narrow 'slick' tyres for mtb

willy-style

Some more advice and opinions needed.
Firstly i have rims with 21mm inner width. I want to fit some narrow slick tyres, either
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=24796
or
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=24542

Firstly, would the 1.35 width be too narrow for my rims, would i be better off getting the 1.5s? i want the lowest rolling reistance possible.
also, marathon plus or marathon racer? i gather the plus has better puncture resistance, but the racer is faster, any other opinions?
thanks again!

andymiller

Yes I'd say go for the 1.5 inch tyres - 21mm is very wide for a rim (you are definitely sure that's right? you are talking about the internal width?).

Go to the Schwalbe website and download their technical document - it's a very good document and will give you the background knowledge to help you make decisions about what tyres to get.

The Marathon Pluses are heavy tyres: all that puncture protection comes at a price. To my mind you don't need that much and you'd be better off with a lighter tyre. I'd also consider the Continental Gatorskins or SportContacts as well as the Marathons.

willy-style

yes, definately 21mm inner width... i thought that was fairly normal for mtb rims?
thanks anyway, some food for thought

fjrburns

Choice of tyre is always dependent of type of use. For those who want performance, the lighter tyre is best, but for those who are trekking long distances carrying a bit of luggage, endurance not weight is vital.
Mark Beaumont, of round-the-world fame, rode Marathon Plus.

Enjoy reading cycling journals? Visit http://www.frankburns.wordpress.com

andymiller

willy-style wrote:

yes, definitely 21mm inner width... i thought that was fairly normal for mtb rims?
thanks anyway, some food for thought

I'd have said 17mm or 19mm is more typical - 21mm is the sort of rim you'd get for a DH (downhill) bike.

fjrburns wrote:

Choice of tyre is always dependent of type of use. For those who want performance, the lighter tyre is best, but for those who are trekking long distances carrying a bit of luggage, endurance not weight is vital.
Mark Beaumont, of round-the-world fame, rode Marathon Plus./url]

Are you sure you're not thinking of Marathon XRs? These are (or were - they've been replace by Duremes) the tyres Schwalbe made with a specially hard and durable rubber. The Marathon Pluses are made of normal rubber so don't last any longer, but do offer extreme puncture protection. I'm sure they do a very good job, but I would consider myself unlucky if I got a puncture more than once a month while on tour (riding with Contis with some kevlar punctrure protection) so I'm not sure that extra weight is really worth it.

alex16zx

I have wide MTB rims, and use Conti SportContact 1.6s. They're absolutely fantastic for me, and probably have less rolling resistance than the two you posted, as they're closer to being proper slicks with just a couple of narrow grooves for water run-off.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/continental-spo ... -tube-set/

Berk Bonebonce

It is a misconception that you get reduced rolling resistance with a narrower tyre.

satanas

FWIW I've used the 1.2" Specialized Fatboy on an Araya RM-20 rim (~23mm internal width, 28mm external IIRC) with zero problems.

AS to which tyre, I'd avoid the M+ unless you intend to practice bunny hopping on broken glass all the time. They are very thick, heavy, stiff and slow, but hard to puncture. As to width, wider can be run at a lower pressure and should thus be a bit more comfortable and grippy. It will be a little heavier and less aerodynamic, but that won't matter much for touring IMO. For commuting, go for speed and run more PSI.

andymiller

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

It is a misconception that you get reduced rolling resistance with a narrower tyre.

It's true that the rolling resistance depends on the tyre pressure and a narrow tyre and a wider tyre running at the same pressure will have the same rolling resistance. However, as higher volume tyres generally have a lower maximum pressure it is a convenient shorthand.

In any event, there's a good argument that if you are riding all day on rougher roads having wider tyres will reduce fatigue and so compensate for reduced rolling resistance.

fjrburns

Last September, I used very wide 26" x 1.95" semi-slick tyres for a transcontinental ride of 1300 miles, doing about 85 miles per day, including crossing the Alps and riding the length of the Appenines in Italy. The comfort and stability they gave me easily compensated for any imagined loss of efficiency, but pumping the tyres up hard certainly reduced the rolling resistance significantly.
Blog about the ride is here:http://www.frankburns.wordpress.com

hdow

The Schwalbe technical guide advises that for a 21mm rim width tyres of between 35 & 50mm diameter should fit OK

satanas

<sigh> One can tour on anything, and I've toured on 23mm tyres on a road bike in the past. Speed and climbing was great, comfort not so much. If one is going to be touring on bad surfaces (i.e., India, etc) then wider tyres and lower pressures will be more comfy, give more grip and result in fewer flats. (For India I'd use something like Marathon Extremes in 2.25" myself.)

The best tactic is probably to figure out what the use is, i.e, commuting, DH, etc. Then one needs to decide if the area you will be riding is infested with broken glass (puncture resistance important), potholes or rough surfaces (more volume = more comfy), etc. If it's relatively clean, smooth bitumen (or you're careful), then lightweight tyres of whatever width is suitable should be fine. Just make sure to keep them inflated, and unweight and/or steer around the worst obstacles, not go straight over the top.

And while a narrower tyre does not necessarily mean less rolling resistance, most racing tyres use high quality construction, which definitely *does* give this. And narrower tyres can be fitted to narrower, lighter rims, with the combination being more aerodynamic as well. Still, if one is going to ride on rough surfaces a lot there's no arguing that wider = better. High quality construction will still mean a lighter, better performing tyre, but this will usually cost more, and may puncture more easily than some cheaper, heavier tyres, You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Twostage

To add to the choices it's unusual (in fact I've only seem it on my bike) but the front and back don't have to be the same. I have a fairly narrow tyre on the front and a fat one on the rear of my hard tail mtb. Looks a bit like a chopper but the fatter tyre on the rear adds a bit of cushioning on longer rides and the smaller lighter front tyre makes the steering lighter.