Are thinner tires better for bikes that are used in the city and gravel roads mostly?
As in skinnier? Or thinner walled/tread.I assume you mean skinnier. It depends really it's all a balance. In the city you can get away with skinnier tires but you need more puncture protection cuz glass and shit. Gravel you can get away with less puncture but need to have more.volume cuz bumpy ride. MTB you need big knobs and big volume cuz off road grip and shit.A skinnier tires isn't necessarily better. But for gravel and city yea you can get away with skinnier tires compared to true off road.Anyways fuck you your question is dumb
For gravel and city I would run 28-38mm tires with a low tread profile or no tread. Could go bigger but I would stay away from lots of tread, since that will slow you down+wear quicker in the city.Bigger tires allow less pressure and tend to be more puncture resistant.
"better" depends on the qualities you're looking for in a ride. For asphalt I'd say 28mm slicks, but there's a reason gravel bikes are all built for ~40mm, and on loose chunky gravel I'm more confident and comfortable on my 4.6".
>>1992231i hate florida because there's all this super fine "sugar sand" that spills out into the road, shoulder and sidewalks and <28s are a deathtrap when you hit that shit while cornering at speed
>>1992231for me it is 32mm
>>1992199Depends on how comfortable you want your ride. Knobbies on the other hand are unnecessary on a bicycle for two reasons. One, a bike is not heavy enough for knobbies to dig into the ground and two, humans can't make wheels spin out. I wish we could. I would do burn it's all the time
>>1992287Burnouts*
>>1992287>humans can't make wheels spin outHumans actually can, it's seems like more balancing technique than powerhttps://youtu.be/IS8MkdXP9O8https://youtu.be/qVk-kZnhAco
>>1992247Yeah, where I live in northern Europe this time of year the bike paths are coated with a loose layer of gravel left over from sanding the paths in the winter. That's definitely sketchy on road-slicks and I prefer my gravel bike until they swept that stuff up probably some time in June. Just serves to illustrate my point that "better" i entirely subjective to local riding conditions and rider strength, skill level, and personal preference.>>1992249That's fine.>>1992287>humans can't make wheels spin outIt's easy on ice. Particularly on icy hills. Knobs don't help. Studs do.
There is no reason to not use as wide a tire as possible wherever you go.A Conti GP5000 25mm has 8W rolling resistance in perfect asphalt, a Continental Contact Urban 40mm has 18W rolling resistance. In less than perfect asphalt, the differences are even lower. Hell, 47mm schwalbe fucking marathons at 5bar pressure have 20W rolling resistance. And then you can take the pressure down to 2bar for maximum comfort, and it will still be at 30W RR. You don't have this flexibility with smaller tires.
>>1992287>One, a bike is not heavy enough for knobbies to dig into the ground and twoyeah those tire tracks in the dirt?fake, a figment of my imaginationTry riding in the mud with slicks and report back on how well they do
>>1992308Well, there's the clearance issue for one. Laid back non-judgmental retro-bro douchebags will be like "noooo you can't just use disc brakes! everything on your bike has to be 60 years old or I'll ask you how many races you won last year" and then act surprised when their 43mm rene hearse organic cotton tires won't fit
>>1992308You don't actually know what you're talking about.
>>1992318And you're going to let people get fooled by me and not grace us with your knowledge, I guess.
>>1992320Yes, because arguing with yet another retard on the internet is a fool's errand.
>>1992323Agreed, you'd just waste those couple minutes per ridden hour that you saved over your tire choice.
>>1992308I agree. I trusted jan heine on this one and he was right.>>1992318he's right. please reread op. if we are talking about asphalt and gravel for city/commuting, you should go with the biggest tire you can get, and I even suggest plan for a frame with adequate 2,1" clearance, or go for the old 27,5" conversion trick. Of course we are talking about tires with beautiful supple profiles, not coarse high profile mtb tyres.
No, skinnier tires are better for one thing and one thing only, and that's rolling resistance at the expense of traction and comfort, hence why everyone obsessed with skinniness is either invested in competition road biking or an autismal minmaxer.I bought a hybrid bike thinking I'd be fine with 40mm in the city, with a lot of people claiming you can comfortably use far less tire still, but the cobbles around here are so bumpy and slippery I'm now planning a new build with 60-65mm semi-slicks. Wider is always better unless you have a literal or metaphorical finish line to reach in the lowest time.
