Options for 29"x2" slicks -> fatter is better?
Squat'n Dive
superb job
protecting the crappy alexrims that came with the bike from local
poholes
(the rear has a woble straight out of the bike shop) I absolutely do
NOT dig the knobbies.
The fork is to remain on the firmest setting anyway with the fastest
rebound. Now, I did not try going through
the local slush on my RR2P yet but I suspect I won't have much
problems doing so.
So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
"mountain" bike?
If something grips as well as Road Race 2 or 3 pro and resists
punctures as well I'd be quite pleased.
Weight is not an issue for me -> the bike weighs a ton and a child
seat will be on in time for
the riding season.
thanks!
Andre Jute
Fatter is most definitely better. Also low pressure. I went from
suspended bikes to a bike suspended only by Schwalbe Big Apple
Liteskins and it was an eye-opener, superbly comfortable on lanes
currently potholed and broken from flooding followed by frosts. If
weight doesn't matter, you can save a few bucks and buy the plain Big
Apples. Both are Kevlar banded and don't seem to flat or get
snakebites even though I run mine at the lowest possible pressure for
my weight. See what I mean via the URL under my sig -- that's an
enormous bike made to seem a kiddie toy by the Hugh Yooge tires.
Andre Jute
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/Andre%20Jute's%20Utopia%20Kranich.pdf
Tim McNamara
<cfebf4fa-66d2-403f...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"Squat'n Dive" <snd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 29"er for wife came with fast track LK tires. While the tires do
> a superb job protecting the crappy alexrims that came with the bike
> from local poholes (the rear has a woble straight out of the bike
> shop)
Alex rims are often very good. The wobble is not the fault of the rim
but inattentiveness at the bike shop. That should have been checked and
the wheel should have been properly tensioned before they sold it to
you. I wonder what else they overlooked.
> I absolutely do NOT dig the knobbies. The fork is to remain on
> the firmest setting anyway with the fastest rebound. Now, I did not
> try going through the local slush on my RR2P yet but I suspect I
> won't have much problems doing so.
>
> So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
> "mountain" bike? If something grips as well as Road Race 2 or 3 pro
> and resists punctures as well I'd be quite pleased. Weight is not an
> issue for me -> the bike weighs a ton and a child seat will be on in
> time for the riding season.
I don't know of any ultrawide slicks in the 2" range (~50 mm) offhand.
For minimal tread tires there is the Schwalbe Big Apple. I know a few
folks who ride these and like them a lot. The Panaracer Pasela comes in
biggish sizes with the largest being 700 x 37 (29 x 1.5 to use the
slightly foolish "29er" jargon).
--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
landotter
One of the meatier Panaracers in 35mm should do the job. Urban Max or
if you're feeling cheap, get the Crosstown rebranded by Performance as
"Gotham".
http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1035343_-1_1504500_20000_1504501
AMuzi
Michelin City 700-40 comes to mind. Cheap and available
everywhere, not much fatter with smooth tread.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
(PeteCresswell)
> While the tires do a
>superb job
>protecting the crappy alexrims that came with the bike from local
>poholes
>(the rear has a woble straight out of the bike shop) I absolutely do
>NOT dig the knobbies.
I'm guessing the problem with the knobbies is road buzz.
If that's the case, I'd think about finding a milder tread with a
center strip that does not buzz for the front wheel and going
with a straight-up slick for the back wheel.
Reason for the front: a little tread can save you from a face
plant when a slick would have washed out on, say, some off-camber
wet grass or wet soil. Been there, done that (twice... being a
slow learner...) and now I run the mild tread up front on all my
bikes.
--
PeteCresswell
Chalo
>
> So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
> "mountain" bike?
Your options as far as I know are these:
Schwalbe Big Apple 700x50 and 700x60
"Liteskin" versions of the above
Continental City Contact 700x54
Schwalbe Marathon Supreme 700x50
Schwalbe Fat Frank 700x50 (cream colored relative of Big Apple)
And there are a passel of options in 700x47 from Michelin, Conti,
Schwalbe, and others-- including some well-armored tires.
