. In practice, the energy saving is even
greater than in theory as the elasticity of the tires
absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be trans-
ferred to the rider and so saves energy.

ie for a given PSI wider is faster but, and this is why the trend is for thin = faster is that for a given tire thinner tires will take higher PSI.

Ultremo R comes in 23mm (145PSI) 25mm (115PSI).

in practice thinner tires are faster simply because they can be pumped up to very high pressures.

in terms of commuting that is another question if your commute is thundering down the enbankment tunnel of speed, thin highpressure tire probably is better for shorted lower speed stuff probably not.

SimonLyons

I have used both 26x1.6 and 26x1.25 tyres.
The 26x1.25 tyres made a big difference.

I always thought rotational weight counts against you more than parts that don't move.
26x1.25 tyres+innertubes are alot lighter than 26x1.6 equipment - so you should be able to accelerate faster making your job of getting the bike up to speed and keeping it there alot easier.
I found it was worth up to an extra gear which outweighed any 'comfort' issues. I don't use 1.6 tyres anymore.

rolf_f

meanwhile wrote:

The problem is that people think tyre drag is frictional. It isn't - it's hysteresis energy, which is very different.

Could you just explain this - I can't quite get into my head how hysteresis applies to this! I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you or anything; it's just my understanding of the meaning of the term doesn't make it obvious as to how it applies here!

A good point about the tyre designs though. If you put a 28+ on a heavy touring bike and compare it to a 23 or less on a racer, people will assume that the wider tyre is part of the reason the tourer is slower. If, in fact, it is actually reducing the difference, there should be a useful market for wider slicks. And a nice opportunity for direct testing.

Also interesting that Schwalbe makes this point - so, on that basis, do Schwalbe actually produce wide racing slicks?

roger_merriman

Rolf F wrote:

Also interesting that Schwalbe makes this point - so, on that basis, do Schwalbe actually produce wide racing slicks?

nope widest fast tire is 25mm above that it's heavier weight robust touring tires ie marathon range and simular.

jedster

Yeah but thin and wide tyres AREN'T run at the same pressure so it's not a valid comparison, that's the thing.

Roger,

I use conti ultra gators in 28mm on my road commuter. These will go up to 120 psi but I tend to run them at 100-110. Now I know gators are not race tyres but they are positioned as robust all weather training tyres.

Does anyone keep their commuting tyres at more than 120 psi?

J

roger_merriman

jedster wrote:

Yeah but thin and wide tyres AREN'T run at the same pressure so it's not a valid comparison, that's the thing.

Roger,

I use conti ultra gators in 28mm on my road commuter. These will go up to 120 psi but I tend to run them at 100-110. Now I know gators are not race tyres but they are positioned as robust all weather training tyres.

Does anyone keep their commuting tyres at more than 120 psi?

J

thats not my quote or at least i can't see it any where on this thread.

well thats the thing how fast a tire is more about how it's made than it's size, but as a rather simple trend it does tally. how many people would really use to use a extreme example 18mm Tubs at 200 PSI to commute on is probably zero. i was just pointing out that for absoulte speed comfort be damed you'll be at the thinner than the wider end of the scale, wouldn't be my choice for a commuting tire but might be someones.

Stuey01

meanwhile wrote:

And to answer your next question:

Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide
tires roll better?
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure,
but narrow tires can be inflated to higher pressures than
wide tires. However, they then obviously give a less
comfortable ride.
In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over
wide ones at higher speeds, as they provide less air
resistance.
Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to
accelerate because the rotating mass of the wheels is
lower and the bicycle is much more agile.
At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better
with wider tires. In practice, the energy saving is even
greater than in theory as the elasticity of the tires
absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be trans-
ferred to the rider and so saves energy.

This means that in commuter riding - rather than in a high speed peloton or criterion race - the wider version of a tyre will be faster. It will also brake better, be more comfortable, and do a better job of protecting the rider against holes and debris in the road.

meanwhile wrote:

]That should "You're" not "your" and I didn't mention 12mph and nor did Schwalbe. A realistic commute speed is probably 15-18. It's certainly below the 25mph figure quoted above. Which is more than twice the 12mph figure you've pulled from your posterior.

I've italicised the relevant parts to help you understand...

12mph = 20kph

So both YOU and SCWALBE mentioned 12mph. If it was pulled from anywhere it was either from you or the collective posterior of Schwalbe.

Oh, and 15-18 mph might be a realistic commute speed on your slow bike with your fatass tyres on, but on my bike with it's skinny 23mm tyres on I'm going a shitload faster than that.