>>1992287unnecessary? What da hell are you on about, go try and ride any MTB with 2 inch slicks and tell me how it goes.
less rolling resistance = better
large tires (2.25" ~ 57mm) are way better than skinnier on rough gravel, it's the difference between walking or floating over it at full speed.
>>1992407>full carbon fatbikewhy?
>>1992407Honestly probably a goofy ass ride I'd love to give er a spinOn the topic of tires, anyone recommend some fast 650b gravel tires in the >= 2.00in range?|
>>1993054race kingsi think rocket rons come in a 650gravelking slicks or rh if you want no knobs (both are 48mm/1.9" though), but rh does make a 2.2" knobby. not too sure about the rr of that one, but i rh tires feel a lot faster than gravelkings on smoother gravel.
>>1992199Whatever you do, don't put on 1.75 inches tires. They are the most awful tires of all. I lived years with them and i always looked at my builds with disgrace.
>>1992287>humans can't make wheels spin outi can do that easily if you shifting your weight too far forward when climbing for example
>>1993054Schwalbe G-One RS it has the same rolling resistance as a slick
>>1992199Pavement only: 28mmPavement and occasional nicely packed firm gravel: 32mmMix of pavement and bad condition gravel: 40mmCasual mountain biking: 2"Hardcore intense mountain biking: 2.3"Downhill: 2.7" front 2.3" rearMemes: 4.8"
>>1992287retard
>>199224932mm is a good width, i currently run 38's which I find are better for comfort, sacrifice a little speed but the roads round here are dreadful and smooth surface is rare.t. unracer
>>1996241I officially diagnose you with autism, of the severe gay variety.
>>1992199Pavement only: 37mmPavement and occasional nicely packed firm gravel:37mmMix of pavement and bad condition gravel: 37mmCasual mountain biking: 1 3⁄8"Hardcore intense mountain biking: 1 3⁄8""Downhill: 1 3⁄8"" front 1 3⁄8"" rearMemes: 23mm
>>1998886tell me where "ballon" tires touched youIt's going to be okay
people suggesting sub 32s for gravel are larping
>>1992199>Are thinner tires better for bikes that are used in the cityStorm drains
Let me guess, you "need" more?
>>1992200There's something I've never understood as a commuter: how the fuck is grabbel not more prone to punctures? I'd say riding over thousands of fucking uneven harsh and potentially sharp ROCKS that have enough space between them to pimch rubber is more likely to give you puncturew than some smooth flat ass asphalt, but I know I'm wrong so please tell me why my intuition is incorrect
>>1999215In the city you have broken glass(common), syringes, nails/screws/bolts, and other bad things.Off road you have rocks(some sharp or round), thorns(bad near me), and generally harder impacts.It's always better to go wider for puncture resistance. You need less pressure at a given weight and casing thickness, while the tire can deform around terrain so less pressure is on the nail/glass/thorn.Then add in tubeless to refill small punctures and flats are almost a thing of the past.For max puncture resistance I would go>tubeless, largest tire I can fit, thickest/most durable casing, at a reasonable pressure.non-pneumatic tires are aids so we won't talk about them.]>>1999212I "need" less>t. 23c used tire enthusiast.
>>1999215Gravel isn't as sharp as glass.
>>1999221You don't have to state the obvious for retards, it's not as if they're capable of benefiting from it.
>>1999228Well that wasn't a nice thing to say.
>>1999231The less we shame morons the worst society becomes. Be "nice" to them at your own peril.
>>1992199the only bikes that make sense are mountain bikenarrow tires are for insufferable cityfags
>>1999221Well, I can sort of see your point, but many people like putting 3mms on their grabbels and I was wondering how that made any sense at all, and then you recommend wider tires which does make sense to me.>>1999228Are you implying cities have more glass than trails have sharp rocks and thorns? Because, again, a path with millions of tiny hard uneven rocks is more likely to contain a sharp object than a smooth colored bike lane where you might find ONE glass shard in kilometers, and where it would stand out anyway.I might be a retard, but it sounds like you live in fucking Philadelphia.