Chalo
Squat'n Dive
> Per Squat'n Dive:
>
> > While the tires do a
> >superb job
> >protecting the crappy alexrims that came with the bike from local
> >poholes
> >(the rear has a woble straight out of the bike shop) I absolutely do
> >NOT dig the knobbies.
>
> I'm guessing the problem with the knobbies is road buzz.
>
Big Apple has that problem also (on ice):
http://www.schwalbetires.com/big_apple#comments
i'm contemplating Schwalbe Marathon Supreme
suggested by CHalo
> If that's the case, I'd think about finding a milder tread with a
> center strip that does not buzz for the front wheel and going
> with a straight-up slick for the back wheel.
>
I want to do the reverse: have a slick in front
where I do need grip for braking and leave the knobbie
in the rear where I might have some need for it should the wife
or myself venture off asphalt
> Reason for the front: a little tread can save you from a face
> plant when a slick would have washed out on, say, some off-camber
> wet grass or wet soil. Been there, done that (twice... being a
> slow learner...) and now I run the mild tread up front on all my
> bikes.
Umm, ok, I'll consider that for offroad use
thought I never have issues with traction offroad,
it;s usually the knobbies that suck on pavement,
not the other way around
> --
> PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>Umm, ok, I'll consider that for offroad use
>thought I never have issues with traction offroad,
>it;s usually the knobbies that suck on pavement,
>not the other way around
The problem for me hasn't been "offroad" or "road" per-se.
Instead it's the rides where they are nominally pavement, but I
forget and wind up riding across some corporate campus's grass or
hopping a curb onto a dirt bank to avoid some traffic.
Maybe normal people don't have that problem... but it's bitten me
a couple of times.
--
PeteCresswell
Squat'n Dive
> Squat'n Dive wrote:
>
> > So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
> > "mountain" bike?
>
> Your options as far as I know are these:
>
> Schwalbe Big Apple 700x50 and 700x60
60th are on order (hard to get here in bundocks but I'm determined :-)
> And there are a passel of options in 700x47 from Michelin, Conti,
> Schwalbe, and others-- including some well-armored tires.
Is there an equivalent of MIchelin RR2P/RR3P/Grip in 2"?
datakoll
The fat tires listed are for dirt-gravel roads not macadam, amacite,
ashpalt or GHU con-cre-te
On hard surfaces over 35 IS A FLIPPING BOAT ANCHOR surely not for your
wife unless she's track and field.
City Contacts are slippery. Go for a TT if there is one: Conti
Touring. Conti posts a comprehensive list. Spec Turbos are round and
grabby without undo anchorist tendencies but sensitive to wheel
roundness, not AAA durable. Spec thronproof tubes are excellent. UC
has thornproofs-use them.
Schwalbe is chinese with a new factory, very up to date manufacturing
technology while Conti has the experience. The Conti's Touring designs
roundness is delightful screaming round the blocks in the burbs.
The Antipode and I share a 29 redline design - world champ
cyclocrosser in cheapo steel - effortless woods road riding for me
totally inept at it BUT with the Schwlabe BA rear and a Halo twin rib
front-the 29er doesnot coast down a hill. NADA !
BTW, following Brownie's advice, the Halo is slightly wider than the
BA-this works works works keeping me offen muh fcae in loose gravel
datakoll
datakoll
>
> - Show quoted text -
yasee, Jute had a lobotomy !
datakoll
Dan O
> The 29"er for wife came with fast track LK tires. While the tires do a
> superb job
> protecting the crappy alexrims that came with the bike from local
> poholes
> (the rear has a woble straight out of the bike shop) I absolutely do
> NOT dig the knobbies.
> The fork is to remain on the firmest setting anyway with the fastest
> rebound. Now, I did not try going through
> the local slush on my RR2P yet but I suspect I won't have much
> problems doing so.
My "city bike" (a '91 Nishiki Pueblo) came (second-hand) with Tioga
City Slickers (26"). They don't feel especially meaty, but definitely
beaty, big and bouncy (even pumped up to 60 psi or so). They're a
blast.
