Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - clydesdale tire wear

This spring as I was slobbering on and wanting to ride my good bike, I noticed that the rear tire has shown what I think is a lot of wear. There is actually a flat surface on the contact surface of the tire. The tires were brand new last fall on a brand new bike that only got about 700 miles last fall. I would say that 60-70% of my riding is on asphalt, and the rest would be chip and seal and other marginal paved surfaces.
the tires are continental gp 3000s, size 23, and I always make sure they are to 120lbs before I ride, b/c I weigh 235 and don't want any flats (still got one though).
after this I checked my SS tires and the rear hadsimilar wear on a 23 michelin megamium. but the ss is not a good comparison b/c I frequently ride it with my work crap and man purse items which surely total 30+ lbs sometimes. and on rougher surfaces....
FAT KIDS: What is a good high mileage tire?
also: is this site slow on anyone else's computer? I look at pictures all the time, movies, all that good stuff, and it never tires out my computer like bikeforums.

I weight in at 220lbs and I ran through a set of Kenda Koncepts in 500 miles...tire is just too thin. I really like the Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick but even that tire I get less than 2k miles...I think I got 1700 miles on my last set but they stick like glue and I never flatted with them...great ride feel too.

235 on 23s'?:eek: Running the tires at such high pressure and such weight on skinny tires on non smooth roads. 700 miles sounds good. I ran 38s at 90 PSI on similiar roads with a 240 to 260 lb load and got 7000 miles. On really good roads I will go thru the first layer of tire threads before changing tires. Now I change tires when I start getting 4 to 6 flats a week. 38s for winter commuting 32s for summer fun.

I weight in at 220lbs and I ran through a set of Kenda Koncepts in 500 miles...tire is just too thin. I really like the Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick but even that tire I get less than 2k miles...I think I got 1700 miles on my last set but they stick like glue and I never flatted with them...great ride feel too.
noted, thanks
googling right now

I really like the conti ultragatorskin but found that at 1500mi the rear (700X23c) was really squared off. By 1800mi it was toast.....I put a gatorskin 25 on the back and seem to get a lot better wear, but it is only very slightly wider.....I can not say that it is slower or noticably heavier. weigh 190#.

have a look at the michelin krylion carbon. Just ordered some, meant to be very durable and very long lasting.

Bontrager race lite hardcases. They ride like hell (get 28's, especially if you have an aluminum frame) but last forever and never flat.

I have some Conti Ultra 2000s. I have just over 1000 miles on them, and they still look pretty new. They seem to have decent wear, but IMHO, suck ass in puncture resistence. Three flats, although one was a pinch flat that I cannot blame on the tire. The other two were goatheads.

And yes, sometimes BF runs very slow.

michelin carbons have been awesome so far.

I weigh 235 and run Conti Gp 4000's X 25 @ 100 psi front and rear and get over 2000 miles out of a set. The rear squared off at about 1200 to 1500.

I weigh around 240 and got about 1300 miles out of the Conti 'Gatorskins' (23mm)

Switched to Conti 'Ultra 2000' and got about 1700 miles from them. Good tires too. Only had two flats with them. I think I'll try the same tire in 25mm.

only got about 700 miles last fall. I would say that 60-70% of my riding is on asphalt, and the rest would be chip and seal and other marginal paved surfaces.
the tires are continental gp 3000s, size 23, and I always make sure they are to 120lbs before I ride, b/c I weigh 235 and don't want any flats (still got one though).
.

Surprising. Same exact tires, I rode on normal paved roads, I'm 230 lbs and ran them at 120 psi, and I got 1300 before they started to seem worn, and needed replacement at 1600 miles.

Incidentally, I didn't like the Conti 3000's, switched to Vredestein Fortezza and I like them so far , although don't know how the'll wear since I've only got 600 miles on them.

I weigh about 240, and I haven't used anything smaller than 32cm tires (my Atlantis has room for HUGE tires) in years. For everyday riding and commuting, I go with 700x35 Panaracer Paselas. I don't keep track of tire mileage, but I'm sure they're going at least 4000 miles (I rotate when I think of it, maybe every 500-1000 miles). I'll never go back to skinny tires in any case--too harsh riding and dodgy for me.

I think Velo Dog has the answer. There are so many Clyde threads about wheel problems, yet it is seldom mentioned how many wheel problems are the result of running inappropriate tires with inadequate air volume. Anorexic rubber is not for Clydes. Oh yes...they are so sexy and trim-looking. With bigger bodies and bigger bikes, the last thing a Clyde needs is more rolling resistance, right? Nope, wrong argument.

When clinchers first started to replace tubulars, everyone thought that thinner was better and it was common to see 19 and 20 mm clinchers in the 80's and 90's. Finally people realized how harsh these things ride and the industry more or less settled on 23 mm as the industry standard...for standard-sized people, that is. I don't think that anyone who weighs more 175 lbs. should ride anything smaller than a 25. If you weigh over 210, you probably don't want anything smaller than 28's. Bigger riders don't need tires with higher pressure, what they need is a tire with a higher air volume. Don't be fooled by theoretical rolling resistance arguments: if you want to experience the performance that a 155 lb. rider gets from his 23's, you need to ride 28's or larger.