>>1999310 hereMeant to reply to >>1999219
>>1999311I was just stating the situation. On one side you could be in LA or oakland riding past homeless and that could be worse then me riding "gravel" which is really a smooth DG(decomposed granite) that has no sharp rocks.Or you could be the guy going down rock gardens as his "gravel" compared to me riding on 1970's glass smooth tier bike trails.I know gravel riding in the UK isn't the same gravel in the states. Same with even road riding, different states have different aggregate compounds that can be easier or harsher on tires. Look at chip seal for instance.No, I live in california
>>1999310>where you might find ONE glass shard in kilometersYou don't seem to understand how glass behaves. Nor people for that matter.>and where it would stand out anyway.lolno
>>1999310Breh wtf are you on about? Cities are full of slicey shit. Rocks are just rocks
>>1999219>t. 23c used tire enthusiast.Why? Isn't it well established that tires that thin have only downsides when you compare them to 30-35mm wide tires
>>1999391They ride different and sometimes I enjoy that. There is a particular section of clean, smooth bike trail that those tires just sing along wonderfully at.I have other bikes with 28's and 33's on for when I want that. The 23's also show how much going from that to 28's helps.
>>1992247That reminds me of a time when I was a kid where I found an ancient bike at a junk yard, it was one of those ones with the banana seats and everything. I took it around the block a few times and then went down a big hill at the end of my street with a semi busy road at he bottom , which is where I found out that the brakes didn't work. I ended up trying to make the turn and skidded on a sandbar left over from the winter road treatment. Shredded all the skin off of the right side of my leg, especially where my ankle and knee are.
>>1999391They're lighter and faster on purely flat surfaces like a track, and cheaper since yea everyone moved on to 28's and up. Otherwise yea no real reasons lol
>>1992199thin tyres are for aerofaggerythick tyres are way better in the city unless you have nice smooth roads
>>1992407based but fully slick slicks are kinda dumb cos you die the moment it rainsthat bike but with a little tread would be amazing
>>1999212those tyres tempt me alotthe tread pattern looks so nice but contis always feel slippery to meand desu they dont come wide enough
>>1999567>you die the moment it rainsBullshit.
>>1999602surely youd just slide around all over the place
>>1999604>surelyWhy do you speak if things you have no experience of?
>>1999571I have used those tires (42-622) exclusively through every season for the past three years and I live in northern europe. During summer they roll very effortlessly because of the thin slick patch in the middle and during fall/winter/spring those side patterns sink into the snow/mud/soft ground and give excellent traction. Haven't had one flat yet and those tires only cost 20€/$. I wish they had reflective side walls like the slightly more expensive contact plus relfex tires which I plan to get next. These haven't shown any sign of wear yet so that might take a while
>>1999397>>1999435You must live in a nice rich area that has well maintained roads because otherwise tires that narrow are pretty harsh to ride on. But when everything is just right, it feels great.
>>1999619i guess i havnt ridden slicks in the wet but have you?post with bread on the seat or its a picture you got from reddit
>>1999622i wanna get the whitewalls
>>1999628You can get those in 47mm width which should be wide enough for just about anything
>>1999636thats narrow as fuck for me i need 2inches++i have a mountain bike i wanna get some wide 26 inch semi slicks on and tyre clearance is basically not an issue at all on this frame and forki could get 3 inch wide tyres on if i could find any2.4 shwalbe supermotos are my current best option ive found
>>1999644do you ride exclusively on trails?
>>1999654i have big nobbies for offroad alreadythese are for the road and pavements and some offroading when theres less mud
>>1999644You got the right idea.>>1999623I do. Admittedly I stand for sections that are bad, and I slow down for wooden plank bridges if the tires are 25 or smaller. Yeah they just feel really nice on the smooth flat sections.I wouldn't run them everyday for commuting, that's for sure.
>>1999669>these are for the road and pavements and some offroading when theres less mud42-47mm width is optimal for this use case though. Since you're putting the wheels on a mountain bike that probably has suspension so you don't need that much headroom for lower pressures to make your ride more comfortable, what's your reasoning behind all this? Do you just want more strength training out of your rides by riding a fatbike on pavement?
>>1999332>>1999354Move out of Detroit.