(This bike also has a Nashbar suspension seatpost and air-saddle -
nice combination all the way around.)
>
> So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
> "mountain" bike?
> If something grips as well as Road Race 2 or 3 pro and resists
> punctures as well I'd be quite pleased.
> Weight is not an issue for me -> the bike weighs a ton and a child
> seat will be on in time for
> the riding season.
>
Child seat? Never mind the above endorsement - buy the most expensive
tires you can find.
> thanks!
welcome ;-)
DougC
If you do not have wide rims on the bike, the fat tires aren't going to
work well. At the least you want downhill-width rims; even better is the
snowcats.
A 2"+ tire shouldn't /ever/ need to be pumped up to more than 35-40 PSI,
especially for on-road riding--and even then, that 40 PSI would be for a
300+ lb combined bike & rider weight.
~
Andre Jute
If longevity is a consideration, the Liteskin version of Schwalbe's
Big Apple might (as is to be expected from a more lightly constructed
version) be a double hit in the wallet, first more expensive than than
the standard Big Apple to buy, secondly likely to give less mileage. I
have no experience of the standard Big Apple but my Liteskins
definitely show wear at 2600km, with the rear one apparently not
likely to last that much again.
By contrast, Schwalbe's Marathon Plus and Bontrager's very similar
Satellite Elite Hardcase, which I have on other bikes, appear after
similar distances (3200 and 2600km) on the same roads to be almost as
new, clearly capable of at least doubling their present mileage, very
probably tripling that mileage. The comparison is slightly complicated
by the fact that the hardcase tyres were more expensive to start with
than either of the Big Apples but, for longevity, the Marathon Plus is
a big winner by many miles.
I guess one will pay for the superior comfort of the Big Apple (in the
Liteskin version) at the rate of near enough twice the cost per mile
when compared to Marathon.
(To the OP rather than to Chalo, who knows already): Note that the Big
Apple, counter-intuitively, has *less* rolling resistance than the
Marathon Plus or, very likely, any of the other Marathons.
***
The wider the rims on which balloons are fitted, the lower the tubes
can be pressured and the higher the comfort. My bike and I weigh over
260 pounds but my tyres are inflated to 2 bar and allowed to run down
to 1.8 before I reinflate; they've been as low as 1.6 bar on occasion
without picking up snakebites, and 1.7 bar doesn't seem like snakebite
territory at all. I keep them slightly overinflated (in the light of
this experience and advice from Chalo and Lou) because some of my
downhills are very fast and curvy and occasionally I have to ride
through a new pothole to avoid a worse fate.
I've not had a flat with the Liteskins in 2600km. However, you may
need to put that in the context of my roads being clean and glass-
free.
***
In the light of my experience, I'll replace with Liteskins, as the
longevity doesn't matter overly much to me, I appreciate the (likely)
additional liveliness that results from lighter tires and tubes
(Schwalbe Type 19A Extra Light(1)), and Big Apples are very easy to
get off and onto the rim (whereas your wife can probably forget about
changing Marathons which are atrociously difficult to get off or onto
the rim -- though that happens only at renewal-time because they truly
are *armoured*).
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
(1) I damaged a Presta valve on one of the Super Light T19A tubes,
replaced with a standard T19 -- and actually noted for a couple of
rides that accelerating the front wheel required a bit more push. But
a week or so later I'm so used to it that I wonder if it matters...
Still, those roadies that we sneer at for their anal obsession with a
few grams might have a (racing) point.
(PeteCresswell)
>If you do not have wide rims on the bike, the fat tires aren't going to
>work well. At the least you want downhill-width rims; even better is the
>snowcats.
>
>A 2"+ tire shouldn't /ever/ need to be pumped up to more than 35-40 PSI,
There's a safety issue too: Before I knew of this I had a
too-wide tire on a too-narrow rim and the Furshlugginer thing
came right off the rim - thankfully at a walking pace, otherwise
I'd have been dead meat.
