Tire recommendations

I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh 3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.

On 9/10/2013 11:50 AM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh 3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.

That's a big drawback of the 29ers, smooth, and relatively narrow, road
tires aren't available like they are in 26" since 29ers are primarily
for mountain biking. You can find a 29 x 2.0 from REI
http://www.rei.com/product/793100/. There's also a Vee Rubber 29 x
1.75". I doubt if you'll find many reviews of these tires yet.

On 09/10/2013 04:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/10/2013 11:50 AM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier
than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities
than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh
3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.

That's a big drawback of the 29ers, smooth, and relatively narrow, road
tires aren't available like they are in 26" since 29ers are primarily
for mountain biking. You can find a 29 x 2.0 from REI
http://www.rei.com/product/793100/. There's also a Vee Rubber 29 x
1.75". I doubt if you'll find many reviews of these tires yet.


"29" is also known as 700c in roadie-land or ISO 622. So a 29x2.25"
would be equivalent to a 57-622 or thereabouts Closest actually
existing size would be 60-622 or 700x60c. Gives you something to search
for, anyway. I know from Andre's posts that at least the Schwalbe Big
Apple is available in that size...

How wide are the rims? Paselas are available up to 37mm wide, if
they're not too skinny for your rims. I'm looking at the Panaracer
lineup as I type this and I see that they have other tires ("Crosstown")
in 42mm and 47mm sizes as well but I haven't any idea if they're any
good or not. Probably real stiff, they're heavy as heck, but if you are
worried about flats I assume that puncture resistance is where all the
extra weight went.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 9/10/2013 1:50 PM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh 3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.


I hesitate to offer a response to a rider who by choice has
the fattest slowest heaviest tire format made today, but
"700 x how fat can you bear?" would be a good start.

700 x 40, 38, 35, 32 etc until you get down to tires which
actually roll well such as Michelin Pro 4 700-23. (at which
point you'd need normal skinny rims) Somewhere along that
continuum is a tire adequately wide for whatever rim width
you have yet less sluggish than your oem tires.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 09/10/2013 05:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:50 PM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier
than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities
than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh
3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.


I hesitate to offer a response to a rider who by choice has the fattest
slowest heaviest tire format made today, but "700 x how fat can you
bear?" would be a good start.

700 x 40, 38, 35, 32 etc until you get down to tires which actually roll
well such as Michelin Pro 4 700-23. (at which point you'd need normal
skinny rims) Somewhere along that continuum is a tire adequately wide
for whatever rim width you have yet less sluggish than your oem tires.


Hah, trust me, you do NOT want to see what happens to a 700x23 when I
ride it. Some of us are more amply built than others.

Friend of mine is maybe 30 lbs. heavier than I, even a 28mm tire looked
quite distorted when he was riding it. (I threw him on one of my bikes
for a ride because he bought a MTB and I wanted to try to expose him to
the road/touring side.)

I agree that if rolling well is priority choose narrowest decent tire
that properly fits on rim though. If he's currently running 2.25" tires
then I seriously doubt he can fit anything where rider weight is an
actual concern.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 11/09/13 07:07, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:50 PM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier
than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities
than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh
3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.


I hesitate to offer a response to a rider who by choice has the fattest
slowest heaviest tire format made today, but "700 x how fat can you
bear?" would be a good start.

700 x 40, 38, 35, 32 etc until you get down to tires which actually roll
well such as Michelin Pro 4 700-23. (at which point you'd need normal
skinny rims) Somewhere along that continuum is a tire adequately wide
for whatever rim width you have yet less sluggish than your oem tires.


I've been using a Michelin Pro4 Service Course 25mm rear tyre. In fact
I wore the first one out and replaced it just a couple of weeks ago.
Seems to roll very nicely. According to Strava it survived nearly
5000km of training and racing, and most of the training was at night
with my roller dynamo on.

--
JS

a speedking on the back n a traffic plus up front ?

lotta drool in here

http://www.conti-online.com/www/bicy...en/themes/mtb/

if your ground is soft n there's gravel a wider front helps.

your prob is the frame doesn't allow effective forward fast riding - you're sitting to far back for maneuvering around stumps.

I find the rear knobby excels in commuting for the ability to ride onto grass n dirt berms for safety n short cuts.

the road bike is faster esp if the course is straight...most are...the XC bike is safer.

on the size: you're in a medicine ball area where narrower and harder always feels better right off. The knobs are as you know, uphill. The height of each knob x no. knobs is the total rise/height climbed for each length tire rotation. Work that out for your commute.

I doahn actually commute anymore, time is too short. Not commuting yet occasional gong to the store, the XC is fine but if I ad to commute then I'd go with the road frame. I'd guess on the courses here, flat n straight, the road bike is 30% faster with 20% less energy expended.

