Ride feel and drag on Greenguard; actual size on Marathon Supreme?

[peterh11]

I replaced the tyres on my 1980 Super Galaxy last year, putting on Marathon Greenguard 32x622 to replace the pre-greenguard Marathons that had worn out (7000 miles and 1 puncture - great). I've had the feeling that the new ones are more sluggish, and a bit squidgy to ride on, which I am not so keen on. They feel more like the Marathon Pluses I have on my town bike - not surprising as they are the same technology it seems. I see a number of posts here and in other forums commenting similarly. I did a bit of research online, and noticed:

Jarno Bierman on his rolling resistance site tested different sizes of Greenguards and his results show the 32s as the worst size for rolling resistance, though he is very positive about the larger sizes.

At the speeds I ride, it looks like rolling resistance is noticeable - I played with a couple of online calculators and estimate that given Jarno's figures for the difference between the Greenguard 32s and the Marathon Supreme 35c, it would cost me about 1km/h+ when riding at 100W power (23.5 -> 22.5km/h) or about an extra 10W riding at steady 23-25km/h on the flat. (Very rough, just using the figures from the tests etc.)

Any of you able to share similar experiences or have done any more rigorous tests yourselves?

I am considering replacing with Marathon Supremes since it looks like they would be better for me - a bit less rolling resistance, perhaps better ride feel, and still pretty puncture resistant - important since while most of my mileage is on road, it is often poorly surfaced back lanes, with some riding on dry tracks. Mostly I do lightly loaded day riding. Again, anyone able to share experience of comparing these tyres in similar real riding conditions?

I've seen a number of comments that they are smaller than specified width, so it seems like the 35c ones would be the size for me. The existing Greenguards are 33mm across when pumped up to 75psi on an LX17 rim. Is anyone able to confirm what width new style 35c Supremes are with similar rims and pressure? I've got about 4.5mm clearance either side in the chainstays currently, and that is the limiting factor - an extra 2-3mm width would be fine, but I think a genuine 37mm width tyre would be too close. No problem with height - the frame was originally built for 27" wheels and has lots of clearance vertically.

Peter H

[Brucey]

IIRC the current generation of Marathons/Marathon pluses roll well (considering the puncture protection) but need to be inflated hard, at which point they become uncomfortable to ride on. That you consider them 'squidgy' suggests that you have been inflating them for comfort, at the expense of speed.

I'd suggest that you certainly don't need one on the front wheel, so perhaps a Supreme will work there. Buy one, and try it on the rear for size.

cheers

[peterh11]

IIRC the current generation of Marathons/Marathon pluses roll well (considering the puncture protection) but need to be inflated hard, at which point they become uncomfortable to ride on. That you consider them 'squidgy' suggests that you have been inflating them for comfort, at the expense of speed.

I'd suggest that you certainly don't need one on the front wheel, so perhaps a Supreme will work there. Buy one, and try it on the rear for size.

cheers

Interesting - yes I'll consider buying one Supreme to try.

I am pretty light (65kg) so not convinced I'd want the GG's much harder. Maybe "squidgy" wasn't quite the word. It feels like despite the tyre itself being fairly hard, I feel a sort of give or vagueness when cornering which I am not so keen on, and the ride feel generally is a bit too sofa-like.

I was struck by Jarno's results on https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/schwalbe-marathon-32-37-40-47 suggesting that the Greenguard 37mm does roll well, but the 32mm less so.

Thanks
Peter H

[mercalia]

IIRC the current generation of Marathons/Marathon pluses roll well (considering the puncture protection) but need to be inflated hard, at which point they become uncomfortable to ride on. That you consider them 'squidgy' suggests that you have been inflating them for comfort, at the expense of speed.

I'd suggest that you certainly don't need one on the front wheel, so perhaps a Supreme will work there. Buy one, and try it on the rear for size.

cheers

harder than the pressure on the sidewall? My 1.75 says max of I think 70psi

[PH]

It's all a very subjective, I like the Supremes (Only used the older version) and loath the Greenguards. GGs pumped up hard enough to roll well feels harsh and despite the tread don't feel like they grip as well as the Supremes. Both have been reasonably puncture resistant, though that's based on my limited experience. I'm looking forward to trying the newer version of the Supremes, the ones I've had have lasted well for a faster tyre and I'm hoping for the same from the current model.