--
PeteCresswell
Andre Jute
> On 3/29/2010 1:42 PM, Squat'n Dive wrote:
>
> >> Squat'n Dive wrote:
>
> >>> So, what are the options for 29x2" knobless slicks for the wife's
> >>> "mountain" bike?
>
> >> Your options as far as I know are these:
>
> >> Schwalbe Big Apple 700x50 and 700x60
>
> > 60th are on order (hard to get here in bundocks but I'm determined :-)
>
> >> And there are a passel of options in 700x47 from Michelin, Conti,
> >> Schwalbe, and others-- including some well-armored tires.
>
> > Is there an equivalent of MIchelin RR2P/RR3P/Grip in 2"?
>
> If you do not have wide rims on the bike, the fat tires aren't going to
> work well. At the least you want downhill-width rims; even better is the
> snowcats.
My rims are 25mm across the beads and work well with the 60mm Big
Apple. When I was specifying my bike, Chalo drew my attention to the
Kris Holm unicycle 29er rim which is 31mm between the beads.
> A 2"+ tire shouldn't /ever/ need to be pumped up to more than 35-40 PSI,
> especially for on-road riding--and even then, that 40 PSI would be for a
> 300+ lb combined bike & rider weight.
My bike in daytour trim and I are 264 pounds and I never inflate over
2 bar, which is about 30psi, and routinely ride down to 1.8 bar. Even
1.6 bar on occasion has not caused trouble and I have firm a
impression after more than a year's experience that on my roads with
my riding style 1.7 bar will not be dangerous at all.
I imagine that a lighter rider/bike combination who doesn't ride
through every pothole could easily get away with the absolutely
minimum inflation recommendation.
The reason I inflate so "high", in the light of this experience, is
that I like riding the fast, curvy downhills of my lanes right on the
edge, where every extra smidgin of control costs quite
disproportionately in extra inflation, whereas comfort is only
minimally compromised in that goodhandling 1.8-2.0 bar zone as
compared to 1.7 bar. Also, at 2.0 bar you can ride for weeks without
bothering to check the pressure, whereas at 1.7 bar I would have to
check weekly, and below 1.7 probably before every ride, which would be
a nuisance.
Usual disclaimer: I won't be the one fixing your snakebites if you
inflate too low for your weight and usage. Both Schwalbe and the
manufacturer of my bike (who has lots of balloon experience) recommend
higher inflations than I actually use. To them I say, don't be such
cautious wimps! Live a little!
Jobst Brandt
> see:
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/index.php?category=196
So where are the slicks?
Jobst Brandt
(PeteCresswell)
>On hard surfaces over 35 IS A FLIPPING BOAT ANCHOR surely not for your
>wife unless she's track and field.
I run 38's on my pavement setups.
Tried 1.25" (33's) but if felt like I was flirting with pinch
flats when the rear wheel was climbing curbs. OTOH, I'm kind of
heavy.
For me, on pavement, the diff between 1.25" slicks and 2.4" MTB
is about 2 mph.
From what I've read on tire resistance (rolling, air, hysterisis,
whatever)... I'm confused. Seems like the diffs I experience
are more than what sb expected.
I'd *really* like to see some pragmatic method for measuring the
sum/total of how much a tire adds to overall resistance... But
I'd guess it's kind of complicated: surface, speed, .... maybe
more.
--
PeteCresswell
Jay Beattie
A minimalist tread pattern like the Pasela is a good compromise when
you have stretches over grass or light mud. I am not as excited about
that tire as some (I got lots of flats), but it has good traction on
pavement without any squirm and at least some traction over wet grass
and light mud and fresh snow. A slick -- even a really fat one --
just spins out on stretches of wet grass. -- Jay Beattie.
Simon Lewis
According to the cognoscenti here the tread pattern makes zero
difference. Jobst told them.
Me? I slid all over the place with slicks on during "in town" trips so I
think thats a load of old cobblers.
datakoll
ahhh Senor, de Slicks are at El Tailhunter
Jobst Brandt
>> On hard surfaces over 35 IS A FLIPPING BOAT ANCHOR surely not for
>> your wife unless she's track and field.
> I run 38's on my pavement setups.
