Elements necessary for a good road clincher?

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like. I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like. I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

I know it won't happen, but I would love to see a blind tire test. Same
wheels, same size tire, same inflation pressure. I'll bet alot of the
"supple", "rolls fast", "corners great", etc. BS would evaporate in a
cloud of uncertainty.

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one?

20mm tires are bad. 23mm tires are good. 25's, 32's can be even
better.

If your tires are too tight to change easily with tire levers, get
different rims.

(<g>😉 --D-y

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one?
We all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is
it because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs.
good tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true
(and surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of
course, we all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially
since air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like.

People talk about feeling a difference in "ride quality" between
different tires, but I frankly don't feel it. Maybe my butt isn't
finely calibrated. I feel the difference in inflation pressure but not
differences between casings design and the like. Some tires feel
faster, some feel slower. The sounds they make can be different.

I look for carbon black based rubber (silica-based rubbers have had
problems with wet traction, poor durability and poor cut resistance). I
prefer a tan sidewall in part for aesthetics and in part because it's
easier to see damage to the sidewall than with an all-black tire. I
prefer a slick tread because textured treads are useless at best on a
road bike.

Number of currently available tires made like this: none.

I used to use Avocet tires (which were danged hard to find, as only one
local shop carried them; now it's even harder) or the Michelin Super
Comp HD (renamed Synergic). I switched to the Continental Ultra 2000,
but that is now also defunct. Then I tried the Rivendell Roll-y Poly
but those felt kind of slow. Currently I have a pair of Panaracer
Pasela 700 x 25s and they seem OK despite the tread decoration. I have
used Ritchey Tom Slick tires but had a lot of trouble with casing
quality (the casing pulled apart along the center line on at least a
half-dozen examples in the 700C and 26" sizes). On my bike with 26"
wheels I use Primo Racer 26 x 1.25 tires which feel like they roll
fairly well.

Quoted message said:

I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

Very sound advice.

Tim McNamara said:

I used to use Avocet tires (which were danged hard to find, as only one
local shop carried them; now it's even harder) or the Michelin Super
Comp HD (renamed Synergic). I switched to the Continental Ultra 2000,
but that is now also defunct. Then I tried the Rivendell Roll-y Poly
but those felt kind of slow. Currently I have a pair of Panaracer
Pasela 700 x 25s and they seem OK despite the tread decoration. I have
used Ritchey Tom Slick tires but had a lot of trouble with casing
quality (the casing pulled apart along the center line on at least a
half-dozen examples in the 700C and 26" sizes). On my bike with 26"
wheels I use Primo Racer 26 x 1.25 tires which feel like they roll
fairly well.

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

Quoted message said:

If your tires are too tight to change easily with tire levers, get
different rims.

I only use tire/wheel combinations that I can change w/o levers. It
takes technique rather than strength.

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

If your question relates only to "ride quality" (i.e., not durability,
etc.), I would say the key factors are tire width, casing quality, and
tread (rubber quality, thickness, and pattern).

The "best riding" tires would have a width appropriate for the rider's
weight and local road conditions (for comfort), high tpi casing and
thin, slick tread (for low rolling resistance). For practical reasons,
a thicker tread would be probably be chosen to achieve reasonable tire
life and puncture resistance.

Art Harris

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

I've always wondered why tires with high TPI casings are so much more
expensive. Does anyone know why that is?

Bruce

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one?
We all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is
it because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs.
good tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true
(and surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of
course, we all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially
since air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like.

People talk about feeling a difference in "ride quality" between
different tires, but I frankly don't feel it. Maybe my butt isn't
finely calibrated. I feel the difference in inflation pressure but not
differences between casings design and the like. Some tires feel
faster, some feel slower. The sounds they make can be different.

I look for carbon black based rubber (silica-based rubbers have had
problems with wet traction, poor durability and poor cut resistance). I
prefer a tan sidewall in part for aesthetics and in part because it's
easier to see damage to the sidewall than with an all-black tire. I
prefer a slick tread because textured treads are useless at best on a
road bike.

Number of currently available tires made like this: none.

