26x1.0 tires

[Benjamin Lewis]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:33:40 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> [B. Lewis 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.
>
> Huh? Like where?

Heh. It's amazing what omitting a few "smileys" can do on usenet. Still, I thought that the sheer
magnitude of the exaggeration made it obvious
. . .

>> I believe the correct ratio, as I read in the last issue of Bicycling, is 3:1. I am not making
>> this up.
>
> No. They are.

It's pretty unbelievable what they think they can, and for the most part do, get away with.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. -- Walt Kelly

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:33:40 +0000, Ryan Cousineau 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.

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

No. They are.

>> 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.

Oh, my God. Caught by the troll.

>
--

David L. Johnson

__o | To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or _`\(,_ | that we are to
stand by the president right or wrong, is not (_)/ (_) | only unpatriotic and servile, but is
morally treasonable to the American public. --Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Dave M Wyman]

Doug Miller 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.

Because 26x1.0 tires aren't "mountain" tires. They're street tires, they don't come stock on mt.
bikes, and most people in southern California, where you live, want "fat tires" because they fit the
image of a mt. bike.

> 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

Again, most people ride for different reasons than you do - e.g., very, very few people - relatively
speaking - commute to work in southern California.

That said, I love riding my mt. bike on pavement, and when I do, I use
26x1. tires. (Cambria Bicyle Outfitters - http://www.cambriabikes.com - has a large selection of
these tires.)

Dave

http://www.icyclist.com

 

[James Annan]

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.

There are a few models available. Many two reasons why they are not so popular are that the ride is
very harsh with such small wheels (also true of 571mm rims, but those riders won't have been used to
2" soft tyres) and also some MTB rims will be a bit too wide for the tyres.

I've used tioga city slickers (labelled both 1" and 23mm), which felt fast but aren't very durable,
and there are also conti GP and some panaracer offering(s). I suspect these may not be so common in
the USA, they are not often found lying around in european shops but can certainly be ordered.

James

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:33:40 +0000, Ryan Cousineau 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.
>
> Huh? Like where?
> >
> > I believe the correct ratio, as I read in the last issue of Bicycling, is 3:1. I am not making
> > this up.
>
> No. They are.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Oh, my God. Caught by the troll.

Benjamin and I are gonna mount this one on the wall! Hey, have you ever read "The Princess Bride" by
S. Morgenstern?

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

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Dave M Wyman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Because 26x1.0 tires aren't "mountain" tires. They're
street tires, they
> don't come stock on mt. bikes, and most people in southern
California,
> where you live, want "fat tires" because they fit the
image of a mt. bike.

Don't blame "people." Blame product managers, who may or may not know what "people" want, as
evidenced by the industry's ups and downs. Of course, most product managers probably do live in
southern CA, *and* drive SUVs.

> > 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
>
> Again, most people ride for different reasons than you
do - e.g., very,
> very few people - relatively speaking - commute to work in
southern
> California.

Statistically it's about the same or a little more than the national average. Of course, considering
the fine weather and good roads, it should be a lot more.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

No, they are.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> 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.

There's no reason for it.

> The rolling resistance on these tires is much lower than most tires meant for mountain bikes.

This is a common misconception, but it's simply not true.

All else being equal, there's no reason a narrower tire is faster than a fatter one. By "all else" I
mean casing construction and tread thickness. In fact, Continental has said their fastest rolling
tire is not a skinny road racing tire, but their 1.75" Avenue, a MTB slick.

Similar slick tires from other brands are really fast too -- no slower than road racing tires.

There are reasons skinny tires are non-optimal for mountain bikes. First, MTB rims may be too wide
to be a perfect fit for a 1.0" tire. Second, MTB geometry is designed for 2" tires. Sometimes really
skinny tires can feel darty, or just less "sweet" handling than the fat tires the bike was designed
for. This is probably because a smaller tire reduces trail. It depends on the bike, but it can be an
issue. I know I prefer at least 1.5" tires on my bike.

> 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.

Try some good fat slicks -- Continental, Avocet, Bontrager, Ritchey, Panaracer, etc. Look for a
smooth tread (slick), and a thin, supple casing. Even cheapies from Performance can be very
good indeed.

Matt O.