You can work out an energy expenditure for knobs vs skins

On 9/10/2013 4:40 PM, James wrote:
On 11/09/13 07:07, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/10/2013 1:50 PM, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.

Riding, shopping, etc.

It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.

I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier
than what I have.

I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities
than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh
3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.

Thanks.


I hesitate to offer a response to a rider who by choice has the fattest
slowest heaviest tire format made today, but "700 x how fat can you
bear?" would be a good start.

700 x 40, 38, 35, 32 etc until you get down to tires which actually roll
well such as Michelin Pro 4 700-23. (at which point you'd need normal
skinny rims) Somewhere along that continuum is a tire adequately wide
for whatever rim width you have yet less sluggish than your oem tires.


I've been using a Michelin Pro4 Service Course 25mm rear tyre. In fact
I wore the first one out and replaced it just a couple of weeks ago.
Seems to roll very nicely. According to Strava it survived nearly
5000km of training and racing, and most of the training was at night
with my roller dynamo on.


Nice tire.
We recommend them to riders who really want a Michelin Pro 4
but shouldn't be on a 23mm tire at all. There are continua
of weight, width, ride quality, durability, rolling
resistance, price, even color so each rider needs to find
some midpoint between various pleasures and pains.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:50:45 PM UTC+1, Andy K wrote:
I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.



Riding, shopping, etc.



It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.



I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier than what I have.



I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh 3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.



Thanks.

First off, you don't want to believe the clowns who tell you a narrow tyre rolls better. It doesn't. Nor does a hard tyre. That's just the traditional street corner myth of people who can't be bothered to put their minds in gear, or don't have minds to put in gear. Neither of the two smartest guys ever on this conference, Jobst Brandt (who designed the grand prix brakes for Porsche, and influenced the innovative Avocet bicycle components and accessories for years) and Sheldon Brown (probably the greatest bike mechanic who ever lived, given an obituary by The Times of London...), believed any of that crap.

Even after you bit that bullet of two entirely wrong traditions, what kills both your speed and your ride comfort are knobs on your tires.

For puncture proofing you want a belted tire. It's another stupid, wrong myth that an anti-intrusion belt makes a tire harsh-riding. All the most comfortable proper tires I know are banded.

What you want to bring out the 29er character of your bike, which is clearly compromised by 50psi pressure in your tires (who told the jerk who specified high pressure tires for a 29er that he could be a designer -- his mommy?), is a fat, treadless, low-pressure tire. I use the 60x622 Big Apple Liteskins with the Ultraleich tube, which saves more weight than a complete set of skinny tires... The problem with proper 29er tires on proper 29er rims is that they're heavy. But once you have them rolling, they keep rolling. For more on the subject by me and others, see http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/...ic=3798.0;wap2

Low pressure is in the order of 2 bar, about 29psi. Even Chalo Colina, who weighs well north of 300 pounds, rode his Big Apples about there. My bike and I are about 130kg in day-ride trim with full water bottles, and I let my Big Apples go down to 1.5 bar on the approach to the monthly pump-up to 2 bar, and there are no ill effects. That's serious comfort already, and that's on very badly potholed roads, through which I crash at full speed, so, at least in theory, I could go lower.

Turning to the practical matter of what you can and should fit, it depends on what you use the bike for. Schwalbe has all kinds of fat tires at all kinds of prices, the more expensive ones getting a better compound and the better puncture protection. I have no experience of the cheaper lines, but doubt they'll be rubbish; Schwalbe has too much to lose. My current Big Apple Liteskins have 6800km on them and appear good to go, the front one to 10K, the rear to 8K; presumably people who ride in a less carefree manner than I do will better my mileages. I'm a big fan of Schwalbe, but people who shop for tires on price and don't expect a set to last more than a thousand miles are disturbed by their prices.

If weight bothers you, 55mm and even down to 47mm low-pressure tires have plenty of air in them for comfort and some of the Schwalbe liked by loaded tourers for their surefootedness and longevity are most popular in the 47mm size. Some of the good tires have knobs on them but for town/utlity use that's a fashion accessory for the same sort of idiots who think narrow tires and high-pressure tires roll faster. Unless you actually ride off-road in mud where the traction may be useful, you don't want anything but smooth tires. If the sort you want for any reason isn't available in a perfectly smooth version (I'm not aware of any that are perfectly smooth except a couple of racing tires you don't want because they're scaled to last one or at most two races...), take the ones with least aggressive tread you can find. Even the exemplary Big Apple has a cosmetic sipe, which does nothing useful but acts as a security blanket for morons. And it takes nearly 7000km of hard use to wear off the sipes, but the rear of my bike has become noticeably more secure in the wet -- difficult, because, as you would expect, it was already very secure indeed -- since the sipes were worn almost off.

