26x1.0 tires

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Doug Miller, Apr 18, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Doug Miller

    Doug Miller Guest

    I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. These seemed to be
    popular with many of the bike couriers there, and I have liked riding them since they have been a
    cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a reasonable approximation of a road bike. I am now back
    in Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was eventually able to special order a
    pair, but no shop that I could find actually carried this size. The closest I was able to find was a
    much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.

    Why is this size so hard to find? Surely I am not the only person with only one bike that needs to
    be put to multiple uses.

    Doug
     
    Tags:


  2. Garry N

    Garry N Guest

    Specialized made some very nice ones untill they got sued. Evidently someone hit their pedal going
    around a corner(useing these tires lowers the bb quite a bit) and instead of taking personal
    responsability, sued everyone involved. So most manufacturers pulled them from the market . I have
    a set of the Specialized ones if you would like them. NOS $30pr, plus $5 shipping. Hope this
    helps, Garry

    "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. These seemed to be
    > popular with many of the bike couriers there,
    and
    > I have liked riding them since they have been a cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a
    > reasonable approximation of a road bike. I am now
    back
    > in Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was
    eventually
    > able to special order a pair, but no shop that I could find actually
    carried
    > this size. The closest I was able to find was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.
    >
    > Why is this size so hard to find? Surely I am not the only person with
    only
    > one bike that needs to be put to multiple uses.
    >
    > Doug
     
  3. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

  4. Chuan Chew

    Chuan Chew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "garry n" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Specialized made some very nice ones untill they got sued. Evidently someone hit their pedal going
    > around a corner(useing these tires lowers the bb quite a bit) and instead of taking personal
    > responsability, sued everyone involved. So most manufacturers pulled them from the market . I have
    > a set of the Specialized ones if you would like them. NOS $30pr, plus $5 shipping. Hope this
    > helps, Garry
    >
    > "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. These seemed to
    > > be popular with many of the bike couriers there, and I have liked riding them since they have
    > > been a cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a reasonable approximation of a road bike. I
    > > am now back in Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was eventually able to
    > > special order a pair, but no shop that I could find actually carried this size. The closest I
    > > was able to find was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.
    > >
    > > Why is this size so hard to find? Surely I am not the only person with only one bike that needs
    > > to be put to multiple uses.
    > >
    > > Doug

    Ritchey's Tom Slick is available in 26 x 1.0", wire or Kevlar beads. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

    --Chuan
     
  5. waterbug-<< Why is this size so hard to find?

    Because 26 inch rims are on MTBs, not 'road' bikes. Conti makes a 26 by
    23mm...BTW-

    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
    (24)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
     
  6. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    > I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. These seemed to be
    > popular with many of the bike couriers there, and I have liked riding them since they have been a
    > cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a reasonable approximation of a road bike. I am now
    > back in Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was eventually able to special
    > order a pair, but no shop that I could find actually carried this size. The closest I was able to
    > find was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.
    >
    > Why is this size so hard to find? Surely I am not the only person with only one bike that needs to
    > be put to multiple uses.

    26 x 1 is not a popular size for tires. Most 26" wheels are on mountain bikes, wearing knobby
    tires even if they never go off road because everyone knows knobbies give better traction under
    all conditions and are therefore safer tires. But I digress... </sarcasm> In reality, skinny
    tires for 26 inchers give a harsh ride and the smaller wheel size results in higher rolling
    resistance, all other things being equal (which of course is rarely the case). Basically there is
    little to no market.

    I know of several tire options, including the Ritchey Tom Slick, Primo (spelled "Pr1mo" on the
    sidewall), Continental, Hutchinson. Specialized used to make a very good 26 x 1.0, the Turbo S,
    which seems to be out of production.
     
