Cycling UK Forum

I did 2,000 miles on new Marathon + in July.
Pamir Highway, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and very rough roads.
Fully loaded on a Thorn Raven.
No punctures or other issues.
2"
On the little tarmac I rode they were slow but that wasn't why I went with them!

I'm going back next year. Same bike, same tyres.

Brucey wrote:

To anyone who thinks that their tyres are already 'very comfortable' even though they have some thick sidewalls and puncture protection, I'd suggest that they might like to try some really nice tyres instead. The difference is remarkable.

cheers

Really nice tyres - you mean expensive? Our tourers give a very comfortable ride on cheapo Vittoria tyres, Randonneur Cross Pro and Voyager Hyper. These tyres cost between 10 and 15 quid. What would you recomend to provide a better ride?

no, I said nice, not expensive. You already have nice tyres...

cheers

Brucey wrote:no, I said nice, not expensive. You already have nice tyres...

cheers

Be careful Brucey you might get flamed.
Along with the owners of Ortlieb panniers, Thorn bikes and Hilleberg tents Schwalbe users usually think their choice is beyond criticism. Suggest to them that , for example, Carradice, VSF , Terra Nova or Vittoria make equal or better products and apoplexy may well ensue.

pete75 wrote:

Brucey wrote:no, I said nice, not expensive. You already have nice tyres...

cheers

Be careful Brucey you might get flamed.
Along with the owners of Ortlieb panniers, Thorn bikes and Hilleberg tents Schwalbe users usually think their choice is beyond criticism. Suggest to them that , for example, Carradice, VSF , Terra Nova or Vittoria make equal or better products and apoplexy may well ensue.

The alternative is that we've actually tried those products and think that Schwalbe ones are better.

Crazy, I know.

Don't be daft, pete75. Schwalbe have been consistently good for years, but I also have bikes around here on tyres from Vittoria, Vredestein and still a couple of old Kendas (but I wasn't impressed by the last one I bought - didn't last long). Schwalbe are most famous for their very tough tyres, but that seems to mean that a lot of rot is written assuming that is all they make.

mjr wrote:Don't be daft, pete75. Schwalbe have been consistently good for years, but I also have bikes around here on tyres from Vittoria, Vredestein and still a couple of old Kendas (but I wasn't impressed by the last one I bought - didn't last long). Schwalbe are most famous for their very tough tyres, but that seems to mean that a lot of rot is written assuming that is all they make.

Where did I say they were no good? What I said was that people who use them very often object when it's said other brands are equally as good or better - as you've just shown.

BTW in terms of RRP the better Vittorias are not an 'inexpensive tyre'.

Quite what kind of deal Planet X have done to be able to sell the Hypers at the price they have done in recent times is anyone's guess. Rightly or wrongly, I bought more than I needed on the basis that it couldn't go on that way for ever.

cheers

pete75 wrote:Where did I say they were no good? What I said was that people who use them very often object when it's said other brands are equally as good or better - as you've just shown.

As I've just shown by saying that I've happily chosen Vittoria or others when they looked like good ones?

You didn't say they were no good, but you seemed to be implying that choosing Schwalbe is irrational, so I also suggested that they've rarely been a poor choice for quite a while now. Their naming sucks but that's similar with some other brands.

http://velonews.competitor.com/where-th ... tires-fast is another tyre test, more racey (one 28mm and the rest narrower, lots of tubeless and tubular). Good showing from wannabe-Roubaix-monopolist, GP 4000S II and the Schwalbe ONE. Surprisingly bad showing from Schwalbe Durano and Vittoria Rubino Pro.

Brucey wrote:BTW in terms of RRP the better Vittorias are not an 'inexpensive tyre'.

Quite what kind of deal Planet X have done to be able to sell the Hypers at the price they have done in recent times is anyone's guess. Rightly or wrongly, I bought more than I needed on the basis that it couldn't go on that way for ever.

cheers

When has RRP for consumables ever had anything to do with the actual selling price?

mjr wrote:

pete75 wrote:Where did I say they were no good? What I said was that people who use them very often object when it's said other brands are equally as good or better - as you've just shown.

As I've just shown by saying that I've happily chosen Vittoria or others when they looked like good ones?