> Tried 1.25" (33's) but if felt like I was flirting with pinch flats
> when the rear wheel was climbing curbs. OTOH, I'm kind of heavy.
> For me, on pavement, the diff between 1.25" slicks and 2.4" MTB is
> about 2 mph.
> From what I've read on tire resistance (rolling, air, hysteresis,
> whatever)... I'm confused. Seems like the diffs I experience are
> more than what is expected.
> I'd *really* like to see some pragmatic method for measuring the
> sum/total of how much a tire adds to overall resistance... But I'd
> guess it's kind of complicated: surface, speed, ... maybe more.
It's damn simple but no one wants to tell. Back when it was less a
marketing problem Avocet had tests performed to show what patterned
tread, casing thickness, and rubber did to tires. So all hell broke
loose on wreck.bike claiming type of pavement had a larger effect than
tread pattern... which is untrue. Pavement affects all tires
proportionally to their smooth surface rolling resistance, the effects
being tread squirm into road texture. The patterned tread is always
worse than a slick of similar construction.
I guess the macho types didn't want anyone to know their noisy treads
were losers. I have often mentioned that tread pattern gives no
advantage unless it leaves an impression on impressionable soil. This
means that MTB riders on hard dry trails are worse off than with
slicks, but then they are mostly descending where more losses are
desirable.
Jobst Brandt
datakoll
I posted then proceeded to mas grande escribo...
but lookey there, no slicks ! finally, lightening and liability
together on UC's stage.
on the other hand maybe UC didn't odor slicks figuring a wet spring.
BUT ! I spy, I spy get it ? the Marathon Supreme over in 26"-my first
drooling over when riding Kenda. "Ahhhh%%%TTTFR%% doesn't come in 27"
"
Given Conti's techno approach, here a niche there a niche
I gather Schwalbe roared out a few dozen tread designs based on OP's
then stood back to see what floats on a AAA carcass.
We'll leave it AMuzi to cut open a few new Schwalbe (what's the plural
of ?) seeinif daze all dah same.
Golf clubs.
In the Off Road World, saw muh first group of Baja Bugs mit coupe
body's, Porsche power, and apparently A/C full face helmets. I
regress. completely for una momento as 'does this look like fun or
what' "say Erin try Sticky Fingers....."
In the.....the block tread is wetter dirt, the old fashioned snow tire
style, drier dirt
did yawl spy FURIOUS FRED ? a commuter's lawn and garden tire ?
I guess UC just plain ran out of BA slicks - Xmas ?
I wuz at Point Deception crossing L&C's path when we found the Monodog
coasting to a stop on a grade most people can't walk up. I thought of
whatshisname and a formula for this excresence but said what the hay
right ? one design isn't covering all the basis.
Jobst Brandt
>> Per Squat'n Dive:
>>> Umm, ok, I'll consider that for offroad use thought I never have
>>> issues with traction offroad, it's usually the knobbies that suck
>>> on pavement, not the other way around
>> The problem for me hasn't been "offroad" or "road" per se.
>> Instead it's the rides where they are nominally pavement, but I
>> forget and wind up riding across some corporate campus's grass or
>> hopping a curb onto a dirt bank to avoid some traffic.
>> Maybe normal people don't have that problem... but it's bitten me a
>> couple of times.
> A minimalist tread pattern like the Pasela is a good compromise when
> you have stretches over grass or light mud. I am not as excited
> about that tire as some (I got lots of flats), but it has good
> traction on pavement without any squirm and at least some traction
> over wet grass and light mud and fresh snow. A slick -- even a
> really fat one -- just spins out on stretches of wet grass.
Squirm is not something you can feel, but rather a deformation between
raised tread features that absorb hysteretic rubber losses. What do
you believe gives you advantage on grass? If it was doing anything
useful you would see grass coming around with the tire as it pulled
some out or ripped off blades.
Jobst Brandt
Jobst Brandt
>>>> Umm, ok, I'll consider that for offroad use thought I never have
>>>> issues with traction offroad, it's usually the knobbies that suck
>>>> on pavement, not the other way around
>>> The problem for me hasn't been "offroad" or "road" per se.