  7. Bfd

    Bfd Guest

    26x1. tires are approximately equal to a 25mm wide tire, very narrow for a "mt bike", and probably
    the reason why not very popular. Avocet makes a very nice 26x1.25 (32mm wide) tire in both
    slick and inverted tread version. On my city/cruiser bike, I'm using a slick in front/inverted
    tread in the rear and like it very much. Very low rolling resistance makes a very heavy/low
    budget commuter reasonably fast. For more see here: slick -
    http://www.avocet.com/tirepages/carbon12_specs.html (scroll down to fasgrip city) inverted -
    http://www.avocet.com/tirepages/cross_2_specs.html "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote
    in message news:timmcn[email protected]...
    > > I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. These seemed to
    > > be popular with many of the bike couriers there, and I have liked riding them since they have
    > > been a cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a reasonable approximation of a road bike. I
    > > am now back in Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was eventually able to
    > > special order a pair, but no shop that I could find actually carried this size. The closest I
    > > was able to find was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.
    > >
    > > Why is this size so hard to find? Surely I am not the only person with only one bike that needs
    > > to be put to multiple uses.
    >
    > 26 x 1 is not a popular size for tires. Most 26" wheels are on mountain bikes, wearing knobby
    > tires even if they never go off road because everyone knows knobbies give better traction under
    > all conditions and are therefore safer tires. But I digress... </sarcasm> In reality, skinny
    > tires for 26 inchers give a harsh ride and the smaller wheel size results in higher rolling
    > resistance, all other things being equal (which of course is rarely the case). Basically there is
    > little to no market.
    >
    > I know of several tire options, including the Ritchey Tom Slick, Primo (spelled "Pr1mo" on the
    > sidewall), Continental, Hutchinson. Specialized used to make a very good 26 x 1.0, the Turbo S,
    > which seems to be out of production.
     
  8. A Muzi

    A Muzi Guest

  9. > > I am currently using a pair of 26x1.0 Hutchinson tires that I bought in Tokyo. I am now back in
    > > Southern California, and am trying to replace my tires. I was eventually able to special order a
    > > pair, but no shop that I could find actually carried this size. The closest I was able to find
    > > was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25.

    If you don't mind mail order, Nashbar ( http://www.nashbar.com ) list the Hutchinson Top Slick Gold
    in 1" and 1.2" at $16.95 each.

    James Thomson
     
  10. "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote

    > Did we establish that his tires are 26x1 ISO-559 mountain bike diamter? His rims may be 26x1
    > ISO-571 triathlon size. It might be nice to know for sure.

    " I have liked riding them since they have been a cheap way of turning my mountain bike into a
    reasonable approximation of a road bike."

    No mention of a change of wheels.

    "The closest I was able to find was a much bulkier 1.2 or 1.25."

    Nothing bigger than a 28mm is available in 650c, and the commonest tyres in that diameter are 23mm
    or narrower.

    James Thomson
     
  11. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Did we establish that his tires are 26x1 ISO-559 mountain bike diamter? His rims may be 26x1
    > ISO-571 triathlon size. It might be nice to know for sure.

    I was assuming since he said it was his mountain bike.
     
  12. Doug Miller wrote:

    > Yes, they are for my mountain bike. A number of people have suggested sources for tires (thanks).
    > My real interest, though, was why this size isn't popular since mountain style bikes have become
    > such a huge part of the world bike market. The rolling resistance on these tires is much lower
    > than most tires meant for mountain bikes. Even given that the ride might be harsher, this should
    > be partially offset by the fact that most mountain bikes now have shocks. As with everything else,
    > there is a tradeoff to be made between ride comfort, efficiency, cost, etc. From my point of view,
    > these tires seem like a good fit for my current use, which is mostly commuting and some longer
    > road rides on the weekends.

    I have a pair of 26x1.0 Specialized Fatboys on my mountain bike. These are great for road riding,
    since they're totally slick (they don't even have any of those cheesy "rain grooves"). I don't have
    shocks and I haven't found "harshness" to be an issue, even after very long rides, including a 300
    km brevet last spring.

    People have looked at my tires and assumed they must be very old since "all the tread is worn off".