Before I got a bike designed from the ground up around the Big Apples, I rode on Schwalbe's Marathon Plus 37mm medium-pressure tyres (around 65psi), which are fast enough but as uncomforable and harsh and noisy as hell; you really need suspension in the fork and the seatpost with Marathon Plus. I also hated Contis for puncturing too often. But I've never had a puncture in 11 years on Schwalbe banded tires, which is already worth their price to me because my time is precious.

I have no connection to Schwalbe. I just happen to be a deliriously happy customer who's never even had cause to call customer service.

Andre Jute

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:00:35 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 7:50:45 PM UTC+1, Andy K wrote:

I have a mountain bike which I use for all around use.







Riding, shopping, etc.







It has 29 x 2.25 tires aired up to 50 p.s.i.







I could use some recommendations for a tire that would roll easier than what I have.







I think the current knobby tires provide more flat resistant qualities than Continental general purpose tires that I used on a Raleigh 3-speed as I have no flats for about a year.







Thanks.



First off, you don't want to believe the clowns who tell you a narrow tyre rolls better. It doesn't. Nor does a hard tyre. That's just the traditional street corner myth of people who can't be bothered to put their minds in gear, or don't have minds to put in gear. Neither of the two smartest guys ever on this conference, Jobst Brandt (who designed the grand prix brakes for Porsche, and influenced the innovative Avocet bicycle components and accessories for years) and Sheldon Brown (probably the greatest bike mechanic who ever lived, given an obituary by The Times of London...), believed any of that crap.



Even after you bit that bullet of two entirely wrong traditions, what kills both your speed and your ride comfort are knobs on your tires.



For puncture proofing you want a belted tire. It's another stupid, wrong myth that an anti-intrusion belt makes a tire harsh-riding. All the most comfortable proper tires I know are banded.



What you want to bring out the 29er character of your bike, which is clearly compromised by 50psi pressure in your tires (who told the jerk who specified high pressure tires for a 29er that he could be a designer -- his mommy?), is a fat, treadless, low-pressure tire. I use the 60x622 Big Apple Liteskins with the Ultraleich tube, which saves more weight than a complete set of skinny tires... The problem with proper 29er tires on proper 29er rims is that they're heavy. But once you have them rolling, they keep rolling. For more on the subject by me and others, see http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/...ic=3798.0;wap2



Low pressure is in the order of 2 bar, about 29psi. Even Chalo Colina, who weighs well north of 300 pounds, rode his Big Apples about there. My bike and I are about 130kg in day-ride trim with full water bottles, and I let my Big Apples go down to 1.5 bar on the approach to the monthly pump-up to 2 bar, and there are no ill effects. That's serious comfort already, and that's on very badly potholed roads, through which I crash at full speed, so, at least in theory, I could go lower.



Turning to the practical matter of what you can and should fit, it depends on what you use the bike for. Schwalbe has all kinds of fat tires at all kinds of prices, the more expensive ones getting a better compound and the better puncture protection. I have no experience of the cheaper lines, but doubt they'll be rubbish; Schwalbe has too much to lose. My current Big Apple Liteskins have 6800km on them and appear good to go, the front one to 10K, the rear to 8K; presumably people who ride in a less carefree manner than I do will better my mileages. I'm a big fan of Schwalbe, but people who shop for tires on price and don't expect a set to last more than a thousand miles are disturbed by their prices.



If weight bothers you, 55mm and even down to 47mm low-pressure tires have plenty of air in them for comfort and some of the Schwalbe liked by loaded tourers for their surefootedness and longevity are most popular in the 47mm size. Some of the good tires have knobs on them but for town/utlity use that's a fashion accessory for the same sort of idiots who think narrow tires and high-pressure tires roll faster. Unless you actually ride off-road in mud where the traction may be useful, you don't want anything but smooth tires. If the sort you want for any reason isn't available in a perfectly smooth version (I'm not aware of any that are perfectly smooth except a couple of racing tires you don't want because they're scaled to last one or at most two races...), take the ones with least aggressive tread you can find. Even the exemplary Big Apple has a cosmetic sipe, which does nothing useful but acts as a security blanket for morons. And it takes nearly 7000km of hard use to wear off the sipes, but the rear of my bike has become noticeably more secure in the wet -- difficult, because, as you would expect, it was already very secure indeed -- since the sipes were worn almost off.



Before I got a bike designed from the ground up around the Big Apples, I rode on Schwalbe's Marathon Plus 37mm medium-pressure tyres (around 65psi), which are fast enough but as uncomforable and harsh and noisy as hell; you really need suspension in the fork and the seatpost with Marathon Plus. I also hated Contis for puncturing too often. But I've never had a puncture in 11 years on Schwalbe banded tires, which is already worth their price to me because my time is precious.



I have no connection to Schwalbe. I just happen to be a deliriously happy customer who's never even had cause to call customer service.



Andre Jute

A summary reference of technical/research support for most of the points I make above.
http://www.balloonbikes.com/en/advantages.html

Andre Jute