25-30 km/h: 700*23 or 28 Which is better?

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size is
better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and aerodynamics?

Aerodynamics don't matter unless you're riding at pro levels. Choose
28mm tires if you want a little more comfort over rough roads, pinch
flat protection, or you are a heavier rider. I'm not going to comment
on the rolling resistance but to say that "garden hose" type tires
certainly are palpably slow, some kevlar belted tires can feel slow,
but supple and reasonably narrow tires of various brands will all roll
very well, red ones slightly better than most.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer Pasela in
700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are inexpensive,
readily available but are only good for about 1800-2000 miles on the
rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them even better. Make sure you
get the new version and not the older version with the raised rib around
the tire. The puncture resistance is a bit low with these tires, which
is the tradeoff for good performance and a nice ride.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer Pasela in
700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are inexpensive,
readily available but are only good for about 1800-2000 miles on the
rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them even better. Make sure you
get the new version and not the older version with the raised rib around
the tire. The puncture resistance is a bit low with these tires, which
is the tradeoff for good performance and a nice ride.

I mentioned *really* being impressed with the 32s, which I assumed
were going to be 28s, a few days ago, and Paul chimed in and said he'd
gone a couple years with no flats on his in Atlanta. Same casing as
the skinnies--so it's not a hose, just a big [censored] of a tire. I've done
a couple hundred miles on mine so far, and if a tire passes that those
first couple hundred around these parts, it should hold up. The 28mm
Pasela would be my choice for all round light touring, commuting,
distance--just about anything. The 32 at 80psi on the fixed is a
beautiful urbanite, though. Agree about the tread--but as it rolls as
silently as a slick, I assume the decorative tread does no harm.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre
size is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance
and aerodynamics?

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there
is some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower
rolling resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually
marked as 700 x 28). However, many larger tires use a heavier,
less supple casing and a thicker tread and end up with higher
rolling resistance. It is difficult to compare apples to apples in
this case. The 700 x 28 version of the Michelin Pro Race measured
lower in rolling resistance than the 700 x 23 version of the same
tire on one test.

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer
Pasela in 700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are
inexpensive, readily available but are only good for about
1800-2000 miles on the rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them
even better. Make sure you get the new version and not the older
version with the raised rib around the tire. The puncture
resistance is a bit low with these tires, which is the tradeoff for
good performance and a nice ride.

I mentioned *really* being impressed with the 32s, which I assumed
were going to be 28s, a few days ago, and Paul chimed in and said
he'd gone a couple years with no flats on his in Atlanta. Same casing
as the skinnies--so it's not a hose, just a big [censored] of a tire. I've
done a couple hundred miles on mine so far, and if a tire passes that
those first couple hundred around these parts, it should hold up. The
28mm Pasela would be my choice for all round light touring,
commuting, distance--just about anything. The 32 at 80psi on the
fixed is a beautiful urbanite, though. Agree about the tread--but as
it rolls as silently as a slick, I assume the decorative tread does
no harm.

The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think. Very cushy
ride but they seem to roll fine. I've ridden them on brevets and have
been very happy with them. The tread does throw up more water than
slicks, so that is at least one down side.

Tim McNamara said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mirco Zorzo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre
> size is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance
> and aerodynamics?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there
is some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower
rolling resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually
marked as 700 x 28). However, many larger tires use a heavier,
less supple casing and a thicker tread and end up with higher
rolling resistance. It is difficult to compare apples to apples in
this case. The 700 x 28 version of the Michelin Pro Race measured
lower in rolling resistance than the 700 x 23 version of the same
tire on one test.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer
Pasela in 700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are
inexpensive, readily available but are only good for about
1800-2000 miles on the rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them
even better. Make sure you get the new version and not the older
version with the raised rib around the tire. The puncture
resistance is a bit low with these tires, which is the tradeoff for
good performance and a nice ride.

Quoted message said:

I mentioned *really* being impressed with the 32s, which I assumed
were going to be 28s, a few days ago, and Paul chimed in and said
he'd gone a couple years with no flats on his in Atlanta. Same casing
as the skinnies--so it's not a hose, just a big [censored] of a tire. I've
done a couple hundred miles on mine so far, and if a tire passes that
those first couple hundred around these parts, it should hold up. The
28mm Pasela would be my choice for all round light touring,
commuting, distance--just about anything. The 32 at 80psi on the
fixed is a beautiful urbanite, though. Agree about the tread--but as
it rolls as silently as a slick, I assume the decorative tread does
no harm.

The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think. Very cushy
ride but they seem to roll fine. I've ridden them on brevets and have
been very happy with them. The tread does throw up more water than
slicks, so that is at least one down side.