    The size isn't popular for the same reason that the lack of tread isn't popular, and for the same
    reason that SUVs are popular with city drivers.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the
    lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
     
  13. Doug Miller

    Doug Miller Guest

    Yes, they are for my mountain bike. A number of people have suggested sources for tires (thanks).
    My real interest, though, was why this size isn't popular since mountain style bikes have become
    such a huge part of the world bike market. The rolling resistance on these tires is much lower than
    most tires meant for mountain bikes. Even given that the ride might be harsher, this should be
    partially offset by the fact that most mountain bikes now have shocks. As with everything else,
    there is a tradeoff to be made between ride comfort, efficiency, cost, etc. From my point of view,
    these tires seem like a good fit for my current use, which is mostly commuting and some longer road
    rides on the weekends.

    Doug

    Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Did we establish that his tires are 26x1 ISO-559 mountain bike diamter? His rims may be 26x1
    > > ISO-571 triathlon size. It might be nice to know for sure.
    >
    > I was assuming since he said it was his mountain bike.
     
  14. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > My real interest, though, was why this size isn't popular since mountain style bikes have become
    > such a huge part of the world bike market.

    Probably because most people (1) rarely ever ride the bikes they buy and (2) those who do ride their
    mountain bikes usually drive their SUV to the trailhead with the bike on a rack.
     
  15. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:41:09 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I have a pair of 26x1.0 Specialized Fatboys on my mountain bike. These are great for road riding,
    >since they're totally slick (they don't even have any of those cheesy "rain grooves"). I don't have
    >shocks and I haven't found "harshness" to be an issue, even after very long rides, including a 300
    >km brevet last spring.
    >
    >People have looked at my tires and assumed they must be very old since "all the tread is worn off".

    I had someone make this exact comment about the 1.25" Specialized Fatboys on my bike when they had
    less than 50 km on them.

    >The size isn't popular for the same reason that the lack of tread isn't popular, and for the same
    >reason that SUVs are popular with city drivers.

    There is just widespread ignorance about tread on tires and cyclists are by no means immune. As a
    result, I have never seen a 26x1.0 tire for sale here in TO and I rarely see 1.25" slicks for sale
    either (MEC has the Tioga City Slicker of course, but it has those sipes that you mention including
    one right down the middle of the tire which seems like an especially poor choice).

    I actually prefer a larger tire (1.9" front, 1.5" rear) for errands and commuting (the roads here
    are in atrocious shape) and trying to find a completely slick tire in this sizing is even more
    difficult.
     
  16. Chris B. wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:41:09 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I have a pair of 26x1.0 Specialized Fatboys on my mountain bike. These are great for road riding,
    >> since they're totally slick (they don't even have any of those cheesy "rain grooves"). I don't
    >> have shocks and I haven't found "harshness" to be an issue, even after very long rides, including
    >> a 300 km brevet last spring.
    >>
    >> People have looked at my tires and assumed they must be very old since "all the tread is
    >> worn off".
    >
    > I had someone make this exact comment about the 1.25" Specialized Fatboys on my bike when they had
    > less than 50 km on them.

    Oops, mine are 1.25" as well. I think that's the only width they come in.

    I'd gone a little farther than that, but I was still able to reply "yeah, they're almost a
    week old!"

    >> The size isn't popular for the same reason that the lack of tread isn't popular, and for the same
    >> reason that SUVs are popular with city drivers.
    >
    > There is just widespread ignorance about tread on tires and cyclists are by no means immune. As a
    > result, I have never seen a 26x1.0 tire for sale here in TO

    To be fair, in most cases if you're interested in tires that narrow you're probably better off with
    a road bike.

    > and I rarely see 1.25" slicks for sale either (MEC has the Tioga City Slicker of course, but it
    > has those sipes that you mention including one right down the middle of the tire which seems like
    > an especially poor choice).

    They also carry the Panaracer Pasela (26x1.25), and Richey Tom Slicks
    (26x1.4). Both of these also have rain sipes, so they're a little less than ideal; I haven't tried
    either of them. The Paselas seem to have a decent reputation, for what it's worth.

    > I actually prefer a larger tire (1.9" front, 1.5" rear) for errands and commuting (the roads here
    > are in atrocious shape) and trying to find a completely slick tire in this sizing is even more
    > difficult.