>>1999675it doesnt have suspensionreasoning?i just dont like skinny tyresi have some 1.5 marathons they feel wrong for my bike and riding style and the state of uk roads
>>1999675oh also il be running high pressures to keep the rolling down unless im going offroad with them but thats not rly what these are for they dont look like they would handle mud wellits not a fatbike also just an mtb
>>1999709>uk roadsahh. Found the issue. Also marathons are super stiff as well..... so they ride harsh.Currently I run one 26 rigid mtb with a 1.5 up front and a 1.9 out back. Works pretty good for mostly road and light dry dirt. However my roads are probably better then yours, and if you do lots of offroad or just dirt road bigger is better.>>1999683>it's just detroitheh, hahahah.sigh
>>1999712yeahh even road riding is offroading herei find myself skittering about on all the grvel and mud puddles and stuff all over the roads on the marathons and decided that the flicky feeling in corner entry wasnt worth it for the lack of gripthats the only advantage i can feel too i dont think narrower is faster
>>1999714Narrower is faster and I can generally hear it. Even fat slicks sing more and have more rolling resistance.However that doesn't really matter unless you want max efficiency or are racing. The comfort is worth it in many cases anyways going with larger tires
>>1999712Never got a flat on my daily 20km commute in Zurich.
>>1999716i think theyre faster when you consider the higher cornering gripits very hilly around where i live though so thats just me
>>1999740Could be true. I have had decent grip with 23's and larger but I take it easy since I am mostly on bike trails where dog walkers/hamplanets, and other obstacles can appear around corners.
Redpill me on running a wider tyre in the back than on the front.
>>1999868More grip for offroading, and my favorite. More cushy ride for bad roads or heavy impacts.Narrow front could be for "aero" gains or lighter weight. Since narrow tires are both lighter, and with narrow rims more aero.IMO if I was buying new tires I would just get the largest that don't rub/send road grit into your paint.
>>1999868Why would you? Typically the wider tyre goes in the front for better steering traction.
>muh rolling resistance>muh watts>muh gramsIf you can't go fast from mere 20W of rolling resistance and you are a gram minmaxing cuck, you're a leglet and should start doing squats until you hit 2 plates.
>>1999925okay, okay, okay.so are you a big or thin tire guy?
>>1992199Define thinner.Current good standard is to run slick tubeless tires between 28 and 34 can go up to 40 for gravel.
>>1999683Step into any major city in America and witness the glassHell step onto a college campus.om a Saturday
>>1999741yeah when im offroad im going way sloweri just have the tyres with the biggest knobs i can get to churn through mudon the road im going 45mph down hills or 2mph up them so i think for me the wider the betteri get wobbles on my 1.5s lol>>1999868motorcycles do itfront wheel should be slightly taller as well as narrowerthe effect this actually has on the bike is complicated and subjective but its completely standard for motorcycles so mountainbikers saying it feels better kinda feels righti havnt tried a mullet myself tho so idk>>1999917i have never heard of anyone doing that>>1999927he rides an ancient mtb with the chain rusted and the tyres flatits stuck in one gear>>1999951under 1.9 inch is thin over 2.10 is bigto me at least>>1999955wait till you see the uktheres pieces of scrap metal all around the edges of roads in places
>>1999644That's not a Super Moto; that's a Super Moto *X*, for e-bikes; the original Super Moto was like 580g a piece, those are over a kilo, iirc.I wish they were still available; can't find anything similar anymore (fat AND light).
>>2000158>motorcycles do itMotorcycles produce a hell of a lot more torque than you can as a cyclist.>i have never heard of anyone doing thatThat's because very few people have a legitimate reason to run different width tyres in the first place.
>>1999955So yeah, a nigger country problem.
>>2001136oh i didnt even know there was a version without the x>>2001141i dont think tourque is really relevant because i struggle with rear wheel traction all the time and i probably dont produce very much tourquetheres also alot more weight on the rear wheelidk why motorcycles even do it desu i just assume it must be better because theyve been doing that for like 100 years so there must be something to iti think its more of a handling thing than traction>That's because very few people have a legitimate reason to run different width tyres in the first place.i mean yeah mullets are completely unnecessary for 99% of people but i havnt heard of any person ever running a narrower rear
>>2001136I don't believe the original super motos were that light, they come in various sizes between 20" and 29" and the internet mixes the specs up. I recently ordered the updated super moto, the redesign from 2 years ago, the 27.5x2.4 are almost 1.2kg each RIP.I only ordered them because super moto is a cool name and the thread pattern looks cool, it would look super cool on my cruiser
>>2001247oooh those thingsi completely forgot about themthe tread pattern looks rly bad so i forgot about them instantlyi mean im sure therye fine tyres but they look so ugly and i dont get how that tread pattern is supposed to acheive anything
>>2001248those are the updated supermotos, the thread pattern is more form than function. I believe this picture here is the original supermoto thread pattern
>>2000158>i have never heard of anyone doing thatWell now you have because it's a thing, though to be fair it's pretty exclusive to mountain biking and even then it's a bit of a niche thing. But practically everyone who does ride staggered tires will put the wider, knobbier at the front for better cornering grip on descents, whereas the rear isn't nearly as critical for grip and you can get away with a narrower, faster tire since its main purpose is forward propulsion. In fact running different tread patterns is downright commonplace, it's just the different sizes that's less commonplace.