True, but not a dealbreaker. My fix called me on a beer run last eve
when the roads were wet, when I should have ridden the real bike that
has fenders and and an ATM. They spray more than a slick, but not much
compared to deeply treaded tires. My route was one that needed a bit
of tread.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think. Very
cushy ride but they seem to roll fine. I've ridden them on brevets
and have been very happy with them. The tread does throw up more
water than slicks, so that is at least one down side.

True, but not a dealbreaker.

I agree. I use these tires on all my bikes, they are IMHO the best
option readily available now that the old Avocet tires are gone (and no
shops locally stock them, anyway).

Anyway, hopefully this was helpful for the OP.

Tim McNamara said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

On Apr 29, 10:37 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think. Very
cushy ride but they seem to roll fine. I've ridden them on brevets
and have been very happy with them. The tread does throw up more
water than slicks, so that is at least one down side.

Quoted message said:

True, but not a dealbreaker.

I agree. I use these tires on all my bikes, they are IMHO the best
option readily available now that the old Avocet tires are gone (and no
shops locally stock them, anyway).

Funny, the Avocets used to be so popular in the 80s--I remember a
friend having them on his rigid mtb. I believe they were 2.0"
Fasgrips. Odd that the Paselas have hung in there in all the sizes--
must be that tread giving consumer confidence.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer Pasela in
700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are inexpensive,
readily available but are only good for about 1800-2000 miles on the
rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them even better. Make sure you
get the new version and not the older version with the raised rib around
the tire. The puncture resistance is a bit low with these tires, which
is the tradeoff for good performance and a nice ride.

Wider tires all have lower thread per inch count
in the side walls. Good 25 mm tires run 127 tpi.
Good 28 mm tires run 67 tpi. This seems to be
an engineering hard point dictated by hoop stress.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mirco Zorzo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

Quoted message said:

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

Quoted message said:

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer Pasela in
700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are inexpensive,
readily available but are only good for about 1800-2000 miles on the
rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them even better. Make sure you
get the new version and not the older version with the raised rib around
the tire. The puncture resistance is a bit low with these tires, which
is the tradeoff for good performance and a nice ride.

Wider tires all have lower thread per inch count
in the side walls. Good 25 mm tires run 127 tpi.
Good 28 mm tires run 67 tpi. This seems to be
an engineering hard point dictated by hoop stress.

According to Panaracer's website, the Paselas and the TGs all use
66tpi casing down to the 23s.

http://www.panaracer.com/urban.php

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

landotter said:

On Apr 29, 10:37 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think.  Very
> cushy ride but they seem to roll fine.  I've ridden them on brevets
> and have been very happy with them.  The tread does throw up more
> water than slicks, so that is at least one down side.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True, but not a dealbreaker.

Quoted message said:

I agree.  I use these tires on all my bikes, they are IMHO the best
option readily available now that the old Avocet tires are gone (and no
shops locally stock them, anyway).

Funny, the Avocets used to be so popular in the 80s--I remember a
friend having them on his rigid mtb. I believe they were 2.0"
Fasgrips. Odd that the Paselas have hung in there in all the sizes--
must be that tread giving consumer confidence.- Hide quoted text -

And exceptionally poor marketing by Avocet. I think the tire business
was a part time job or hobby for them -- it just took longer to die
than their bad private label component business. -- Jay Beattie.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

On Apr 29, 10:37 pm, Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> The 26 x 1.25 are the same width as the 700 x 32, I think.
> Very cushy ride but they seem to roll fine. I've ridden them
> on brevets and have been very happy with them. The tread does
> throw up more water than slicks, so that is at least one down
> side.

Quoted message said:

True, but not a dealbreaker.

I agree. I use these tires on all my bikes, they are IMHO the best
option readily available now that the old Avocet tires are gone
(and no shops locally stock them, anyway).

Funny, the Avocets used to be so popular in the 80s--I remember a
friend having them on his rigid mtb. I believe they were 2.0"
Fasgrips. Odd that the Paselas have hung in there in all the sizes--
must be that tread giving consumer confidence.

Nah, it was Avocet's resolute insistence on being a pain in the ass for
dealers to cope with that cost them their market. They had high minimum
order requirements, high shipping costs, etc. and most dealers got fed
up and just bought other products. Avocet's computers were the gateway
product that established the benchmarks for bike computers, but once
Cateye and others caught up with Avocet in that market, that was about
it. The original- and pretty creative- owners of Avocet sold the
business a while ago, or so I have been told. Had Avocet gone with
selling to wholesalers like QBP and Island, they'd have not only saved
themselves a bunch of headaches in terms of order fulfillment but would
probably also still be a player in the market today.

Arguably the most popular road tire brand is Michelin and their top road
tires are all slicks. Their tires from the early 90s (Super Comp HD,
IIRC) were virtual clones of the Avocet tires.

landotter said:

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long  ride with less effort which of this tyre size is
better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and aerodynamics?