    Heck, I couldn't even find a completely slick tire for my road bike. They don't carry Avocet tires
    in Canada at the moment, unfortunately. If you don't mind ordering from the states, they have them
    in 26x1.9" and 26x1.5". I believe you can order them from Sheldon Brown's site. Ah, yes:

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/tires/559.html

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the
    lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>,
    Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Chris B. wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:41:09 -0700, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have a pair of 26x1.0 Specialized Fatboys on my mountain bike. These are great for road
    > >> riding, since they're totally slick (they don't even have any of those cheesy "rain grooves").
    > >> I don't have shocks and I haven't found "harshness" to be an issue, even after very long rides,
    > >> including a 300 km brevet last spring.
    > >>
    > >> People have looked at my tires and assumed they must be very old since "all the tread is worn
    > >> off".
    > >
    > > I had someone make this exact comment about the 1.25" Specialized Fatboys on my bike when they
    > > had less than 50 km on them.
    >
    > Oops, mine are 1.25" as well. I think that's the only width they come in.
    >
    > I'd gone a little farther than that, but I was still able to reply "yeah, they're almost a
    > week old!"
    >
    > >> The size isn't popular for the same reason that the lack of tread isn't popular, and for the
    > >> same reason that SUVs are popular with city drivers.
    > >
    > > There is just widespread ignorance about tread on tires and cyclists are by no means immune. As
    > > a result, I have never seen a 26x1.0 tire for sale here in TO
    >
    > To be fair, in most cases if you're interested in tires that narrow you're probably better off
    > with a road bike.
    >
    > > and I rarely see 1.25" slicks for sale either (MEC has the Tioga City Slicker of course, but it
    > > has those sipes that you mention including one right down the middle of the tire which seems
    > > like an especially poor choice).
    >
    > They also carry the Panaracer Pasela (26x1.25), and Richey Tom Slicks
    > (26x1.4). Both of these also have rain sipes, so they're a little less than ideal; I haven't tried
    > either of them. The Paselas seem to have a decent reputation, for what it's worth.

    There's an article in this month's Momentum which claims extremely good wear life out of the City
    Slickers. I agree with you about wishing for fewer rain sipes, but mine have given me no trouble in
    the time I have owned them. Maybe they just use a really hard rubber compound.

    > > I actually prefer a larger tire (1.9" front, 1.5" rear) for errands and commuting (the roads
    > > here are in atrocious shape) and trying to find a completely slick tire in this sizing is even
    > > more difficult.
    >
    > Heck, I couldn't even find a completely slick tire for my road bike. They don't carry Avocet tires
    > in Canada at the moment, unfortunately.

    No?! Not even at the nerd-racer shops like La Bicicletta and Campione? Weird.

    Oh well, I'll use my 20 (!) mm "textured" road tires until they wear out. So skinny I don't have to
    open my brake QR when I drop a wheel. Maybe 23 or 25 mm next time, though I was happy riding these
    wheels on a metric century, so harshness is not a problem.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  18. Ryan Cousineau wrote:

    > Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> Heck, I couldn't even find a completely slick tire for my road bike. They don't carry Avocet
    >> tires in Canada at the moment, unfortunately.
    >
    > No?! Not even at the nerd-racer shops like La Bicicletta and Campione? Weird.

    Well, I didn't try at Campione, and my preference was for 25mm or possibly 28mm tires (I went with
    "28mm" that are actually about 25mm). They may have had 23mm slicks at La Bicicletta, but I don't
    remember seeing any. In any case, it's not easy to find a decent looking pair of road slicks even
    on the web.

    As for Avocet tires, I gather they don't work through the normal distributors, or something, so
    nobody carries them here at the moment.

    I'm using "Vittoria Randonneur" tires, which have had exactly one flat since I got them around 4000
    km ago. I don't know if this has anything to do with the tires, or is just due to not running over
    pointy things.

    They have "rain sipes", and some sort of anti-puncture layer, so the rolling resistance probably
    isn't great. They're also about 490 grams of rotating weight, which is probably equivalent to about
    10 kg elsewhere.

