26" 'fast' tyre recommendations?

[Neil C]

I had been looking for lighter tyres to replace the Specialised Nimbus tyres on my 1995 Rockhopper. The front tyre had done over 10,000 miles and still had plenty of tread but was covered in small nicks and cuts. The rear had been replaced a few thousand miles ago.

After research on here and the manufacturer's sites I bought a Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick (26x1.5) from Wiggle to try out on the front.

I was not disappointed. For a start it was over 250g lighter, 404g compared to 661g for the old Nimbus. It was so supple and the way it soaked up rough road surfaces was a revelation. I did some before and after roll-down tests with similar pressures and they suggested lower rolling resistance.

I was a little concerned that it might not be robust enough but after 400 miles in the last two weeks, over a variety of pot-holed and glass-strewn roads, there is not even the slightest sign of any cuts or other damage. Wet weather performance is yet to be tested.

All I need to do now is overcome my genetic parsimony and buy another tyre for the rear.

[niggle]

I had been looking for lighter tyres to replace the Specialised Nimbus tyres on my 1995 Rockhopper. The front tyre had done over 10,000 miles and still had plenty of tread but was covered in small nicks and cuts. The rear had been replaced a few thousand miles ago.

After research on here and the manufacturer's sites I bought a Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick (26x1.5) from Wiggle to try out on the front.

I was not disappointed. For a start it was over 250g lighter, 404g compared to 661g for the old Nimbus. It was so supple and the way it soaked up rough road surfaces was a revelation. I did some before and after roll-down tests with similar pressures and that suggested lower rolling resistance.

I was a little concerned that it might not be robust enough but after 400 miles in the last two weeks, over a variety of pot-holed and glass-strewn roads, there is not even the slightest sign of any cuts or other damage. Wet weather performance is yet to be tested.

All I need to do now is overcome my genetic parsimony and buy another tyre for the rear.

I have found wet grip of the Rubino Pro Slick 26x1.5 to be excellent.

[fast but dim]

Randonneur pros it is then.

Bit of feedback on the randonneur pro's: I've done a two day cycle camp trip with a small load over mixed terrain in the lakes ( Grizedale forest roads) and a commute into Work (20 miles)

Comfort and grip very good, as expected.

I rode the Sardar into work this morning, and was impressed with the speed. I usually ride the 20 miles to work on my thorn audax, and I would say it took five-ten Or so minutes longer on the tourer. Hard to guage, obviously, but not noticeably slower.

Great tyres so far.

[Freddie]

Some interesting developments here:

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2015/06/ ... big-tires/

Staggeringly low weight for the size. I don't know why they bother with the file pattern though, the tyres would grip better if they were just plain slicks.

[Bmblbzzz]

The pattern might add grip on sand and gravel. Besides, it looks good! It's very much in keeping with the whole Jan Heine retro-rando look.

[Freddie]

It is highly unlikely the pattern aids grip in those conditions, as the tread is just not deep enough to cut through to more solid ground. It does decrease grip on tarmac though, as less rubber is in contact with the road.

I like what Jan Heine does in the main, but I do think his outlook is rather self-limiting by his eulogising of everything French and old, like pointless tyre tread patterns, for example.

[Bmblbzzz]

I agree with you on Jan Heine's "eulogising". I do think that file tread pattern might give slightly increased grip in a thin layer of sand or gravel over tarmac, as often encountered on country lanes in Britain – I don't know about the USA. Certainly it won't be a huge increase and in most road conditions, it won't be any advantage over a slick tyre (of similar compound), nor will it do anything in deep sand, gravel or mud, where you'd need knobblies. But in any case, I like it visually, and partly because it's similar to the pattern on my Vittoria Rubinos, which seem to be good tyres! Just as the pattern probably adds very little benefit, I doubt it adds much rolling resistance either.

[Brucey]

'pointless tread patterns' and 'eulogising' are the kind of comments that come from either people who demand some kind of scientific proof of some kind or simply hold a different (and usually equally unsubstantiated) opinion.

The problem is that meaningful tests are very difficult. You can (say) measure cornering speeds but they are only valid for that tyre on that surface, that day, and are furthermore at the whim of the rider as to how fast they will go before they either fall off or at least feel like they will fall off. That sensation can vary with familiarity, too.

One of the German cycle magazines tested tyres by having riders (in motorcycle leathers) ride round corners faster and faster until they fell off. This was interesting to me, but not as interesting as what happened on the first run, i.e. whether they had any signals that they were going too fast and were going to fall off before they actually did so.

IME on some surfaces slick tyres give no warning before they let go, and furthermore I have found those surfaces (the hard way) on UK roads. YMMV. Believe what you like, even...

But to give you an idea about how difficult all this is, all car tyre manufacturers still employ tyre testers to distinguish between tyres that might give very similar laboratory test numbers. in terms of lap time a driver can drive faster, safer, on tyre with less absolute grip if he prefers the feel of them.... so when very experienced cyclists express a preference for certain types of tyre, one would be unwise to dismiss that entirely, even if another experienced cyclist prefers something else.

cheers

[bgnukem]

I've used Conti Sport Contacts in 1.3" and 1.6" widths on my commuter and while they roll very well, they are quite stiff and heavy. Extremely puncture resistant but the tread does get cut a lot as they seem prone to picking up debris, though almost nothing gets through the carcass.