Aerodynamics don't matter unless you're riding at pro levels. Choose
28mm tires if you want a little more comfort over rough roads, pinch
flat protection, or you are a heavier rider. I'm not going to comment
on the rolling resistance but to say that "garden hose" type tires
certainly are palpably slow, some kevlar belted tires can feel slow,
but supple and reasonably narrow tires of various brands will all roll
very well, red ones slightly better than most.

Is that something like "stickers add 10 HP" or is there really
something about current red-colored tread compounds that reduce
hysteresis or otherwise reduce rolling resistance?

Just curious, as I'm currently running 700Cx32s so this discussion is
pretty academic at the moment (and I'm not sure with my impressive,
um, muscle mass <G> if a significantly narrower tire would be a good
idea)

nate

In article
<[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mirco Zorzo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
> is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
> aerodynamics?

Quoted message said:

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

Quoted message said:

I have been very pleased with the performance of the Panaracer Pasela in
700 x 25 (25-26 mm actual width) and 26 x 1.25. They are inexpensive,
readily available but are only good for about 1800-2000 miles on the
rear IME. If they were slicks I'd like them even better. Make sure you
get the new version and not the older version with the raised rib around
the tire. The puncture resistance is a bit low with these tires, which
is the tradeoff for good performance and a nice ride.

Wider tires all have lower thread per inch count
in the side walls. Good 25 mm tires run 127 tpi.
Good 28 mm tires run 67 tpi. This seems to be
an engineering hard point dictated by hoop stress.

According to Panaracer's website, the Paselas and the TGs all use
66tpi casing down to the 23s.

http://www.panaracer.com/urban.php

Nothing says the must use finer thread in a narrow tire.
It is feasible and will facilitate better handling tires.

--
Michael Press

N8N said:

Is that something like "stickers add 10 HP" or is there really
something about current red-colored tread compounds that reduce
hysteresis or otherwise reduce rolling resistance?

It's not mechanical, it's hormonal. Red is the colour of blood and so
it substantially increases the production of stress hormones. The
scientific community is still divided as to whether it's the production
of "good" stress hormones in the rider with the red gear or "bad"
stress hormones in the others that is more important, ie whether it
actually makes you faster than normal or the others slower than normal.

Mirco Zorzo ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size is
better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

Hi, thanks to all you, now i've understand so much on rolling resistance.
I can't respond one to une becouse my english is very poor.

Bay.

Mirco

--
Mirco Zorzo - bdc mai doma, anelante allo sterrato. Massa 11+72 kg.
FAQ ng i.h.c (non ufficiali)
http://spazioinwind.libero.it/mircozorzo/FAQ-it.hobby.cicloturismo.it.html
Il petrolio favola moderna - Linux 2.6.20 Registered user #287263

Tim McNamara ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size
is better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

At those speeds the aerodynamic difference is not likely to be
significant. The rolling resistance research has shown that there is
some indication that the slightly larger tires have lower rolling
resistance, at least up to about 25-26 mm width (usually marked as 700 x
28). However, many larger tires use a heavier, less supple casing and a
thicker tread and end up with higher rolling resistance. It is
difficult to compare apples to apples in this case. The 700 x 28
version of the Michelin Pro Race measured lower in rolling resistance
than the 700 x 23 version of the same tire on one test.

Thanks, very intresting, also for your personal experience.

Mirco
--
Mirco Zorzo - bdc mai doma, anelante allo sterrato. Massa 11+72 kg.
FAQ ng i.h.c (non ufficiali)
http://spazioinwind.libero.it/mircozorzo/FAQ-it.hobby.cicloturismo.it.html
Il petrolio favola moderna - Linux 2.6.20 Registered user #287263

landotter ha scritto:

Quoted message said:

Mirco Zorzo said:

Hi, looking for long ride with less effort which of this tyre size is
better for minimize the combination of rolling resistance and
aerodynamics?

Aerodynamics don't matter unless you're riding at pro levels. Choose
28mm tires if you want a little more comfort over rough roads, pinch
flat protection, or you are a heavier rider. I'm not going to comment
on the rolling resistance but to say that "garden hose" type tires
certainly are palpably slow, some kevlar belted tires can feel slow,
but supple and reasonably narrow tires of various brands will all roll
very well, red ones slightly better than most.

Ok, that's clear.

Thank you.

Mirco

--
Mirco Zorzo - bdc mai doma, anelante allo sterrato. Massa 11+72 kg.
FAQ ng i.h.c (non ufficiali)
http://spazioinwind.libero.it/mircozorzo/FAQ-it.hobby.cicloturismo.it.html
Il petrolio favola moderna - Linux 2.6.20 Registered user #287263