    > Oh well, I'll use my 20 (!) mm "textured" road tires until they wear out. So skinny I don't have
    > to open my brake QR when I drop a wheel. Maybe 23 or 25 mm next time, though I was happy riding
    > these wheels on a metric century, so harshness is not a problem.

    I'm sure that's just because of your soft, luxurious steel frame, and your carbon fork.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. -- Walt Kelly
     
  19. In article <[email protected]>,
    Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
    >
    > > Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

    > As for Avocet tires, I gather they don't work through the normal distributors, or something, so
    > nobody carries them here at the moment.
    >
    > I'm using "Vittoria Randonneur" tires, which have had exactly one flat since I got them around
    > 4000 km ago. I don't know if this has anything to do with the tires, or is just due to not running
    > over pointy things.
    >
    > They have "rain sipes", and some sort of anti-puncture layer, so the rolling resistance probably
    > isn't great. They're also about 490 grams of rotating weight, which is probably equivalent to
    > about 10 kg elsewhere.

    I believe the correct ratio, as I read in the last issue of Bicycling, is 3:1. I am not
    making this up.

    > > Oh well, I'll use my 20 (!) mm "textured" road tires until they wear out. So skinny I don't have
    > > to open my brake QR when I drop a wheel. Maybe 23 or 25 mm next time, though I was happy riding
    > > these wheels on a metric century, so harshness is not a problem.
    >
    > I'm sure that's just because of your soft, luxurious steel frame, and your carbon fork.

    The steel frame was probably not as soft when it was first made, but since I bought it used, it has
    been broken in nicely and now rides like buttah.

    Of course, I think the real key is that my nice comfy Selle Italia Nitrox has a full 2 mm of foam
    padding under my ischial tuberosities. You could be this comfy too if you would just dump that
    antique leather saddle. Between this and the fat tires you favour, it's no wonder I beat you in the
    last Populaire.

    Fortunately, I am willing to trade you straight-up for an unused Nitrox. Aren't I a nice guy?

    BTW, I figure you still owe me a road race :). Want to ride the first Tuesday Night Crit? Only $5...

    Be like Fabrizio,
    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  20. Ryan Cousineau wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> They have "rain sipes", and some sort of anti-puncture layer, so the rolling resistance probably
    >> isn't great. They're also about 490 grams of rotating weight, which is probably equivalent to
    >> about 10 kg elsewhere.
    >
    > I believe the correct ratio, as I read in the last issue of Bicycling, is 3:1. I am not making
    > this up.

    Ah, but that was probably for spokes. The tire is at the outer edge of the wheel, and having the
    weight at a larger radius makes the difference greater. I can't figure out the calculations, but
    20:1 sounds about right to me.

    >>> Oh well, I'll use my 20 (!) mm "textured" road tires until they wear out. So skinny I don't have
    >>> to open my brake QR when I drop a wheel. Maybe 23 or 25 mm next time, though I was happy riding
    >>> these wheels on a metric century, so harshness is not a problem.
    >>
    >> I'm sure that's just because of your soft, luxurious steel frame, and your carbon fork.
    >
    > The steel frame was probably not as soft when it was first made, but since I bought it used, it
    > has been broken in nicely and now rides like buttah.

    My frame is pretty new still, so it hasn't softened up much yet. That's why I need the wide tires.

    > Of course, I think the real key is that my nice comfy Selle Italia Nitrox has a full 2 mm of foam
    > padding under my ischial tuberosities. You could be this comfy too if you would just dump that
    > antique leather saddle. Between this and the fat tires you favour, it's no wonder I beat you in
    > the last Populaire.

    My arriving 20 minutes late didn't help much, though, and I didn't have the luxury of letting a
    crowd of Velo Vets in front of me do all the work for
    me.

    > Fortunately, I am willing to trade you straight-up for an unused Nitrox. Aren't I a nice guy?

    You can have my saddle when you pry it from my cold, dead . . . uh, never mind, I won't go there.

    > BTW, I figure you still owe me a road race :). Want to ride the first Tuesday Night Crit?
    > Only $5...

    I'm seriously out of shape now -- I haven't even been on the bike since the Populaire.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. -- Walt Kelly
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...