BigC_82

My brother wants to get more riding miles next year and currently uses 26" mtb with knobby tires. I am looking to buy him some fast rolling tires for christmas.

andrei_r

Does he still intend to go off-road or is it going to be pavement only? What's your budget?

dabac

Hutchinson top slick for dedicated road use.
Conti sport contact are nice too.

BigC_82

I have a budget $30-40 per tire. He will be using mostly mtb on crushed limestone trail/road.

HTupolev

Assuming that the trails don't get crazy muddy, some super-wide road tires would be a good option. Knobs don't help that much with traction on fine pebbly gravel... the most important thing is pumping the tire squishy enough to roll smoothly and float over the looseness and roughness, and wider tires can roll better and be less prone to stuff like pinch flats when pumped squishy.

My gravel bike spends most of its time equipped with 26x2.1" road tires:



There are lots of 26" road tires that fall under categories called "urban", "touring", "trekking", etc, such as Schwalbe Marathon or tires from Continental's "Contact" series. These usually roll better on the road than most MTB knobbies, and are extremely resilient to puncture flats, but tend to be fairly heavy and might still give up a mph or more to a more performance-oriented road tire.

If you want something livelier, I think Panaracer Pasela 26x1.75 might be a good bet. You can get them with no puncture-protection layer, or with a puncture-protection layer beneath the tread rubber (this variant is called "ProTite").

thms

That's something I'd like to know, too. Is there an 26" equivalent to the Panaracer Gravel King or the Continental 4 Season. Fast rolling tyres that have a nice grip on wet streets?

badger1

This ^^^ pretty much -- great pic, btw.

Once one loses the knobbies, one is basically compromising between puncture resistance and rolling resistance/weight. I agree ... the Panaracer Pasela, in either 1.5 or (better, imo) 1.75 is a really nice compromise between decent puncture resistance and rolling resistance. I used them for years in 26x1.75 (folding bead). They are great for a mix of paved/crushed limestone, and even hard-pack dirt trail. They are well-made and pretty durable.

Another option on the really low rolling resistance side would be Compass: example https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/co...8-naches-pass/
Pricey, but well worth the money imo.

One final thought: if it were me, I'd stay away from the 26x1.25 road tires, including one from Compass, that are available. Reason: they reduce the overall diameter of the wheel too much and require higher pressure for a given load, resulting in a rough ride over sharp-edged surface imperfections with no real gain in 'speed'.

BigC_82

I'm considering SCHWALBE Big Apple RaceGuard RLX

DEW21

I run these on rail trails and paved roads up north.
https://www.amazon.com/Kenda-Commute...ds=kenda+26%22

Wanderer

Kenda also has a 90 pound version of this tire, will make an even bigger difference.

fietsbob

Slick ones ..

Then you don't need Us.

BigC_82

i was asking for 2nd opinion before buying

Flip Flop Rider

schwalbe marathon plus

fietsbob

there a 559 40 Kojak?

SquidPuppet

How slick do you want to go?

twodownzero

Do you find this true even when climbing? Two of the Compass 26x1.25 tires could literally take over a pound of weight off my wheels. Won't I notice that when I'm climbing?

Darth_Firebolt

Here's another vote for the Big Apples. I've got them on 2 of my 4 commuter bikes, specifically the two that get the most miles (one 26 and one 29). love them. Very few flats, decently quick, and they have a reflective stripe. On my other commuter bikes I have 700 x 32 Vittoria Voyager Hyper and 26 x 1.95 Vittoria EasyRiders if you need something with enough tread for gravel. I've also used the Michelin Country Rock 26 x 1.75 on pavement quite a bit. It's a light, thin, fast tire capable of going almost anywhere except mud and sand, but I got more flats than I usually get with those tires. In ~1200 miles, I had 4 flats.

badger1

Possibly; dunno, I've never worried about that to that degree. I'm not a weight weenie but I do keep things as light as possible given other contraints. However, the difference in 'weight' between the 1.25 and 1.8 Compass -- both extralight -- is around 240 grams (both tires). Not a lot, really.

Constraints? Tire choice is always a compromise; pick the balance of qualities you want distributed between light weight, puncture resistance, and so on and go from there. Me? A 26" tire 1.25 is too narrow/high pressure; = rougher ride than I like for no real (if any) overall increase in 'speed' for the reasons I gave earlier. 2" is too heavy. 1.5 - 1.8 is about right.

twodownzero

240 grams is over half a pound. That is certainly not insignificant, especially since it's on the outside of the fastest moving part of the bicycle. A 1.25" wide tire is over 30mm wide; it's not a narrow tire by road standards by any definition.

My Surly has 1.6" wide tires and my Ribble 23mm. If the Ribble would fit wider tires, I would probably ride it a lot more. My Surly will fit basically anything I want to put on it within reason.

The tipping point between decreased rolling resistance and weight/aerodynamics is probably closer to the 1.25" wide tires than 1.8". I run my 1.6" tires at ~40 psi. A 1.25" wide tire could probably be kept in the 55-65 psi range at my weight and provide a decent ride.

I, too, plan on using the 1.8" Compass tires as my next tires, but it's really hard for me to decide if the 1.25" would be a better choice. Objectively, the lighter and more aero 1.25" tires are probably a better choice, but if the ride was much harsher, I'd miss my wider tires.

badger1

Points in order -- my perspective.