You didn't say they were no good, but you seemed to be implying that choosing Schwalbe is irrational, so I also suggested that they've rarely been a poor choice for quite a while now.

I don't see how you can infer that from what I said - however each to his own....

I'm confused about tyre pressure on my new Marathon greenplus, 26x1.5. I am 65kgs on LHT with 10-15 kgs rear panniers.

I thought you should have the 15% bulge on your tyre and excessive pressure didn't reduce rolling resistance.

There is a graph often referred to on this branch that shows ideal pressure for tyre width and bike weight (sorry can't find it at the moment). On my old Marathons I followed it and reduced my tyre pressure to about 45 and 50.

Looking at this review, the lowest rolling resistance is at 90 psi. Should I be upping my pressures and ignoring that graph and all I've read about low RR not being dependant on high pressures?

mjr wrote:http://velonews.competitor.com/where-the-rubber-meets-the-road-what-makes-cycling-tires-fast is another tyre test, more racey (one 28mm and the rest narrower, lots of tubeless and tubular). Good showing from wannabe-Roubaix-monopolist, GP 4000S II and the Schwalbe ONE. Surprisingly bad showing from Schwalbe Durano and Vittoria Rubino Pro.

Its quite a good test, that. If I were to quibble, they skewed the results towards the more expensive/wider tyres because

a) they appear to have run the tyres all at the same pressure regardless of width, which you wouldn't necessarily do in the real world. The pressure selected was arguably appropriate for a 23mm tyre.

b) they selected better inner tubes for the more expensive tyres. They only tested one tyre with both types of inner tube and that indicated that there was a 3W difference on the smooth roller; in other tyres it could have been more or less than this.

Thus reading between the lines, had it been fitted with a decent inner tube, the 24mm Specialized Turbo Pro ($40) would have been shuffled from 18th place into the top ten, and within 1W of the 7th place tyre. Had they tested the 26mm version it is likely to have been a couple of watts faster again and would have been nudging the top five positions in the test, and certainly one of the top three vulcanised tyres. [On the basis of these tests, this would be my clear choice for a 'value' performance tyre; given that it is the least expensive tyre in the test it would have won that prize anyway, (unless it was truly appalling) but it is also one of the best.]

Again (as per other tyre tests) it is possible that certain types of puncture proofing may give slightly higher Crr values until 'run in' (which may take longer than the ten minutes allowed in the tests).

Another source of variability is the rubber compound; the notes rightly suggest that this is very important. What they omit to mention is that because cycle time costs money, vulcanised tyres are very often not fully vulcanised in the tyre mould. This means that the tyre that comes out of the mould may be somewhat softer when it is 'fresh' than when it is a few months old. It may even continue to harden through its entire life.

If the tread rubber hardens at all, it is a double-edged effect; on the one hand if the rubber becomes stiffer, it'll squirm less, which ought to be good for Crr. On the other hand the hysteresis losses may increase too. I think the former effect usually wins out, but who knows?

I'd like to see some 'real world' effects, like tyre age and tyre wear, taken into account. To me, tyres that are nearly worn out (provided their carcasses are still in good shape) have always seemed noticeably faster than new tyres of the same sort.

cheers

simonhill wrote:I'm confused about tyre pressure on my new Marathon greenplus, 26x1.5. I am 65kgs on LHT with 10-15 kgs rear panniers.

I thought you should have the 15% bulge on your tyre and excessive pressure didn't reduce rolling resistance.

There is a graph often referred to on this branch that shows ideal pressure for tyre width and bike weight (sorry can't find it at the moment). On my old Marathons I followed it and reduced my tyre pressure to about 45 and 50.

Looking at this review, the lowest rolling resistance is at 90 psi. Should I be upping my pressures and ignoring that graph and all I've read about low RR not being dependant on high pressures?

Only if you want to sacrifice comfort for a little extra speed. Even then you may only get a little extra speed on perfectly smooth surfaces.

Remember that the velonews test is of lightweight skinny tyres and yours are not like that. IME with your tyres the slope of Crr vs tyre pressure is (unlike a lot of lightweight tyres) actually pretty steep, and the choice between drag and comfort is a very real one.

The best thing you can do is experiment and see what suits you. Do remember that the tyres will have a maximum pressure rating though; it may not be permissible to inflate your tyres much above 70psi anyway.

cheers