[Brucey]

in a test that I read the reviewer adjusted the pressure to get the same comfort as with a decent tyre (a Vittoria Hyper).

IIRC at the same pressure the hypers used over 5W each less than the greenguards (in ~37mm width). When the greenguards were let down to a low enough pressure that they were as comfortable as the vittorias were at ~60psi, the greeguards were draggier by 10W per tyre. BTW the greenguards were good by comparision with many other tyres but had a much steeper curve of drag vs pressure; you really pay in drag terms if you don't have them well pumped up, and you still pay in harshness terms even if you do. It probably feels like pedalling in treacle.

cheers

[simonhill]

I used to use the old Marathon Originals (last 2 versions). When these became unavailable, I went for the Green Guard (now called Original) and I thought it would be a good replacement. I hated them. They felt harsh and slow. They were OK on super smooth tarmac but if the surface was a bit rough, eg concrete then they felt very harsh.

I swapped them for Supremes 26"x1.6" and have been very happy with these. I have had 3 punctures in 10,000kms. One from a sharp piece of off-cut metal which would have gone through anything and 2 thorns. I have also pulled out plenty of glass shards, etc that didn't get through.

My only problem with the Supremes is that the sidewalls are very thin so you have to be careful if you are riding on rocks or potholes, etc that you can drop down and damage the walls. My Supremes have done 10,000kms and I have just replaced the rear because the sidewall was damaged by dropping down a pothole. There is plenty of tread left on it and I'm leaving the front which is still in good condition.

If I were you, I would do as I did and get some Supremes.

[MikeF]

You can still buy Hypers if you want comfort and low rolling resistance. They're not now as cheap as they were. One of mine 32x622 has now been over 5500miles on the front and still looks good. It's had 1 puncture, a blackthorn thorn.

[mercalia]

IIRC the current generation of Marathons/Marathon pluses roll well (considering the puncture protection) but need to be inflated hard, at which point they become uncomfortable to ride on. That you consider them 'squidgy' suggests that you have been inflating them for comfort, at the expense of speed.

I'd suggest that you certainly don't need one on the front wheel, so perhaps a Supreme will work there. Buy one, and try it on the rear for size.

cheers

Interesting - yes I'll consider buying one Supreme to try.

I am pretty light (65kg) so not convinced I'd want the GG's much harder. Maybe "squidgy" wasn't quite the word. It feels like despite the tyre itself being fairly hard, I feel a sort of give or vagueness when cornering which I am not so keen on, and the ride feel generally is a bit too sofa-like.

I was struck by Jarno's results on https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/schwalbe-marathon-32-37-40-47 suggesting that the Greenguard 37mm does roll well, but the 32mm less so.

Thanks
Peter H

shame he didnt test for higher loads like 16 stone people here... as I dont find the Marathons at eg 70/60 at all un comfortable and can wizz along as long as there is no wind ( thats what kills me ). It seems his tests show there is not a lot in it re rolling resitance for the various sizes? is 1 watt a lot? just 5%

[yostumpy]

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=103823.0

[Brucey]

BTW the peculiar GG handling reported may be to do with the puncture protection. The thick layer in the tread centre makes the tread a bit 'pointy' and this can make the bike tip in to corners in a weird way, that wouldn't happen with a rounder tyre profile (as is typically the case with tyres that have thinner tread and no puncture protection).

cheers

[peterh11]

IIRC the current generation of Marathons/Marathon pluses roll well (considering the puncture protection) but need to be inflated hard, at which point they become uncomfortable to ride on. That you consider them 'squidgy' suggests that you have been inflating them for comfort, at the expense of speed.

I'd suggest that you certainly don't need one on the front wheel, so perhaps a Supreme will work there. Buy one, and try it on the rear for size.

cheers

Interesting - yes I'll consider buying one Supreme to try.