Here's another personal preference: I used to rotate my tires to equilibrate wear, but now I just buy them in sets of three. For me, the rear tire wears at about twice the rate of the front, so I just replace the rear one when it's worn. By the time the second rear is worn out, the front is ready to go as well.

I use Michelin Transworld City (1.5" & 90psi) I am 234, so with fanny pack, water and bike about 260lbs. I have 3000KMS on the rear and its starting to look a little tired. I think it will give another 1000 or so before I swap the front for the rear, I run exclusively on fine asphalt cycling tracks.

Interesting...I weight a lot more than you (just over 300) and I've never noticed any tire tread problems. I've only used stock tires. I did change my comfort bike to slicks (probably the tires with most mileage) and I bought cheapest ones in the shop...still never noticed any problems.

I tend to notice more wear with the tires on my mountain bikes then my roadies which I would expect because of the knobs on the mtb tires. They are softer and so wear quicker.

When I was racing, DH, I would go through a set of tires every weekend. Not that they would wear a flat spot but rather the knobs would tear off in the high speed corners. My XC tires would last me about 2 to 3 months which was about 1000mi. Both my DH tires and XC tires were Nokian NBX's.

On my road bike I ran Vittoria Rubino Pro Slick 700x23 inflated to 120psi and would get an easy 1000+ miles on them when I was 290 which I thought was prety good. Before that I was only riding on tubulars and they lasted even longer. With the tubulars I was using Continentals (forgot which model, its been about 5 years now, but it had a max psi of 220) and I kept them at 180.

One thing to keep in mind is where and how you are riding. If you do a lot of stright line riding, meaning not a lot of work in the canyons, you will tend to get a flat line down the middle a lot quicker. Plus, if the roads you ride are rough pavment it will cause even more wear then say a new blacktop.

MSF:beer:

I don't have a mileage figure because I didn't have a cyclometer at the time, but Panaracer 35mm Pasela TourGards did well for me. They also were very puncture resistant. I'm trying a set of Avocet Cross K 35s this time around. The reports I've seen talk of remarkable mileage, great puncture resistance, and, according to Bicycle Quarterly, they have a pretty low rolling resistance, too. The only problem with them is that they're hard to find. I got mine from Harris Cyclery (home of Sheldon Brown).

Like I said in previous posts, Conti Gatorskins are a favorite of mine. I push 300-400 miles a week, and have to replace those jawns every 3-4 months or so. I also weigh 235 with added weight from packages and tools and stuff... so, in my mind... that's one hell of a tire.

+1 for conti gatorskins. I am 6'5" and about 225lbs. I prefer the 28mm size and i am pretty rough on them. No issues....

My Specialized Armadillos (700x28 in rear and 700x25 in front) have about 1500 miles and still look pretty good. I've been happy with them and only had 1 flat in that time, and that was a big nail.

Bob

Don't be fooled by theoretical rolling resistance arguments: if you want to experience the performance that a 155 lb. rider gets from his 23's, you need to ride 28's or larger.
Bismark is right; at our size, tires designed for spindly-legged climbing farts just don't get it done, even when pumped up to idiotically high pressures. But there is more to be said. Rolling resistance is an issue, but there is far more to rolling resistance than mere size of the tire. Back in the day, Clement Campionatto Del Mundo sew-ups were damn near the biggest things you could glue on - and they were wonderful to ride and had a low rolling resistance. Why? Because they were well-made and had a strong but flexible casing that deformed and reformed veeeery smothly as the wheel rotated (and the tires do deform - take a look at them while you are riding).

I have heard good things about a number of the tires discussed, but have no experience with them except for the Armadillos, which I have had good luck with. But I have recently installed some Rivendell Ruffy Tuffy's, and I love 'em. Smooth? Like buttah. They also have a wonderfully round cross-section, which makes 'em corner ever so nicely. (And I ain't sayin' it because Grant Peterson says it, but because it's true.) So add those to the list of possibilities. Caveat - they only come in one size - 700c x 27 or 28 (depending on whether you believe Rivendell or Japanese bureaucrats).

I weigh about 240, and I haven't used anything smaller than 32cm tires (my Atlantis has room for HUGE tires) in years. For everyday riding and commuting, I go with 700x35 Panaracer Paselas. I don't keep track of tire mileage, but I'm sure they're going at least 4000 miles (I rotate when I think of it, maybe every 500-1000 miles). I'll never go back to skinny tires in any case--too harsh riding and dodgy for me.

I'm about the same weight and I agree (I think you meant 32mm, not cm though!!). I recently bought a Surly Cross-Check and have been running 700x32 Pasela TGs. After about 1,000mi they are still in great shape. This frame will supposedly take up to 48mm tires w/o fenders.

