Cycling UK Forum

I've now been running a Hyper 700x32 on a front wheel for just over 1200 miles (Reohn's plugging!). On the front because I think that's where most of poor road conditions are felt. I have to agree it is a comfortable tyre with low rolling resistance.

I've no scientific proof, but it seems where this tyre scores over others (in my limited experience of using different tyres) is that the low rolling resistance is maintained at low pressures, whereas with most other tyres drag seems to increase at low pressures so they need to be hard and therefore less comfortable. I'm quite light and I find 40psi is quite sufficient and gives a comfortable ride. The other day it was down to about 25-30psi because I hadn't checked , but I hadn't noticed any deterioration regarding drag.

On a surface dressed road (chips rolled in), which is never that pleasant for cycling, there can be some noise, but rolling still seems to be smooth and good.

MikeF wrote:....I've no scientific proof, but it seems where this tyre scores over others (in my limited experience of using different tyres) is that the low rolling resistance is maintained at low pressures, whereas with most other tyres drag seems to increase at low pressures so they need to be hard and therefore less comfortable.....

this is pretty much borne out by the fietsersbond tests; of the tyres that were so tested, most of the others were disproportionately worse at lower pressures, and in addition comfort was also not improved at the same rate.

cheers

For low rolling resistance, you’re best to put the fastest tyre on the rear, since there is more weight there and correspondingly more rolling resistance. I suspect you know that, but perhaps someone hadn’t thought of it.

I like these tyres myself. It would be interesting to know how they compare in rolling resistance to the good old Panaracer Pasela, especially the pre-TourGuard variant (which is hard to find these days).

Personally I find that drag does increase with lower pressures. Not by much, but it is noticeable.
I run mine at about 45/50 f/r which is probably a bit high for my weight (65kg) but it's insurance against potholes and crap roads in general. Any higher and not only do my dentures start to rattle but the bike tends to get more slippery in the wet.

Another fan of hypers here, they are quite hard to get hold of

Reohn2 bought them all.

Never having tried these tyres, can I ask a question? If I let my Pasela TGs drop to 60psi I get a squirmy feel on corners. Not so with Hypers?

Samuel D wrote:For low rolling resistance, you’re best to put the fastest tyre on the rear, since there is more weight there and correspondingly more rolling resistance. I suspect you know that, but perhaps someone hadn’t thought of it.

I like these tyres myself. It would be interesting to know how they compare in rolling resistance to the good old Panaracer Pasela, especially the pre-TourGuard variant (which is hard to find these days).

I'm sure you're right, but it's not just rolling resistance it's how the tyre rides over bumps and road faults that matters as well. I think this is much more important on the front than the rear; a "softish" tyre ironing out the vibrations and jolts is more important to me and makes for easier cycling, especially if the rolling resistance is low. Even at low pressure I haven't found the tyre "bottoms out".

I don't think you can run Paselas at such low pressures with the same results; I don't think I would be happy to do that - I have them on an old bike which I occasionally ride.

Rich_Clements wrote:Another fan of hypers here, they are quite hard to get hold of

They're available here in all sizes - not as cheap as Planet X though.

pwa wrote:Never having tried these tyres, can I ask a question? If I let my Pasela TGs drop to 60psi I get a squirmy feel on corners. Not so with Hypers?

I haven't found Hypers go squirmy, but I don't know what others find. Paselas go squirmy because of the very thin sidewall and need higher pressure to keep this supported. - Hypers aren't the same construction.

My experience of these tyres over 10k miles(700cx37c and 40c(35mm and 37/8mm actual)is simply remarkable in the positive.
Weighing around 85kg plus a bike and daybag,etc @ 13 to 14kg,I run mine at 45f/65r psi,on bad tarmac and rough stuff gravel/hardpack offroad.
I often say to myself when riding rough chip n seal,as the OP "I can hear it but I can't feel it".
During my own tests they've been within 1mph of 28mm tyres on a much lighter bike on 70mile test route rides due the ability to maintain a high constant average speed throughout the ride,because of their comfort,without beating me up.
One thing I've found is initially they felt slower,I put this down to the lack of high frequency vibration,which IMHO is false indicator of speed,and over longer rides is an energy sapper.
The difference between Hypers and narrow HP and other large section stiffer carcass tyres is clear and defined in favour of Hypers,and the numbers don't lie where speed is concerned,they may feel slower but they're not.

I've had one puncture in them and haven't worn any out yet,though those 10k miles are shared between two bikes.
I also share Vantage's experience of higher PSI's only making the ride more uncomfortable without any speed increase.
I also find handling remarkably good,descending at high speed on sketchy tarmac is very positive,much faster and secure than narrow HP tyres.
Remarkable,incredible,are words I used to describe these tyres and they're the single most improvement to my cycling in 20+years

pwa wrote:Never having tried these tyres, can I ask a question? If I let my Pasela TGs drop to 60psi I get a squirmy feel on corners. Not so with Hypers?

Hypers=no squirm,extremely positive handling at low PSI's even at high 50mph speeds,see my many posts on them

reohn2 wrote:

pwa wrote:Never having tried these tyres, can I ask a question? If I let my Pasela TGs drop to 60psi I get a squirmy feel on corners. Not so with Hypers?

Hypers=no squirm,extremely positive handling at low PSI's even at high 50mph speeds,see my many posts on them

I may well give them a try when my Paselas start looking bald. Ta.

I would love to try some of these wonderful sounding tyres.

But my 700c bikes are only for 700x25c or 28c or other bikes are for 26" wheels.

Is there anything available narrower in 700c or in 26"? I cannot seem to find any Hypers in those sizes.

Des49 wrote:I would love to try some of these wonderful sounding tyres.

But my 700c bikes are only for 700x25c or 28c or other bikes are for 26" wheels.

Is there anything available narrower in 700c or in 26"? I cannot seem to find any Hypers in those sizes.

Vittoria do these for 559 rims- seem to have many on the characteristics of Hypers?

I've looked on the Vittoria Web site and can only see Vittoria Voyager Hypers. I can't see the Vittoria Radonneur Hypers which were used in the rolling resistance test.

freeflow wrote:I've looked on the Vittoria Web site and can only see Vittoria Voyager Hypers. I can't see the Vittoria Radonneur Hypers which were used in the rolling resistance test.

They are one and the same tyre.
The Randonneur Hyper's name was changed to Voyager Hyper some three years ago.I think it was because it was easily confused with their Randonneur and Randonneur Pro range.
The Rando Pro shares the same 120tpi supple carcass (which means comfortable)as the Hypers,whereas the ordinary Rando has a much courser 30tpi not supple carcass.
Both Rando's have more tread on the carcass @ 4.5mm centre tread compared with the Hyper's 3mm,this along with the high TPI count,makes the Hyper even more supple and is the reason it's such a fast high volume tyre.If you check Hypers or even Rando Pro FTM,against Schwalbe and Conti's offerings they don't even get close for speed and suppleness in 32,35 or 40mm tyres.