Michelin Carbon 25mm -- brake fit?

[Matt O'Toole]

I've read that the 25mm Michelin Carbon may not fit through my brakes,
even with the release open, without deflating them a little. Does anyone
have experience with these tires and Ultegra brakes?

Matt O.

 

[alans]

I've used them with both Ultegra and DA brakes with no problems. What
will really matter though, is how tight the calipers were set when the
cable was attached, ie, how much the calipers can open when released
with the lever.

Just in case you're interested, I think these tires are total pigs.
They do seem to resist punctures, but for me, at 110psi, they transmit
lots of road vibration (like from chipseal) and bumps and are very slow
(I guess from the lack of compliance). I had a hard time telling they
weren't solid hard rubber. I switched back to 23mm ProRace 2s (120psi),
and it felt like I was riding on a carpeted path by comparison.
Disappointing, since I was under the impression that the larger 25mm
tires would be more comfortable.

Alan

 

[gary jacobson]

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

> Just in case you're interested, I think these tires are total pigs.
> They do seem to resist punctures, but for me, at 110psi, they transmit
> lots of road vibration (like from chipseal) and bumps and are very slow
> (I guess from the lack of compliance). I had a hard time telling they
> weren't solid hard rubber. I switched back to 23mm ProRace 2s (120psi),
> and it felt like I was riding on a carpeted path by comparison.
> Disappointing, since I was under the impression that the larger 25mm
> tires would be more comfortable.
>
> Alan

Have you tried 10 lbs less pressure?

I will though say that I really liked the 23mm. Pro Race too, but with my
weight and with the roads I ride it's better for me to go to the 25. (Which
measure 28
mounted on Velocity Aerohead rims.)

Gary Jacobson
Rosendale, NY

 

[alans]

>Have you tried 10 lbs less pressure?

No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I was
dragging an anvil as it was. The only positive attribute I could detect
was increased puncture resistance, but it was achieved at the cost of
most other desireable features; not a good balance for me. Also, I was
primarily looking for a winter tire, and the Carbons don't seem to have
as much grip on ice/snow/wet. I wonder if it's possible to have fast,
smooth ride and grippy rubber and puncture resistance?

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I was
> dragging an anvil as it was. The only positive attribute I could detect
> was increased puncture resistance, but it was achieved at the cost of
> most other desireable features; not a good balance for me. Also, I was
> primarily looking for a winter tire, and the Carbons don't seem to have
> as much grip on ice/snow/wet. I wonder if it's possible to have fast,
> smooth ride and grippy rubber and puncture resistance?

The best I've found so far are the Continental GP-4 Seasons, although the
Bontrager "AC" tires seem to have a bit better grip over those nasty tar
stripes (the stuff they spray in the cracks in the road). Don't have enough
experience on the Bontrager AC to tell how durable it is though.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"alans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Have you tried 10 lbs less pressure?
>
> No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I was
> dragging an anvil as it was. The only positive attribute I could detect
> was increased puncture resistance, but it was achieved at the cost of
> most other desireable features; not a good balance for me. Also, I was
> primarily looking for a winter tire, and the Carbons don't seem to have
> as much grip on ice/snow/wet. I wonder if it's possible to have fast,
> smooth ride and grippy rubber and puncture resistance?
>

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> I've read that the 25mm Michelin Carbon may not fit through my brakes,
> even with the release open, without deflating them a little. Does anyone
> have experience with these tires and Ultegra brakes?
>
> Matt O.

I have 25mm Michelin Pro, and Ultegra 6600 brakes. Whether the wheel
fits through the calipers when released has more to do with the
difference between the width of the rim and the width of the tire, and
how close the pads are to the rim, than the width of the tire taken by
itself.

With super narrow FiR rims (17mm?) and 25 tires I had to jam the wheel
in and yank it out (never needed to let out air). With Velocity
Aerohead/OC 20mm wide the 25 tires come through the Ultegra pads only
slightly touching the sidewalls.

In other words, not a problem with norwal width rims, a bit of a hassle
with narrow rims.

Joseph

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 7 Feb 2006 20:38:00 -0800, "alans" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Have you tried 10 lbs less pressure?
>
>No, because that would make them even slower.
> I felt like I was dragging an anvil

Are you sure less pressure is slower? If the tire is so hard it feels
like metal, it might not be conforming to little bumps in the road,
and actually costing you energy.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Antti Salonen]

alans <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I was
> dragging an anvil as it was.

In the recent test of 23 mm tyres in the Tour magazine, the Michelin
Carbon seemed to do pretty well in terms of rolling resistance. Some
tyres, like the Pro Race and Vittoria Evo CX were faster, but the
difference was small. All Continentals and Schwalbes for example were
slower than Michelin Carbon.

-as

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:52:42 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>> No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I was
>> dragging an anvil as it was. The only positive attribute I could detect
>> was increased puncture resistance, but it was achieved at the cost of
>> most other desireable features; not a good balance for me. Also, I was
>> primarily looking for a winter tire, and the Carbons don't seem to have
>> as much grip on ice/snow/wet. I wonder if it's possible to have fast,
>> smooth ride and grippy rubber and puncture resistance?

