23 vs 25?

road_runner12

Been faced with this dilemma recently. When to my LBS to discuss tyres as I still have the originals on my bike (23mm). Had a good discussion and became aware that there is much more variation in what people choose for their bikes. I assumed that the majority of cyclists would opt for 23mm but it seems that 25mm is more popular than I expected.

Key question - is there a better tyre or is it just down to preference?

What are the pros and cons for each size?

jrduquemin

I think it's down to personal preference really. I've used 25c and 23c tyres myself and found that the 25s had less rolling resistance and better grip in corners. They also puncture less though I hardly get punctures on the 23s though. I'm currently running 23c tyres on both my bikes at the moment. Best thing to do is try both sizes out and see which ones you prefer.

Hope this helps...

turnerjohn

Conti do 24mm GP's problem solved

personally prefer 23 but then I'm light and smallish so probably more then enough for me !

Hoopdriver

25s for me every time. More comfortable ride, less rolling resistance, fewer punctures - can't see the need for going any thinner really.

alwaystoohot

I'm big and heavy and run 23's... no complaints whatsoever.

dawebbo

Have a look on velonews. There's an interesting article on this exact question.

Tom Dean

I find 25s give a less direct feel in hard cornering and I'm bouncing on the tyre on steep, out of saddle climbs. I guess with the wide tubular rims you can avoid these problems, otherwise I would prefer a narrower tyre for racing.

snoopsmydogg

Alwaystoohot wrote:

I'm big and heavy and run 23's... no complaints whatsoever.

same here

tipped

Moved from 25s to 23s a couple of weeks back, and cant say theyre any more uncomfortable (awful Schwalbe 25s to GP4000s 23s from bike-discount.de)

But yes, check out the VeloNews article about rolling resistance etc from Zinn.

road_runner12

Thanks for the feedback so far guys.

Been doing some research. Like the idea of a compromise at 24mm. Anyone got experience of the Conti Grand Prix tyres?

luv2ride

iVe run the 24mm conti grand prix tyres. liked them a lot. couldnt get replacements at a good price though so now using 25mm schwalbe ultremo zx - happy with those too. both great tyres IMHO

slowondefy2

Hoopdriver wrote:

25s for me every time. ... less rolling resistance ...

If the narrower tyre is inflated sufficiently, this isn't true. Narrower tyres require higher pressure. If both a 25 and 23 tyre are inflated so that they show the 15% 'drop' under load, the 23 will have a smaller contact patch and less rolling resistance.

juankerr

Just gone from 23 to 25 Michelin Krylions. I've noticed a bit more comfort but maybe the bike is slightly less responsive in terms of handling.

Monty Dog

slowondefy2 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

25s for me every time. ... less rolling resistance ...

If the narrower tyre is inflated sufficiently, this isn't true. Narrower tyres require higher pressure. If both a 25 and 23 tyre are inflated so that they show the 15% 'drop' under load, the 23 will have a smaller contact patch and less rolling resistance.

Your argument is contrary to the published evidence from the tyre makers and also fails to take into account energy losses due to the deflection of the tyre carcass which is actually greater for skinnier tyres. Latex tubes and 'talcing' your inners also help in this respect. I've been a convert to 'fatter' tyres for years. Finally, a key determining factor for rolling resistance is the road surface - unless you're running on billiard-table smooth tarmac, you soon reach a point of diminishing returns.

bouncyboy

23s all the way, Im 62kg and haven't had any problems with comfort, Punctures are few and far between and i havnt had one for a good few months of surrey roads... damn should not of said that.

On the fixie I have a rear 25 and a front 23 to survive skids better, well thats the theory.
Race wheels are 22mm and all training wheels are 23mm

Raffles

23s rattle my spine,its 25s for me every time

sumosprintstar

25s for me.

Monty Dog

Race crits on a 23 and a 25mm section tyres and you'll understand all about handling - 25s typically have a nice round shape which makes a nice steady transition whereas narrower tyres can feel a lot more abrupt, often like they are going to give-out.

Wirral_paul

Monty Dog wrote:

Race crits on a 23 and a 25mm section tyres and you'll understand all about handling - 25s typically have a nice round shape which makes a nice steady transition whereas narrower tyres can feel a lot more abrupt, often like they are going to give-out.

Any particular reason for the shape being different at all? Is it just down to mounting a wider tyre on the same rim giving the difference in shape or is it a generalisation of different sized tyres regardless of rim??

Hoopdriver

Monty Dog wrote:

slowondefy2 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

25s for me every time. ... less rolling resistance ...

If the narrower tyre is inflated sufficiently, this isn't true. Narrower tyres require higher pressure. If both a 25 and 23 tyre are inflated so that they show the 15% 'drop' under load, the 23 will have a smaller contact patch and less rolling resistance.

Your argument is contrary to the published evidence from the tyre makers and also fails to take into account energy losses due to the deflection of the tyre carcass which is actually greater for skinnier tyres. Latex tubes and 'talcing' your inners also help in this respect. I've been a convert to 'fatter' tyres for years. Finally, a key determining factor for rolling resistance is the road surface - unless you're running on billiard-table smooth tarmac, you soon reach a point of diminishing returns.

Spot on. (But I'm sure he already knew that)