ColonelSanders

That mob has an approx 22Euro charge for delivery whether you order one item or 15 items, so if you get a few of those tyres and other cycling related goodies that will also be priced very well, it is a good way to go IMHO.

fishboat

Tire speed isn't hard to wrap your head around if you look into tires a bit, or have some experience in driving cars with various tires, for that matter. Rather than living life by what you've heard or read on the web, you might just find out in real life. The difference between cheap tires and a nice, fast rolling bike tire isn't subtle. Pick a low end set of tires..they're everywhere, ride them and then switch to a pair of GravelKing Slicks($72 a pair, free shipping). This isn't hard.

Kapusta

The difference between a cheap set of $20 tires and a set of Rene Herse Superlights is anything but subtle. Massive difference.

Best bang for the buck for a road/gravel bike, IMO.

prj71

I've turned my hard tail into a gravel bike. I chose some Continental Race Kings 29 x 2.0 for my tires...mostly because I got a good deal on them ($50 for a a pair delivered to my house).

Being that I'm not familiar with Rene Herse tires...what do you think would be their advantage over the Conti tires?

sloppy12

the superlights the first small twig you run over will tear the sidewall on gravel. other than that they are great. If my choice was any of the super light casing stuff I would pick the race kings you have now.

I kinda assume you are riding a little chunky gravel since you converted a hard tail.

Koyote

I don't run the Extralights, since my shop tells me that they are too finicky and fragile. But the Rene Herse Bon Jon Pass tires in the standard casing are among the best I've ever ridden...And they last a surprisingly looong time, too.

prj71

I live in an area where the gravel changes depending which direction I go. If go 20 miles south of where I live it's more like gravement. If I go 20-30 miles east it's sandy gravel. If I go 20 miles north it's chunk gravel, very loose marble gravel and some sand sections.

Not being familiar with Rene Herse tires I was just curious.

livedarklions

So, in sum, the answer to the question is a $50 tire really worth that much more than a $20 tire is "it depends".

Maybe it would be a better thread for an OP to lay out what tires they think are the best values for particular purposes. I'd start it, but I think my choices are rather boring.

wolfchild

An knobby tire in 700 x 45 mm size should be able to handle all those different types of conditions.

wolfchild

I did the same thing way back in 2009 before bicycle industry invented a " proper gravel ' bike...I am still riding those bikes to this day. and have no desire to purchase a " proper gravel " bike.

masi61

I always seem to try out 20-25$ tires based on what I find on sale and feel that I am able to optimize them to run quite well approaching the performance of the much worshipped "GP5K's" . Full disclosure: I have used Conti GP4000's but never the GP5000's.

As far as 20 -25$ tires that are pretty decent - the last couple ones I got on sale were both quite good : Tufo Calibra's and Challenge Strada. Now the TUFO's were just 23 mm but I managed to make the ride fairly supple with latex tubes and moderate (not high) tire pressures. The 25mm Challenge Strada and Criterium tires that I got from Pro's Closet for ~$25 were even more supple and run very nice on my road bike with mid 70's PSI front and mid 80's PSI in the rear. These "cheap" tires don't seem to last all that long with the rear tire sometimes being done in as little as 1,500 miles that is the main down side for me.

PS: I have seen Vredestein tires for cheap prices and also Schwalbe “One” tires for cheap prices. Low cost does not equate to heavy and bloated. Some of these tires only weigh 205 to 270 grams.

Wildwood 

Is a $50.00 tire expensive?

Does it depend on the price of the bike?

I've been called a 'hard ass', can I ride Gatorskins comfortably?

vespasianus

I would make the opposite argument. That people who are less fit will benefit more from a great tire than someone who is very fit.

And I am unfit and need every bit of help I can get!

livedarklions

This is like those threads on "what do you ____ on long bike rides?" and it turns out after about 15 posts that everybody figures out that they don't agree on what distance constitutes a long bike ride or even if distance vs,. time is the right measure.

I usually buy tires in pairs, so I have to multiply by two. $50/tire is tight on the line for me between what I consider expensive vs. inexpensive. Don't know why, $100 a pair just seems like about the right number.

For me, what I paid for the bike is largely irrelevant, it's more what I use the bike for. I also might think that if I paid less for the bike, I'm justified in splurging a bit on the tires.

I don't know, ask your ass. (Kidding)

prj71

Oh hell no. Those with 45s end up walking their bikes on the stuff north of me.

prj71

Majority of the gravel I ride (mostly to the north) my hard tail conversion will work way better than any drop bar gravel bike. I put some 700 x 40s on my Trek Domane for the easier gravel stuff.

livedarklions

I wouldn't make the argument at all. How the heck would we know what other people are going to notice? People need to try things for themselves to know the answer to that. If you tell me you feel a difference and it helps, why would I doubt that?