Tan fabric sidewalls, high thread count, black rubber (carbon? Dunno,
but it is available in other colors so that does not bode well, does
it?), herring-bone tread (wears into a slick after a while!), super
supple (comes rolled up in a box smaller than a donut), kevlar belt for
some protection, but alas only in 22 width: Veloflex Pave. My favorite
tires, except for the width.

I don't know if it is my butt calibration or what, but these tires feel
great. The best tires I ever used were Vittoria CX Seta (silk) tubulars
in the 80's. The first time I tried them it felt like I was using some
other type of device than a bike. It was a world of difference. The
Veloflex aren't that good, but they are much nicer than Michelin Pro
Race, which is also a very nice tire. And cheap tires from Rubena,
Maxxis, etc just suck in comparison.

Another tire I used a bit, but not enough to form a solid opinion is
the IRC RedStorm. They are supposed to have some sort of rice bran or
some other crazy compund which improves traction and wear resistance.
Slick tread, available in 25.

Joseph

Quoted message said:

I used to use Avocet tires (which were danged hard to find, as only one
local shop carried them; now it's even harder) or the Michelin Super
Comp HD (renamed Synergic). I switched to the Continental Ultra 2000,
but that is now also defunct. Then I tried the Rivendell Roll-y Poly
but those felt kind of slow. Currently I have a pair of Panaracer
Pasela 700 x 25s and they seem OK despite the tread decoration. I have
used Ritchey Tom Slick tires but had a lot of trouble with casing
quality (the casing pulled apart along the center line on at least a
half-dozen examples in the 700C and 26" sizes). On my bike with 26"
wheels I use Primo Racer 26 x 1.25 tires which feel like they roll
fairly well.

Quoted message said:

I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

Very sound advice.

Paul Kopit said:

Tim McNamara said:

I used to use Avocet tires (which were danged hard to find, as only one
local shop carried them; now it's even harder) or the Michelin Super
Comp HD (renamed Synergic). I switched to the Continental Ultra 2000,
but that is now also defunct. Then I tried the Rivendell Roll-y Poly
but those felt kind of slow. Currently I have a pair of Panaracer
Pasela 700 x 25s and they seem OK despite the tread decoration. I have
used Ritchey Tom Slick tires but had a lot of trouble with casing
quality (the casing pulled apart along the center line on at least a
half-dozen examples in the 700C and 26" sizes). On my bike with 26"
wheels I use Primo Racer 26 x 1.25 tires which feel like they roll
fairly well.

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

If your Pasela has a series of dots on the shoulders, then it's probably
an older version. Newer Paselas, with a sort of wavy trapezoid on the
shoulders, run truer to size.

Paul Kopit said:

Tim McNamara said:

I used to use Avocet tires (which were danged hard to find, as only one
local shop carried them; now it's even harder) or the Michelin Super
Comp HD (renamed Synergic). I switched to the Continental Ultra 2000,
but that is now also defunct. Then I tried the Rivendell Roll-y Poly
but those felt kind of slow. Currently I have a pair of Panaracer
Pasela 700 x 25s and they seem OK despite the tread decoration. I have
used Ritchey Tom Slick tires but had a lot of trouble with casing
quality (the casing pulled apart along the center line on at least a
half-dozen examples in the 700C and 26" sizes). On my bike with 26"
wheels I use Primo Racer 26 x 1.25 tires which feel like they roll
fairly well.

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

How do the 700x25 Krylions compare with the 700x25 Pro2 Race?

Joseph

Ozark Bicycle said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like. I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

I know it won't happen, but I would love to see a blind tire test. Same
wheels, same size tire, same inflation pressure. I'll bet alot of the
"supple", "rolls fast", "corners great", etc. BS would evaporate in a
cloud of uncertainty.

A couple of European magazines, Tour and Le Cycle, do extensive tire
tests. The results eventually get posted here and in other bike forums.
Google is your friend.

Matt O.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth said:

What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one?
We all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is
it because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs.
good tire?

Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true
(and surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of
course, we all want tires that can be mounted without tools.

But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially
since air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like.

People talk about feeling a difference in "ride quality" between
different tires, but I frankly don't feel it. Maybe my butt isn't
finely calibrated. I feel the difference in inflation pressure but not
differences between casings design and the like. Some tires feel
faster, some feel slower. The sounds they make can be different.