>>2001145some of your countries imported them too, so stay safe out there.>>2001141I do it mostly off roading, and would rather have the same size. Sometimes tires come in weird sizes so I end up with a knobbier or bigger tire up front and a less knobby and smaller in the rear.Some of this can be decided by the bike too. Many vintage road bikes can fit say a 28 or 25 in the rear but a 32 in the front.>>2001247super moto or Sumo was also what we called dirt bikes with slicks. Would be good for urban freeride or other urban shenanigans looking at that tire like BMX or dj.
>>2001250ohh yeah i like that moremore similar to the supermoto x>>2001256oohh i seethat makes sense for downhillim more of an uphill mtb rider lol
Every time I tried wider tires, the speed loss was minimal while the comfort and terrain capabilities shot up significantly.Currently at 29x2.6, I wish someone made semi slicks in that width.
>>2001232>>2001247>>2001248>>2001250>>2001262>>2001267The original Super Moto (https://web.archive.org/web/20150525182054/http://www.schwalbe.com/en/tour-reader/super-moto.html) were made for beach races that apparently were a thing back then around Belgium, iirc. They were 630g in 26x2.35 and folding, and part of their "balloon tires" (speaking of which, on the effect of tire pressure/size on ride comfort: https://web.archive.org/web/20181118205850/https://www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes.html), The X (and the new non-X) are made for e50 ebikes and so have nothing to do with them, other than name and look (for the X), and are closer to the Big Ben/Apple, even Fat Frank.
>>2001303samethe rolling resistance thing is such a meme fat tyres roll perfectly fine as long as they arent nobbiesat this point im all but certain the only advantage to thinner tyres is aeroa 26x2.6 semi slick is my dream tyre too>>2001419ohhh thats interestingi guess theyre kindof a throw back to the early days of klunker racing thenthat just makes me want them even morebig apples and fat franks are definitely on my list too but im getting more and more sold on the supermoto x
>>2001303I do agree, however the handling feels much better with narrow tyres, so I always try to go as narrow as the road allows. Current bikes go 25, 35, 43, 55, and the narrowest feels the best for road riding, and 55 is the king for any rough roads. 35 for touring just in case the roads turn shit. 43 I don't even know what I would do with, I have zero interest to map a ride through shitty roads if I have a possibility to ride something smooth, and I always do.
>>2001471>43 I don't even know what I would do with, I have zero interest to map a ride through shitty roads if I have a possibility to ride something smooth, and I always do.Good roads covered in snow, perhaps?
>>1992946Making up for the dead weight in the tires
>>2001471I notice it too. I find it depends on my mood. If I am in the mood to push it on smoother terrain I choose my 23's. Middle ground is the 28's, then if I just want to cruise I take the 47 mtb.>>2001497jfc modern mtb's are long.
>>2001468>SmxThat weighs over a kilo each, though...big apple 2.35 is the closest to the original sm now.>KlunkersFat Frank seems to be that one>26x2.6There's always the classic: https://shop.maxxis.com/products/hookworm?variant=40404751810695(now also in 27.5 and 29); If only they made it lighter...
>>2001506Long is good
>>2001574That's what she said
>>2002016No, women typically prefer average sized cocks of 6ish inches and about a one and a half inch diameter. The obsession with huge dicks is projected by dudes.
>>2001574>long is fastFTFYt. short and stacked enjoyer
>>1992287>t. never mountain biked in his entire life.
>>1992287commit suicide
>>2002021i like bothi have a stacked short bike and a long low bike>>2002020im a girl and i like big dicks (on girls) dont speak for me shimpy