I suspect that people are "unfit" in about as many different ways as people are "fit", so whether you're going to notice it is going to depend on a lot of things that vary from person to person.

I like that "every bit of help" attitude, makes sense to me--if it's just a little bit more fun and just a little less frustrating, you might be way more willing to keep doing it.

Iride01 

Then maybe those unfit people should always buy the $12,000 plus bikes. After all, they'll benefit more.... <grin>

livedarklions

You can make the case that reducing tire resistance, which can be done at relatively low cost IS actually something that is more likely to be noticed by an "unfit" rider than a lot of more expensive upgrades. Unlike drag, tire resistance doesn't increase with speed, so you're actually feeling it as you accelerate from zero up through your top speed. Reduction in drag is probably not something you're going to actually feel until you hit some moderately high speed. Also, assuming that unfit riders tend to be significantly heavier than "fit" riders, they're also less likely to feel as much of a benefit in reducing the weight of the bicycle as that reduction is going to be a smaller percentage of the gross vehicle weight (rider+bike) than if they had lighter bodies.

phughes

One might think that if they had never heard of Galileo... Oh that and the fact your friend was probably not as aerodynamic as you.

livedarklions

Not so fast, riders on bikes are not objects dropping freely in a vacuum, and weight trumps aerodynamics:

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2...20Fonda%20says.

phughes

I was waiting for that response. There is of course much more to the action of a bicycle descending. Of course his famous experiment was not conducted in a vacuum though. Yes, there is more to it, but still, you cannot assume the heavier person will descend faster. I have read that article before and still am not convinced of their results.

Discounting rider weight, where the weight is on the bike changes how it affects speed. If the weight is on the wheels, the bike may be slower to accelerate down a hill, but it will hold speed better. Of course the person on the bike is not rotational mass. It's just interesting to me.

Frontal area will still come into play, but the smaller person won't have the same mass to fuel momentum so the drag from the air can slow them quicker, the same way they can brake quicker. In that regard, the heavier person has an advantage as they descend. If the smaller person can remain aerodynamic, and maintain a more aero position, and not have any other influence, bumps, or anything else that can disrupt a clean descent, I am not sure the heavier person will always descend faster. Of course the parger person may have a more rounded butt which would smooth out the airflow in the back. Joking aside, the airflow at the rear of a bike accounts for a lot of drag. Smoothing that airflow gi es a huge benefit.

Anyway, bored on the deck of a ship today. Carry on.

livedarklions

This much is undeniable, however: "‘When you increase the mass the speed increases by cubic function, whereas if you increase the aerodynamic drag the speed decreases by a square function" It doesn't mean that you can't compensate for the advantages of weight by decreasing your drag, it just means that it's very, very hard to do so. If the heavy guy is wearing a parachute, maybe not so hard.

burnthesheep

To address the weight and descending thing........I'd like you to show me a 100kg rando wannabe trying to descend the same pass as a pro that weighs 65 kg. They're not in the same planet in terms of both bike fit and aero tuck, nor skill. Not many mountain passes have nice 6% perfectly straight descents. Most have some hairpins, fast sections, and even small rises to hammer over to descend more. More to it than just "out of control semi truck with no brakes".

Next up, the watt difference alone on some expensive versus cheap tires on almost any "use" from gravel, cross, commuting, or racing can be so large for a pair it could be 5-10% of a person's threshold power. And even higher a % of their day in and day out zone 2 cruising power. Average schmuck has a true hour ftp of 240w and cheapo versus bling bling for a pair is 24w.......that's 10%. That 240w ftp is likely like 160w of zone 2. So a massive % of that power difference.

Even if you don't care to go faster to race around. Perhaps it means you get to see more on your ride in the same amount of time. More smiles due to more miles. Or, it makes your commute a minute or two faster everyday for years. So 200 days a year commuting for 5 years times a minute a day gets you back a whole day of your life. That's nice also.

Then just the road feel being worth a lot.

I get not everyone can afford bling tires. That is A OK. I'm just saying, bling tires can benefit folks in many ways other than "being racy". Shoot, some expensive car tires aren't racy at all. They last longer, ride smoother, ride quieter, and get better fuel mileage during their life. All while being on a minivan. Same thing exists for bikes also. Just because the vehicle is different, the idea applies.

phughes

As I said, simply bored on a ship. I knew my comment would get a response, and rightly so. I was just stirring the pot.

If course this thread is about tires... I was just furthering the deviation from the topic.

Good response though, and good real info. Physics is fun.