I look for carbon black based rubber (silica-based rubbers have had
problems with wet traction, poor durability and poor cut resistance). I
prefer a tan sidewall in part for aesthetics and in part because it's
easier to see damage to the sidewall than with an all-black tire. I
prefer a slick tread because textured treads are useless at best on a
road bike.

Number of currently available tires made like this: none.

Continental Gatorskin? A darker brown sidewall, but still easy to see.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

damyth wrote:
> What differentiates a good (riding) road clincher from a bad one? We
> all talk about bike gear, but this subject hardly comes up. Is it
> because there really isn't that much daylight between a bad vs. good
> tire?
>
> Sure I know about the correlation about suppleness and TPI. I also
> know enough to choose the ones where the casing is round and true (and
> surprisingly many tires do not pass this category). And of course, we
> all want tires that can be mounted without tools.
>
> But how does one really know that a tire rides well, especially since
> air pressure can play such a big role in ride quality?

Don't know for the reasons you mentioned. hard to really find a 'bad'
road tire these days just like it's hard to find a 'bad' bicycle in a
bike shop. I would talk you yer riding buddies, try a few and stick
with one you like. I would not listen to anybody trying to sell them.

I know it won't happen, but I would love to see a blind tire test. Same
wheels, same size tire, same inflation pressure. I'll bet alot of the
"supple", "rolls fast", "corners great", etc. BS would evaporate in a
cloud of uncertainty.

A couple of European magazines, Tour and Le Cycle, do extensive tire
tests. The results eventually get posted here and in other bike forums.
Google is your friend.

AFAIK, those tests are not blind. I'm not that much intererested in the
"raw numbers"for RR, etc., as I am in how those numbers actually
translate when the rubber meets the road. Eliminating the expectation
effect from the test riders is an important element.

Quoted message said:

Matt O.

Paul Kopit said:

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

I've been happy with the Carbons too (23mm). I'll probably buy the 25mm
next time.

Matt O.

Paul Kopit said:

On 4 Jan 2007 06:31:40 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If your tires are too tight to change easily with tire levers, get
different rims.

Quoted message said:

I only use tire/wheel combinations that I can change w/o levers. It
takes technique rather than strength.

I agree. I've unloaded tires on eBay because I couldn't get them off
easily.

I once had some Continental Avenues that I couldn't get off without
drawing blood, even with tire levers. Sayonara! Too bad, they were the
only MTB tires I ever used that felt as fast as a road bike tire.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Paul Kopit said:

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

I've been happy with the Carbons too (23mm). I'll probably buy the 25mm
next time.

The Pro 2 Race in 23 and 25 are completely (well, almost) different
animals. Are the Carbon Krylions the same in 23 and 25 apart from size?

Joseph

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

Paul Kopit said:

I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

I've been happy with the Carbons too (23mm). I'll probably buy the 25mm
next time.

The Pro 2 Race in 23 and 25 are completely (well, almost) different
animals. Are the Carbon Krylions the same in 23 and 25 apart from size?

Joseph

How are the Pro2Race 25's different than the 23's other than width?
Andy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1144 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

andy said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:18:24 +0000, Paul Kopit wrote:

> I favor the Michelin Krylion Carbons in 700x25 size. The actually
> measure a bit more than 25 and I use 100 lbs of air. I have a
> Panaracer Pasela, 700x32 that is actually narrower than the 700x25
> Michelin. It rides fine too. Wide tires and less air works wonders.

I've been happy with the Carbons too (23mm). I'll probably buy the 25mm
next time.

The Pro 2 Race in 23 and 25 are completely (well, almost) different
animals. Are the Carbon Krylions the same in 23 and 25 apart from size?

Joseph

How are the Pro2Race 25's different than the 23's other than width?
Andy

25 tread and sidewalls are much thicker, not as soft, tread has a
pronounced texture to it. It is still a nice tire, but it just does not
seem to be the same tire as the 23's. The 25's are also in my
experience much wider than 25. More like 28, while the 23's are more
true to size.

Joseph