I am pretty light (65kg) so not convinced I'd want the GG's much harder. Maybe "squidgy" wasn't quite the word. It feels like despite the tyre itself being fairly hard, I feel a sort of give or vagueness when cornering which I am not so keen on, and the ride feel generally is a bit too sofa-like.

I was struck by Jarno's results on https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/schwalbe-marathon-32-37-40-47 suggesting that the Greenguard 37mm does roll well, but the 32mm less so.

Thanks
Peter H

shame he didnt test for higher loads like 16 stone people here... as I dont find the Marathons at eg 70/60 at all un comfortable and can wizz along as long as there is no wind ( thats what kills me ). It seems his tests show there is not a lot in it re rolling resitance for the various sizes? is 1 watt a lot? just 5%

Actually it is over 3W difference on his tests between 32 and 37. The results for the Supreme show it as a couple of watts lower than the 37 GG when run at 75psi. These are the figures I plugged in a couple of online calculators which suggested about 10% energy saving at my normal cruising speeds. Glad you are happy with them - I don't hate them, I just don't like them as much as the previous generation. If I switch, I may keep them to put on my commuter where p*** resistance is number 1 priority.

Peter H

[willem jongman]

I hated the Greenguards and gave mine away (26x2.0). My personal favourites are the Panaracer Paselas or their more expensive Compass brothers and sisters, but to a varying extent these are all a bit fragile. Even so, I have now used the 32 mm Pasela TG (with kevlar puncture protection) for some five years on my town bike, without a single puncture. For a more robust but still fast tyre I like the new Marathon Almotion. It has more tread than the Supreme, which may be beneficial on rough tracks, esp in the wet. Narrowest size is 40 mm (a bit less in reality I am sure) so I don't know if that would fit.

[peterh11]

Follow-up post in case anyone else has a similar question.

I took the plunge and ordered a pair of Supremes in 37x622 (35c). They fit fine though they were really hard to get on and I had to adjust the mudguards as they are a couple of mm taller than the old 32x622 Greenguards. I went for a quick test ride yesterday and then took them out for a couple of hours this morning.

First impressions: very pleased. I was immediately aware that the ride was quieter and smoother as well as more comfortable. The feel is more springy and lively, and they soak up vibration from poor road surfaces a lot better. Grip and handling seem fine though to be fair I didn't test them that hard. The whole ride was on roads I know well and have ridden in the last few weeks, so I have a good reference.

The tyres feel like they roll more easily as well, though without doing controlled trials I can't make any definitive statements. Two anecdotes: when setting off down a (well known) slope after stopping, I was surprised how quickly the bike picked up speed and I had to brake more sharply than I expected. On some upward inclines I was moving faster and in a higher gear than I expected. Average moving speed on my GPS for the ride was a bit higher (between 0.5 and 1 km/h) than I would have expected for the effort, but that is subjective.

The tyres are a lot lighter than the GGs. I think that the thinner layer under the tread improves handling and vibration absorption, and it probably also helps that they have more air in them, since some of that thick stuff in the GGs is replaced by space for air.

Data: old tyres were Marathon Greenguard Original HS420 in 32x622 size, which measure approx 33mm across and 32mm high (from edge of rim) inflated to 5 bar on LX17 rim; new ones are Marathon Supreme V-guard (for tubes) in 37x622 size (also labelled 35c), which measure approx 33.7mm across and 34mm high at 5 bar on same rim. Pressures on GG were approx 5.25 bar rear and 4.75 bar front. Pressures on Supremes approx 5 bar rear and 4.25 bar front today - will experiment with varying. The bike and I together weigh about 85kg with normal day-ride equipment and water.

The GGs are very similar in size and look to the Marathon Plus 37x622 tyres on my commuter (actual width about 34mm) , by the way. I might keep them as spares for that bike!

If anyone wants to know more feel free to PM me.

Peter H

[willem jongman]

This all sounds familiar and was to be expected. Keep the GG for your commuter bike because they will be nicer than the Marathon Plus, and will still offer massive puncture protection. You may want to consider the Conti Topcontact Winter II for winter commuting use if you are in one of the colder parts of the UK.