Cycling UK Forum

Jamesh wrote:https://www.wiggle.co.uk/continental-contact-cruiser-tyre-grey-26-20?lang=en&curr=GBP&dest=1&sku=106415923&kpid=106415923&utm_source=google&utm_term=&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+All+Products&utm_medium=base&utm_content=mckv|sQn4nWuZw_dm|mcrid|490894957154|mkw||mmt||mrd|106415923uk|mslid||&mkwid=sQn4nWuZw_dm&pcrid=490894957154&prd=106415923uk&pgrid=60973737802&ptaid=aud-967287487125:pla-522417750384&gclid=Cj0KCQiA3smABhCjARIsAKtrg6K-5SzxoHEtxSIIS2MBGfOG9tVKQB0H-aYZYg0LX4UJ7XJQ4M6Yix4aAiG1EALw_wcB

How about these?

At that price even a Yorkshireman could buy them!!!

Cheers James

Jeez... they are cheap. Might be worth a go to see how I get on. Then might upgrade if I see a significant difference!

Jamesh wrote:https://www.wiggle.co.uk/continental-contact-cruiser-tyre-grey-26-20?lang=en&curr=GBP&dest=1&sku=106415923&kpid=106415923&utm_source=google&utm_term=&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+All+Products&utm_medium=base&utm_content=mckv|sQn4nWuZw_dm|mcrid|490894957154|mkw||mmt||mrd|106415923uk|mslid||&mkwid=sQn4nWuZw_dm&pcrid=490894957154&prd=106415923uk&pgrid=60973737802&ptaid=aud-967287487125:pla-522417750384&gclid=Cj0KCQiA3smABhCjARIsAKtrg6K-5SzxoHEtxSIIS2MBGfOG9tVKQB0H-aYZYg0LX4UJ7XJQ4M6Yix4aAiG1EALw_wcB

How about these?

At that price even a Yorkshireman could buy them!!!

Cheers James

960g EACH
That's about twice a decent tyre. The bike will ride itself and feel sluggish.

Edit: Cross posted with above.

They are also very heavy.

Nonetheless an improvement on what you have and at that price worth a go. You can always change again once better weather sets in - if you decide that's the way to go.

simonhill wrote:Having a look at the Schwalbe range of touring tyres might be an idea. Some will be too heavy for your use, but they will give you an idea of what is out there. It also is worth thinking about what you want from your tyres. The idea of very thin, high pressure for speed is losing out to the concept of something a bit fatter which gives a better ride and is (counter intuitively) often faster

Two to think about are the Marathon Original Greenguard, a great general purpose tyres which is very puncture resistant, but may be a bit slow for you. Also the Marathon Supreme which is very popular for general use and also touring. It is a lightweight slick tyre - available in 1.6" and 2" both of which are wide enough for a bit of comfort as well as a reasonably fast ride. I've been using Supremes for some years now.

(Edit cross posted with above)

Please show some hard evidence for this hypothesis because despite many making this claim the numbers simply don't work out, only when you inflate a wider tyre to the same higher pressure of a narrower tyres does it equal or have a slightly lower rolling resistance on rough tarmac.

If the OP is just riding on a dusty canal path with maybe some loose surface here and there as their 'off-road' then there is no benefit whatsoever to having anything heavy or with insane amounts of puncture resistant layers or even any knobbles. I ride on far worse with my 700C slicks 32/28mm rear front and have them set for road riding with a small load so 80psi in both.
Wider than 45mm is IMO not of any additional benefit whatsoever and is just adding weight and width for the sake of it.

I've used these....

https://www.wiggle.co.uk/lifeline-essen ... er-26-tyre

Light enough and supple.

Cheers James

I use City Jets as a general purpose tyre - road use, old trackbeds and rough tracks. They're great, about 600g and decent quality, currently £9 (26 x 1.95) from Spa Cycles. Halfords are advertising Silentos in the 26 x 1.75 size for £13, similar weight with a little more tread.

Compared with cheap knobblies, any 'slick' tyre should be a revelation unless you do nothing other than ride through mud.

The utility cyclist wrote:Please show some hard evidence for this hypothesis because despite many making this claim the numbers simply don't work out, only when you inflate a wider tyre to the same higher pressure of a narrower tyres does it equal or have a slightly lower rolling resistance on rough tarmac.

See page 43 of Thorn's Touring Bike Bible (http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn ... ochure.pdf). Andy Blance provides these links to support his statements.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/ ... on-losses/
http://trstriathlon.com/talking-tires-w ... -poertner/
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/06/ ... confirmed/
http://www.roadrevolution18.dtswiss.com/endurance/

I use 2” wide Schwalbe land cruisers. They have a decent tread for off road but a continuous central tread which makes them smooth and fast on tarmac. If you go for something too smooth, you may regret it.... as I find it’s nice to mix up tarmac with towpath or unsurfaced sustrans trails. They’re pretty cheap as well. I also have some big apples which are nice and smooth but I find the land cruisers quicker and more comfy!

often when trying to compare tyres you are not really comparing like with like when you change tyre width. However there have been tests of ostensibly similar tyres eg

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/grand-prix-5000-comparison#:~:text=Rolling%20Resistance%20with%20Michelin%20Latex%20Inner%20Tube%20,%208.2%20Watts%20%202%20more%20rows

and it is pretty clear that at the same pressure the rolling resistance is less with the wider tyre. However in reality you might use ~20psi higher pressure in a narrower tyre in which case the Crr is the same (and so might be the initial vertical spring rate of the tyres too).