Maybe you had them pumped up too hard. Feedback and tests show the
Carbons have good grip and low RR.

Few riders push the limits in wet/cold conditions to where differences in
ultimate grip are important anyway. While a particularly grippy tire may
grip like glue on wet pavement, all bets are off when a surprise patch of
oil or ice is encountered. So it pays to slow down a little, which
most of us do.

> The best I've found so far are the Continental GP-4 Seasons, although
> the Bontrager "AC" tires seem to have a bit better grip over those nasty
> tar stripes (the stuff they spray in the cracks in the road). Don't have
> enough experience on the Bontrager AC to tell how durable it is though.

I've heard the Panaracer tires are the grippiest thing going, and good in
every other respect too. Nashbar has them on sale right now:

http://tinyurl.com/d4fjk

I'd give them a try myself, but I really want a bigger cross section, and
perhaps a tougher casing for winter/spring conditions.

Who declared "23mm" to be the one and only correct size anyway? All else
being equal, a fatter tire is actually faster. It conforms to the road
better. Cornering wet or dry, comfort, flat resistance, etc., are all
that much better. So why is anything but "23mm" practically unavailable?

Also, I simply refuse to pay the absurd MSRP for big-name bike tires. The
"street price" for decent tires is well under $30. There's no reason to
pay more.

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:37:58 -0800, joseph.santaniello wrote:

> I have 25mm Michelin Pro, and Ultegra 6600 brakes. Whether the wheel fits
> through the calipers when released has more to do with the difference
> between the width of the rim and the width of the tire, and how close the
> pads are to the rim, than the width of the tire taken by itself.
>
> With super narrow FiR rims (17mm?) and 25 tires I had to jam the wheel in
> and yank it out (never needed to let out air). With Velocity Aerohead/OC
> 20mm wide the 25 tires come through the Ultegra pads only slightly
> touching the sidewalls.
>
> In other words, not a problem with norwal width rims, a bit of a hassle
> with narrow rims.

Thanks Joseph. I don't mind a little interference, but having to let air
out or adjusting brakes too loosely would be unacceptable.

Big tires are great, but they have their practical limits!

Matt O.

 

[Chalo]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Big tires are great, but they have their practical limits!

It sounds like those particular limits are in the frame and brakes. I
don't understand what benefits there are to warrant such a limitation.


Chalo

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:34:26 -0800, Chalo wrote:

>
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> Big tires are great, but they have their practical limits!
>
> It sounds like those particular limits are in the frame and brakes. I
> don't understand what benefits there are to warrant such a limitation.

They're the frame and brakes I already have. And the tires they allow are
probably big enough. But I see your point.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2006 20:38:00 -0800, "alans" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>Have you tried 10 lbs less pressure?
> >
> >No, because that would make them even slower.
> > I felt like I was dragging an anvil
>
> Are you sure less pressure is slower? If the tire is so hard it feels
> like metal, it might not be conforming to little bumps in the road,
> and actually costing you energy.
>
> JT
>

My bike and I weight 242 lbs. I ride my Michelin 25's at 90 psi. To me
lower pressures is the whole point of wider tires. Perhaps he
associates the slightly mushy feeling of lower pressures with feeling
slow. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I think that may be the case. But
then again, if something feels slow then it probably is.

Joseph

 

[alans]

>Feedback and tests show the Carbons have good grip and low RR.

Compared to what, I wonder? I did my own informal coasting RR tests
with them, to see if I was imagining things, and they performed pretty
badly. I've also read reports of inadequate grip on this newsgroup.

>Few riders push the limits in wet/cold conditions to where differences in
>ultimate grip are important anyway. While a particularly grippy tire may
>grip like glue on wet pavement, all bets are off when a surprise patch of
>oil or ice is encountered. So it pays to slow down a little, which
>most of us do.

Of course I slow down when necessary for safety, but need to push the
pace on some rides, so I'd prefer not to set out with slogging gear.

My typical training ride, eight months of the year, contains plenty of
dry pavement, but also snow, ice, wet pavement, dangerously high wind,
etc. The conditions are totally patchy and can't be predicted at the
start, but the training rides "must go on". Sometimes I end up in
conditions I'd rather not ride in, but that's part of it. The goal is
to go relatively fast over long distances, so speed and efficiency are
important. Thus the desire for tires that "do everything".

Alan

 

[Jay Beattie]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:52:42 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >> No, because that would make them even slower. I felt like I
was
> >> dragging an anvil as it was. The only positive attribute I
could detect
> >> was increased puncture resistance, but it was achieved at
the cost of
> >> most other desireable features; not a good balance for me.
Also, I was
> >> primarily looking for a winter tire, and the Carbons don't
seem to have
> >> as much grip on ice/snow/wet. I wonder if it's possible to
have fast,
> >> smooth ride and grippy rubber and puncture resistance?
>
> Maybe you had them pumped up too hard. Feedback and tests show
the
> Carbons have good grip and low RR.
>
> Few riders push the limits in wet/cold conditions to where
differences in
> ultimate grip are important anyway. While a particularly
grippy tire may
> grip like glue on wet pavement, all bets are off when a
surprise patch of
> oil or ice is encountered. So it pays to slow down a little,
which
> most of us do.