Panaracer Paselas in 1.5" and (more so) in 1.25" widths are light and fairly fast, grippy and the Tourguard version has decent puncture resistance. I tend to use them in winter.

Have been trying a Vittoria Rubino Pro 1.5" folder recently but nothing I do can persuade it to fit properly on the rim - the tread has a lateral kink which seems to be the tyre not fitting centrally on the rim. Apart from that the tyre is light and doesn't seem overly prone to picking up debris. Not used it much in the wet yet though.

[Freddie]

Brucey, I think you misunderstood my post. I am not saying all tread patterns are pointless, just the file pattern design with 1/2mm indentations. If you want grip on loose surfaces, inverted tread would help, but I don't think 1mm is deep enough to make any difference, you would need something more like 5mm indentations that are just as wide. Any tyre with file tread pattern is liable to give way just as quickly and with as little warning as a slick IMO; I just don't think that pattern is significant enough to make any real difference to grip in difficult conditions where a slick is likely to falter.

[Brucey]

on dry smooth tarmac a file tread feels different to a slick, and on wet very smooth tarmac when the tyre lets go it does so very differently to the way a slick does. Both tread types work differently with different rubber compounds.

By extension, riding on gravel is riding on lots of small smooth areas some of the time, so you would expect the tyres to perform differently there also.

If you got your wish and had a more pronounced offroad tread, it might work slightly better on some offroad surfaces, but it would likely also make the tyres dog-slow on the road.

cheers

[Freddie]

Differently is rather vague; is differently better, that is the question.

I think for truly more grip in loose situations, you would need an inverted tread like that Avocet Cross (below, no longer produced), but as you say this would be a compromise on tarmac.

[Brucey]

As per my earlier comments I think you need to try these things out, which is why tyre testing is so useful...

BTW I've used a tyre with a tread like that of the avocet cross, and it was dreadful. As soon as you leant over at all (or got on a camber) on loose/slippy surfaces, there were no tread blocks positioned favourably for lateral grip. The result was disastrous and entirely predictable. On slightly gripper surfaces you could get further over and then there were favourably positioned tread blocks, and the tyre worked OK. So I dunno what they used to say about it but in my book it is a dry-pack/dry gravel tyre only. Horrible.

cheers

[Freddie]

OK, but trying things and having subjective experiences is liable to get people running tyres at too high pressures because they "feel flat" otherwise. Tyres are more comfortable at lower pressures than many, if not most, typically run them and not significantly slower, but the higher vibration imbues a feeling of speed. Subjective experience can lead people in the wrong direction, it is easy to be misled. If I had some file tread tyres to hand, I might try to ascertain any differences at their limits, but I don't really want to put myself in any undue danger and I just tend to take things easier when conditions are momentarily adverse and then pick up the pace when they are not.

IME on some surfaces slick tyres give no warning before they let go, and furthermore I have found those surfaces (the hard way) on UK roads. YMMV. Believe what you like, even...

I am sure this is the case, but can you be more specific about conditions and do you not think a tyre with file tread would have let go similarly in such conditions?

The reason I bring up the Avocet Cross is that it is the only kind of design that will allow acceptable handling on the road through not having knobs on the sides. This is no good on truly slippery or loose surfaces, but then only knobblies are and my argument would be that file tread is no better than slicks in these adverse conditions. I would slow no less on a file tread pattern than I would on a slick tyre in adverse conditions, because I think they are both equally poor on surfaces where only pronounced knobs (which compromise the vast majority of road riding) would hold good.

[Brucey]

IME on some surfaces slick tyres give no warning before they let go, and furthermore I have found those surfaces (the hard way) on UK roads. YMMV. Believe what you like, even...

I am sure this is the case, but can you be more specific about conditions and do you not think a tyre with file tread would have let go similarly in such conditions?

slimy coatings of gloop under trees, thin coatings of mud, the kind of road film that you get in the winter, esp if they are on smooth surfaces like concrete, overbanding, worn out tarmac. That kind of thing. Would slick tyres behave differently? Yes; they seemed let go with no warning whatsoever where a tread (almost any tread) gave some more feedback and warning that all was not well.

The reason I bring up the Avocet Cross is that it is the only kind of design that will allow acceptable handling on the road through not having knobs on the sides. This is no good on truly slippery or loose surfaces, but then only knobblies are and my argument would be that file tread is no better than slicks in these adverse conditions. I would slow no less on a file tread pattern than I would on a slick tyre in adverse conditions, because I think they are both equally poor on surfaces where only pronounced knobs (which compromise the vast majority of road riding) would hold good.

I don't agree with much of that and to prove any of it you should just try it out. My suspicion is that a boring old treaded touring tyre of some kind might do as well as anything on gravel roads. You should also consider that the front and rear tyres can (could, should, even) be different from one another.

cheers