So the differences may arise in several areas;

1) the wider tyres will be expected to work better on less smooth surfaces
2) the wider tyre will be expected to flex more under circumstances other than a bumpy road too.
3) the risk of puncturing is different; you might cover 'more ground' with a wider tyre but at lower pressure, so depending on what kinds of hazards there are, this may change the likelihood of puncturing.
4) load rating; if you want to carry a large load you are better off with wider tyres if you want to keep tyre pressures within a sensible range.
5) wide tyres are likely to be less aerodynamic, given any level of effort regarding shaping etc.

On point 2), I think that fat tyres just don't suit some pedalling styles; I think that some folk waste energy with fat tyres because the tyre deforms (and may slip against the road surface) differently when loaded in torque and the whole bike may 'bob' slightly just as it would with suspension of other kinds. This is certainly annoying if you are used to dishing it out as necessary and it seems to adversely affect efficiency; I basically have not yet found fat tyres which enable me to sprint up small climbs effectively; the only way that seems to work well with fat tyres is to sit down and pedal smoothly.

So for example I have rarely seen a well-used fixed gear bike (for the road) which has tyres over 32mm fitted, and this may be the reason why. I'd put the level of perceived inefficiency/annoyance with fat tyres on a fixed gear bike as being comparable to running with a slack chain.

In the Crr tests most often done, the only torque transmitted through the rolling contact is the rolling resistance. This simulates the front wheel of a bicycle very well but it in no way resembles what is going on with the rear wheel; the rear wheel always transmits torque and this is not well represented in roller tests. Average thrusts between the tyre and the road are small in steady state riding, but real pedalling is lumpy and in real world riding (not to mention racing) these thrusts are both much larger at times and of far greater significance, because this is when the real racing is happening.

In another thread someone is asking where the next lot of marginal gains is coming from; this area is one of the prime candidates IMHO. You can do all the power measurement you like using a dummy hub but in the real world that power is transmitted to the tarmac through the tyres and this process is made more or less efficient with tyre choice and pedalling style, in a way that isn't widely understood and that no-one has really tried to measure accurately either.

cheers

Brucey wrote:4) load rating; if you want to carry a large load you are better off with wider tyres if you want to keep tyre pressures within a sensible range.
cheers

And obviously the largest load being carried on any tyre is normally the rider.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that different riders have different experiences of the same kit, tyres possibly more than anything else. I frequently ride with someone the same height as me, but built differently and around 25% lighter (Even when I'm not overweight). We swapped bikes for a while and were both happy to swap back.
I believe I'm faster on wider tyres, I have no hard evidence, but 8 years of Strava records show I'm certainly no slower.

I don't want to try to teach granny to suck eggs, but no one else seems to have said much about it...

You can find your rim size on the rims, and use a table like the one at the bottom of Sheldon Brown's tyre sizing page https://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html to find out what sizes you can fit to your rim.

I agree with the recommendation for City Jets, which is what I use as road tyres on my MTB.

While there is risk of ice, you might consider a winter tyre? https://www.continental-tires.com/bicyc ... r2-premium

Just to add to the list.
I used to ride my MTB with no name slick tyres with just a squiggle pretending to be tread.
Pronounced V profile rising to the centre of the tyre.

When I had to replace them I couldn't get a similar set at a reasonable (at the time) price.

I replaced them with Schwinn Autopilot 28" x 1.9 on 26" rims.
What was available at the time.
Hybrid/touring style tread.
No obvious pronounced V profile.

They seem to meet my needs for roads and bridle ways but I wouldn't rely on them for any serious mud plugging.

On both sets of tyres it was noticeable that only the very centre strip of the front tyre was in contact with the road when cycling along, so I assume the rolling resistance isn't too bad.

Road tyres were a revelation (especially on cornering) when I ditched the original knobblies.

Another vote for City Jets. Not the most deflation resistant, but they are easy on/off when necessary. Good enough off-tarmac other than wet mud!

My cross-gravel-adventure-touring bike has mountain bike wheels for no good reason and I run 700x32c Conti Gator Skins. Mind, I don't take it on the grass.

For £9 or £12 the 1.95" City Jets are good tyres for the money. Note the cheaper HS257 has a bit of a 'ramp' to the outer edge of the tread, the HS474 doesn't and so feels better cornering at speed. Narrower ones are both lighter and drag less air, I use 1.75" width which cope with everything I ask of them from rutted and washboard downhill corners on back roads to alternate mud and shale tracks. Just don't expect as much grip through wet mud as you're used to!

If you're going to ride hard and fast over slimy surfaces, something with a little more tread could make sense, I just slow down a bit or try and avoid the stuff where possible, I hate the idea of wasting energy!