IMO, pushing the limits in wet/cold conditions takes very little
effort, and differences in ultimate grip are often very apparent.
First, nothing will save you from an ice patch. When I hit ice,
I just hold my line and pray. For rain slick pavement, though,
tread compound makes a lot of difference. The Panaracer tire,
for example, is very grippy -- but all that grip makes it
surprisingly sluggish for a narrow profile tire. The 23mm feels
like a 28mm. Some tires that are supposed to be very grippy like
the Avocet Carbon really are no better than a standard
Continental or a cheaper IRC. The Pro Race is an excellent tire
in all conditions (my favorite). I have not tried the
Continental GP-4, but if I win the lottery, I might buy one. I
think a good, grippy bang for the buck tire is the Continental
Ultra Sport tire with a wire bead, although the sidewalls are not
that tough. It rolls pretty well for a relatively cheap tire. I
use them on my commuter bike. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> They're the frame and brakes I already have.

A minor drill I've used a fair amount-- use the QR and adjuster
together, for max open, then tighten the adjusters for effective
braking once the wheel is in. That's what they're on there for, right?
--D-y

 

[41]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> First, nothing will save you from an ice patch.

Apart from studs.

> When I hit ice,
> I just hold my line and pray.

Have you considered an experiment: same, but without the praying;
ditto, but cursing the deity for putting the ice in your path in the
first place; same as either of the above, but a deity other than your
own. Better or worse results?


>The Panaracer ti re,
> for example, is very grippy -- but all that grip makes it
> surprisingly sluggish for a narrow profile tire.

This seems to suggest that the grip is of an adhesive quality. It is
not. There is no direct grip-slowness relationship.

Panaracer's ZSG compound is just a mixture of the two fillers, carbon
and silica. The carbon gives the wet grip and the longevity, the silica
better rolling resistance and perhaps better dry grip. The overall
characteristics are likely a compromise then. How can you be sure the
perceived sluggishness is not due to some other factor?


> like a 28mm. Some tires that are supposed to be very grippy like
> the Avocet Carbon really are no better than a standard
> Continental or a cheaper IRC.

> I
> think a good, grippy bang for the buck tire is the Continental
> Ultra Sport tire with a wire bead, although the sidewalls are not
> that tough. It rolls pretty well for a relatively cheap tire. I
> use them on my commuter bike.

The Ultra Sport, the Avocet, the cheaper IRC (?Road Winer?), all have
very similar tread compounds (high-carbon rubber). I don't believe they
are all identical- it does seem to me that the Avocet has more carbon,
but I can't be sure by finger alone. But how do you determine the
minute differences between them? We are talking at most a degree or two
or three on the slip-out angle, if that.

 

[41]

alans wrote:

> Ju st in case you're interested, I think these tires are total pigs.
> They do seem to resist punctures, but for me, at 110psi, they transmit
> lots of road vibration (like from chipseal) and bumps and are very slow
> (I guess from the lack of compliance). I had a hard time telling they
> weren't solid hard rubber. I switched back to 23mm ProRace 2s (120psi),
> and it felt like I was riding on a carpeted path by comparison.
> Disappointing, since I was under the impression that the larger 25mm
> tires would be more comfortable.

A 25 at 110 psi could easily be less comfortable than a 23 at 120. I
once tried 32s at 90 and they were nearly unbearable- 60-65 was much
more reasonable. Force = pressure x area.

Most people of even fairly large size run 25s at about 90-95.

Will a 25 at 90 be slower than a 25 at 110? For normal (i.e. bad)
roads, unlikely. If you look at the famous rolling resistance vs
pressure charts, you will see that they become very flat at these high
pressures. But the harsh ride will slow you down much more.

 

[bfd]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> > They're the frame and brakes I already have.
>
> A minor drill I've used a fair amount-- use the QR and adjuster
> together, for max open, then tighten the adjusters for effective
> braking once the wheel is in. That's what they're on there for, right?
> --D-y
>
The problem is that on most new "racing" bikes today, including I suspect
Matt's bike, most frames and forks can't fit anything more than a 23 or 25mm
wide tire. Anything larger and you won't clear. In fact I hear that one
Pinarello model, dogma?, can barely fit a 23mm wide tire and most owners
actually use 700x20 or 21! Ouch....

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:36:04 -0800, "bfd" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem is that on most new "racing" bikes today, including I suspect
>Matt's bike, most frames and forks can't fit anything more than a 23 or 25mm
>wide tire. Anything larger and you won't clear.

Tires larger than that aren't needed for road for road racing unless
someone is exceptionally heavy.

> In fact I hear that one
>Pinarello model, dogma?, can barely fit a 23mm wide tire and most owners
>actually use 700x20 or 21! Ouch....

The guy who said that in this group didn't seem plausible.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************