26 x 1.25 slick tire recommendation

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Performance/Nashbar/Supergo is a huge entity with enormous buying power,
and great economy of scale in general. Companies like Avocet,
Continental, etc., have to spend too much marketing their individual
products.

Yeah, that $5 Avocet spends marketing their tires every year is a real
killer.

Matt O'Toole writes:

Thank you bfd and maxo.

Price indeed doesn't matter. But if two different tires give the
same result, then I would definitely get the less expensive one. I
don't care about coolness nor about name recognition. Just
function and performance.

I've used the Performance ones and they're great. At that price you
can't beat them. I may pick up a set myself, to save my
now-hard-to-get Bontrager semi-slicks.

One tire that seems faster than anything else, including most road
bike tires, is the 1.75" Continental Avenue. They're absolutely
amazing, but I gave up on them because they were too hard to get on
and off my rims. YMMV.

How often do you mount these tires on your rims? I think I do that
about two or three times a year for a flat or two and when I replace
the tire.

If the Performance house tire is as good as the Avocet Fasgrip, why
does it only cost 1/4 of the price? There must be a catch, right?

Performance/Nashbar/Supergo is a huge entity with enormous buying
power, and great economy of scale in general. Companies like
Avocet, Continental, etc., have to spend too much marketing their
individual products.

Actually all bike tires could be this cheap if the public weren't so
hornswaggled by slick advertising. Now people think something can't
be good unless it has a premium price.

The problem the advertising is slick, not the tread, and they've got
to have a clever name that implies they are impervious or extremely
fast. Besides, multi colored tires are IN!

Jobst Brandt

I might be far off the mark here, but I don't really look at brand when
I get tires, though there are a few that I'm fonder of and trust due to
experience. I look at thread count, sidewall (gum or coated for urban
beaters, skin for fast bikes), width, and recommended pressure. Surely
two tires that are similar in all those attributes should roll about
the same. I don't obsess about rubber compound as I'm not racing
criteriums in the rain.

Some folks like to consider flat resistant tires, and if you live in a
place with thorns, they might be a help. I rarely get flats and would
rather have a tire that's easy to get on and off--as I can patch a tube
in my sleep otherwise, and "belted" tires can affect ride quality.

"Best" rolling resistance test I've seen, which is also the oldest as
its from like 1987 or 89, is this one:

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/imgs/rolres.gif

Note the tire with the *lowest* rolling resistance was the Avocet
Fasgrip Road 30 700x28 tire. That tire was actually 25mm wide and
mislabeled.

Here's the discussion of the test:

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

Yeah, that $5 Avocet spends marketing their tires every year is a real
killer.

That's funny, I didn't think Avocet spent that much on
advertisement.....

maxo and Matt O,

Thanks for your opinion on the inexpensive Performance slicks. Let me
make sure I understand what you're saying:

In spite of the low price, the Performance slicks are just as good
(rolling resistance) as the expensive Avocet Fasgrips. Am I reading it
right? If so, then I will get the Performance slicks.

Thanks,
Sam

I have no concrete scientific data to back me up, but seeing as the two
tires have similar thread counts, recommended inflation, mass, and
tread--I doubt you would feel much of a difference.

The Avocet Fasgrips are made by IRC. IRC makes very reliable tires
under their own name and many others. I don't know about the long term
durability of the Performance tires, but the anecdotal evidence on this
group points to them being just fine. At $6 per tire you can afford to
get two sets just in case. :P

There are other slickish tires for 26" rims made by Ritchey and
Vittoria among others, some as narrow as 1"--but you'll want to make
sure your rim is narrow enough to use those. I like the 1.25" width as
it rolls fast and resists urban pinch flats.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:38:11 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Matt O'Toole writes:

One tire that seems faster than anything else, including most road
bike tires, is the 1.75" Continental Avenue. They're absolutely
amazing, but I gave up on them because they were too hard to get on
and off my rims. YMMV.

How often do you mount these tires on your rims? I think I do that
about two or three times a year for a flat or two and when I replace
the tire.

What turned me off was one incident where it took me at least
half an hour to fix a flat, and resulted in bloody fingers. The light was
fading, I had no lights, and it was getting cold. I decided there was no
reason to put up with this, there being so many other good tires that go
on and off easily. I don't get many flats either, but rides across town
should not turn into adventures.

Also, a lot of mountain bikers switch between two or three kinds of tires,
for different conditions. Some keep extra sets of wheels, just for the
convenience of not having to mount tires. That seems silly to me. I used
to switch tires a lot too, but now I use the same pair of semi-slicks for
most riding.

Matt O.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:39:19 -0800, Sam (Houston) wrote:

maxo and Matt O,

Thanks for your opinion on the inexpensive Performance slicks. Let me
make sure I understand what you're saying:

In spite of the low price, the Performance slicks are just as good
(rolling resistance) as the expensive Avocet Fasgrips. Am I reading it
right? If so, then I will get the Performance slicks.

I don't know that they're "just as good," but I'm sure they're close
enough that you'd have a hard time telling the difference.

Matt O.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:35:50 -0800, 41 wrote:

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Performance/Nashbar/Supergo is a huge entity with enormous buying
power, and great economy of scale in general. Companies like Avocet,
Continental, etc., have to spend too much marketing their individual
products.

Yeah, that $5 Avocet spends marketing their tires every year is a real
killer.

The thing is, Performance's marketing cost (and benefit) is shared with
their entire range of products. So it's lower per unit sold, and every
dollar spent is more effective.

Matt O.