1. Agree, a pound or so of weight on/off the tires is not insignificant, but it isn't much. If I were racing road, and doing a lot of climbing with it (I do a lot of/enjoy climbing, but I don't race), I'd be taking it into account. But I don't race, so within reason (i.e. other constraints) I don't care.

2. A 1.25" tire is roughly equivalent to a 32mm tire. Agree, not narrow, but not all that wide either. The question is: on a 559 ERTRO wheel (26") does one want to go that narrow? See #4.

3. Aero resistance of tires is a non-issue for me. I don't race, and I don't ride at racing speeds; I ride quickly, but not at racing speeds. Rolling resistance is an issue. The same tire at 1.6 or 1.8 width, at appropriate pressures, will have less rolling resistance than the 1.25 version. The wider tire will be less 'aero', no question, but that is an utter non-issue for me. It is an issue if one is racing/time-trialling etc.

4. That leaves the question of 'decent ride', that I addressed in my first post. A 32mm tire in 700c size gives a really nice ride at the appropriate pressure. The same tire in a 1.25" width but in the 559 size (26"), at the same pressure, gives a noticeably harsher ride. Not because of width/pressure, but because the overall diameter of the wheel/tire assembly is too small, = too sharp an angle of attack against sharp-edged obstacles, e.g. surface imperfections in real roads. I know this from experience.

I used Panaracer Pasela TG (folding bead) tires in the 26" size for years, typically either 1.5 or 1.75s, whichever was on sale. I once bought and tried a set of the same tire in 1.25" and the difference was immediately noticeable: no increase in 'speed' but a distinctly harsher ride over typical road surfaces. I liked the slightly lighter feel, but I took 'em off and sold 'em anyway because that subtle improvement in handling feel was trumped by the harsh ride. Similarly, I wouldn't go to a 2"+ tire for all-around riding on a '26er' because then the higher weight becomes really noticeable, at least to me, to a point where it would trump the admittedly ultra-smooth ride.

So, that's my perspective. As always, ymmv

twodownzero

I appreciate your response. I'm especially surprised to hear that the weight difference still wasn't worth it with a Panaracer tire, as those tires are much heavier than the Compass tires we're discussing.

I'm probably going to avoid the temptation to go down to a 32mm tire as well.

My problem has been that I was "not worried" about weight too much, and my bike overall is heavy and tough to ride compared to those I ride with. It's comfortable, but nobody mistakes me for fast.

badger1

Cheers, mate. BTW, don't get me wrong; while not a certified (certifiable?) weight-weenie I do like to keep bikes/wheels/tires as light as reasonably possible given intended use. My current main bike (Spec. Sirrus) is solidly under 20lbs all-up, with pedals.

When I was using the Pasela 1.75s, tires of the weight/quality of the new Compass ones in that width weren't really much available yet. The older Compass 26" tires were a slightly-lighter version of the Paselas (Panaracer makes all of Jan Heine's tires, so far as I know). Were the new Compass available, I'd have been on 'em right quick.

That said, just curious: are you doing (organized) group road rides on your LHT 26", with others on the more usual road bikes? If so, I'd be inclined to get a 'road bike' for that purpose. I ride solo, always, a mix of on/off-road, and don't like drop bars, so not an issue for me, but if I did do group road rides I'd probably get a sub-20 lb. drop-bar bike to use on those rides. I'd use my Sirrus, but flat-bars = Flat Earther in the eyes of most serious™ cyclists

twodownzero

I'm running the Schwalbe Marathon Supreme, which is about the same weight as the Panaracers you're discussing. The Panaracer Pasela isn't a very heavy tire or anything, the Compass tires are just lightweight tubular casings in bigger sizes and clinchers. As such, what used to be "light" before the Compass tires came out kinda has a new meaning.

I don't go on group rides anymore. If I did, I'd take my road bike. I don't find that kinda pain to be worth it. I am a randonneur; I'd rather spend all day out riding solo that struggle to hang onto the back of a pack for hours. Maybe some would think I'm lazy. I do have a 19 lb carbon road bike that I could take if I did care to do it and when I rode it regularly, I was fast. It sits a lot; I've ridden it maybe 150 miles this year.

I do plan to build a bike that is a hybrid between my disc trucker and road bike, something in the mid-20s for weight that still has dynamo lights for brevets, but until then I'm on my Disc Trucker, which nobody would mistake for light, but it sure is comfortable and does the job.

If there was a group ride anywhere where a person on a flat bar bike could keep up, maybe I would go on it!

badger1

Heh! The dialogue continues, @twodownzero.

Not into it myself, but I totally 'get' randonneuring/audax. I don't think 'lazy' at all, but then I'm odd. I've been a passionate fan of professional road cycling since my teens -- when it was all Eddy all the time (I'm 66), but I've never had the slightest desire to race or even do group rides etc.

I just like getting on my bike (road or mtb) and going, as long as I feel like it and as fast (or not) as I feel like it. I never was 'fast', and never could have been I don't think, but I do have great stamina/endurance, so if any organized sort of riding would appeal to me it would be audax.

It would be cool to know what kind of bike you build up!

Roamer2

Hmm...I may toss a set of those Big Apples on my GF's bike. They look pretty nice & I hear rave reviews.

Hers sounds like a mud truck when we ride paved trails now! (she's currently on a cheapie MTB, tho that may change if I can find a sweet Xmas deal)