>>> Instead it's the rides where they are nominally pavement, but I
>>> forget and wind up riding across some corporate campus's grass or
>>> hopping a curb onto a dirt bank to avoid some traffic.
>>> Maybe normal people don't have that problem... but it's bitten me
>>> a couple of times.
>> A minimalist tread pattern like the Pasela is a good compromise
>> when you have stretches over grass or light mud. I am not as
>> excited about that tire as some (I got lots of flats), but it has
>> good traction on pavement without any squirm and at least some
>> traction over wet grass and light mud and fresh snow. A slick --
>> even a really fat one -- just spins out on stretches of wet grass.
> According to the cognoscenti here the tread pattern makes zero
> difference. Jobst told them.
> Me? I slid all over the place with slicks on during "in town" trips
> so I think thats a load of old cobblers.
Did you try your favorite tread on the same places under the same
conditions? I hope you are aware that street striping and tar seal on
cracks can be slick as ice when wet. Today striping is often filled
with fine glass bead (Scotchlite) that only slightly improves traction
because the spherical glass beads are optically smooth.
Jobst Brandt
(PeteCresswell)
>According to the cognoscenti here the tread pattern makes zero
>difference.
Somebody opined that there must be an "Aerodyne Effect" (after
the Schwinn exercise machine) from lugged treads.
I *think* my slicks are a little faster than treaded tires of the
same size and for MTB use I've taken to running a nearly-bald
tire on the back unless I need the traction.
--
PeteCresswell
Jobst Brandt
I hope you always have tread on your tires, but I don't care whether
that is slick or patterned tread. I prefer slicks for nearly all my
riding.
Jobst Brandt
Jay Beattie
I use the term "squirm" to describe the movement of the tread as it
passes over the road, which can be great with knobby tires --
particularly in turns. You can feel squirm -- it feels like your tire
is washing out.
My 28mm Pasela has better traction over wet grass than my 35mm
Performance slick. This conclusion is based on riding those tires over
the same patch of lawn many times in similar wet conditions. My
current commuter slicks (28mm Continental and rear 25mm Schwalbe
Blizzard) are useless and I end up walking. I have not checked for
damaged grass. -- Jay Beattie.
Jobst Brandt
>>>>> Umm, OK, I'll consider that for offroad use thought I never have
>>>>> issues with traction offroad, it's usually the knobbies that
>>>>> suck on pavement, not the other way around
>>>> The problem for me hasn't been "offroad" or "road" per se.
>>>> Instead it's the rides where they are nominally pavement, but I
>>>> forget and wind up riding across some corporate campus's grass or
>>>> hopping a curb onto a dirt bank to avoid some traffic. Maybe
>>>> normal people don't have that problem... but it's bitten me a
>>>> couple of times.
>>> A minimalist tread pattern like the Pasela is a good compromise when
>>> you have stretches over grass or light mud. I am not as excited
>>> about that tire as some (I got lots of flats), but it has good
>>> traction on pavement without any squirm and at least some traction
>>> over wet grass and light mud and fresh snow. A slick -- even a
>>> really fat one -- just spins out on stretches of wet grass.
>> Squirm is not something you can feel, but rather a deformation
>> between raised tread features that absorb hysteretic rubber
>> losses. What do you believe gives you advantage on grass? If it
>> was doing anything useful you would see grass coming around with
>> the tire as it pulled some out or ripped off blades.
> I use the term "squirm" to describe the movement of the tread as it
> passes over the road, which can be great with knobby tires --
> particularly in turns. You can feel squirm -- it feels like your
> tire is washing out.
That isn't tread squirm, it's sliding in a curve, something better
done on slicks that don't have knobs that can bend to the side. Your
car gets tread squirm rilling straight ahead on the road as the tread
features bulge in to adjacent tread groves and sipes, from normal
compression.
> My 28mm Pasela has better traction over wet grass than my 35mm
> Performance slick. This conclusion is based on riding those tires
> over the same patch of lawn many times in similar wet conditions.
> My current commuter slicks (28mm Continental and rear 25mm Schwalbe
> Blizzard) are useless and I end up walking. I have not checked for
> damaged grass.
I rode my slicks over lawns with no such problems, but then they
aren't fat tires either.
Jobst Brandt
(PeteCresswell)
>ess, and rubber did to tires. So all hell broke
>loose on wreck.bike claiming type of pavement had a larger effect than
>tread pattern... which is untrue. Pavement affects all tires
>proportionally to their smooth surface rolling resistance, the effects
>being tread squirm into road texture. The patterned tread is always
>worse than a slick of similar construction.
The biggest diff that I find is in how hard/soft the surface is.
On soft ground (as in after a couple days' worth of rain) the
diff between 1.5" and 2.4" tires is huge. The bigger tires
still roll over the ground while the 1.5s sink in to where it is
difficult or impossible to pedal.
>I guess the macho types didn't want anyone to know their noisy treads
>were losers. I have often mentioned that tread pattern gives no
>advantage unless it leaves an impression on impressionable soil.
I would agree that slicks are the easiest rolling over any solid
surface that I've ridden - and the narrower the better.
The gotcha is that if there's the least bit of moisture on hard
pack - or the grass is a little wet - a slick will wash out just
like *that*.
It doesn't take much tread to avoid that, but it takes some.
For that reason, even if I'm riding 1.25" tires, there's always a
little tread on the front tire. Saves on dental bills.
--
PeteCresswell
datakoll
San Diego's first metro curve going south and as the van approachs the
apex down in the hole, the treads squirm , the van moves around to the
outside of it's pre squirm trajectory then back then out then
back...ad nuaseum - the road suggesting a systems speed limit
I then assume a bicycle tire knob s squirm but are not felt. Right ?
A complete cycle development rider would feel squirm and explain it.
Jobst Brandt
> oh Jobst, squirm is felt. With the van and Toyo A/T the van goes
> into San Diego's first metro curve going south and as the van
> approachs the apex down in the hole, the treads squirm , the van
> moves around to the outside of it's pre squirm trajectory then back
> then out then back...ad nuaseum - the road suggesting a systems
> speed limit I then assume a bicycle tire knob s squirm but are not
> felt. Right? A complete cycle development rider would feel squirm
> and explain it.
Tread squirm in tire technology refers to tire deformation that causes
rolling resistance. It is not a term used to describing tracking or
cornering. Tread squirm is as I described, the bulging of tread
rubber into adjacent voids in the tire or roughness of pavement on a
road. I think if you get the terminology cleared up you'll have an
easier time making sense when talking about tires.
Because rubber is an incompressible elastomer, it displaces radially
about an impression made by a road object. That is why tire tests are
performed on smooth steel drums, to avoid obscuring the basic rolling
resistance a tire created by either tread pattern or tread thickness
by other roughnesses. Rolling resistance caused by road
irregularities or pavement roughness affect all tires of similar
design of different rubber or tread pattern proportionally.
Jobst Brandt
datakoll
off course it causes rolling resistance ! the resistance causes the
'feeling' of tread 'knobbelling' to coin, and the sideways movements
as mas grande deflections from the tires' contact patch(s)
but you knew that
Jobst Brandt
Oh yes we need patterned tread all the time when riding. I recall
when the knobby fat tire became popular and riders would warn us that
we couldn't ride road bikes without fat knobby tires while they stood
resting at trailside when we rode by.
We rode there regularly and even maintained the trail around washouts
as in this picture:
http://www.siliconvalleycyclist.com/rides/peterjobstalpinerd1988800.jpg
It can't be done! Other riders who also rode road bikes took pictures
like this one to record the action. Of course this was at the start
of a long ride down the coast to Santa Cruz. You wouldn't want to
ride a knobby tired MTB that way down the highway.
Jobst Brandt
(PeteCresswell)
>My 28mm Pasela has better traction over wet grass than my 35mm
>Performance slick.
I would predict that riding them along the fall line of a little
grassy hill when it's wet could result in a crash - especially if
you zig-zag a little.
--
PeteCresswell