I haven't noticed a huge difference in average speed compared to my road bike with 700x25's...maybe .5 mph over my typical training route but I have different cyclocomputers on the two bikes (will be remedied soon so I can get a better comparison). The only difference I've noticed is the increased comfort and smoothness though this might be partially due to differences in frame qualities (Bianchi Veloce vs Cross-Check). I'll probably try 700x35's when these wear out. I believe Sheldon Brown and others have pretty well debunked the idea that larger tires have significantly higher rolling resistance, if properly inflated. I personally can't see the logic of a clyde running anything smaller than 700x25's, unless you just can't get tires you like in that size.

I have ridden conti gatorskins in both 23 and 28. There is VERY little difference in effort/speed. The 28s run more like most 25s anyway. I found that tire wear was significant around 2000 miles and replaced them with the 23s. The 23s now have about 1500 miles and look fine. The least wear I ever had was 700-28 nimbus armadillos, but they also weighed a ton. They finally met their match in a draw with the snow-blower...(they were off in the corner of the garage while I had the studs on the bike, somehow ended up getting pulled out into the driveway and it snowed....bye-bye armadillos...bye-bye cheap snowblower.

This spring as I was slobbering on and wanting to ride my good bike, I noticed that the rear tire has shown what I think is a lot of wear. There is actually a flat surface on the contact surface of the tire. The tires were brand new last fall on a brand new bike that only got about 700 miles last fall. I would say that 60-70% of my riding is on asphalt, and the rest would be chip and seal and other marginal paved surfaces.
the tires are continental gp 3000s, size 23, and I always make sure they are to 120lbs before I ride, b/c I weigh 235 and don't want any flats (still got one though).
after this I checked my SS tires and the rear hadsimilar wear on a 23 michelin megamium. but the ss is not a good comparison b/c I frequently ride it with my work crap and man purse items which surely total 30+ lbs sometimes. and on rougher surfaces....
FAT KIDS: What is a good high mileage tire?
also: is this site slow on anyone else's computer? I look at pictures all the time, movies, all that good stuff, and it never tires out my computer like bikeforums.

There are three issues with tires, the heavier the load, the wider the tire should be. This is why you often see 30mm+ tires on touring bikes, a bike with a 170lb rider and 65lbs of gear is the same as a 235lb rider with no gear. Personally I think bike frames should all be built to accomodate a wide tire, after all if a 500lb guy wants a bike (extra extra uber clyde?), and needs a 48mm tire to carry the load, why should the frame hold him back. Mind you mountain bike frames all accomodate 50mm+, some handle tires as wide as 60mm, so that is always an option.

Second issue, the softer the rubber, the faster the wear, soft sticky rubber can wear out in nothing flat, so you want a harder compound tire then the one your using, mind you it will have less grip as well.

Third, rear tires wear faster then fronts do, to get best use out of your tires, when the rear one wears out, get a new tire, put it on the front, put the old hardly worn front tire on the rear. This way you always have the best tire on the front, a blowout on the back, means a bumpy stop, maybe a skid out, a front blowout means loss of control and a possible face plant, and those hurt If you want to find out, how I know a face plant hurts, see my blog.

I think Velo Dog has the answer. There are so many Clyde threads about wheel problems, yet it is seldom mentioned how many wheel problems are the result of running inappropriate tires with inadequate air volume. Anorexic rubber is not for Clydes. Oh yes...they are so sexy and trim-looking. With bigger bodies and bigger bikes, the last thing a Clyde needs is more rolling resistance, right? Nope, wrong argument.

When clinchers first started to replace tubulars, everyone thought that thinner was better and it was common to see 19 and 20 mm clinchers in the 80's and 90's. Finally people realized how harsh these things ride and the industry more or less settled on 23 mm as the industry standard...for standard-sized people, that is. I don't think that anyone who weighs more 175 lbs. should ride anything smaller than a 25. If you weigh over 210, you probably don't want anything smaller than 28's. Bigger riders don't need tires with higher pressure, what they need is a tire with a higher air volume. Don't be fooled by theoretical rolling resistance arguments: if you want to experience the performance that a 155 lb. rider gets from his 23's, you need to ride 28's or larger.

Here's another personal preference: I used to rotate my tires to equilibrate wear, but now I just buy them in sets of three. For me, the rear tire wears at about twice the rate of the front, so I just replace the rear one when it's worn. By the time the second rear is worn out, the front is ready to go as well.

I agree totally, wider is better for clydes. I haven't run anything smaller than a 35mm for years and get a smoother ride and much longer mileage. The latest issue of Bicycle Quarterly ran a rolling resistance test on many different tires and found several cases where wider tires actually rolled faster than skinny ones. My current tire of choice, Avocet Cross Ks, rolled better than many narrower street tires. The big problem with this is getting a bike with the clearances for such wide tires. I've got a Lemond Poprad cyclocross bike, which takes the 35s with fenders. Some companies sell touring bikes which will take wide tires. Rivendell has several models that take them, too. I've also found you get a lot less flats with wider high volume tires.

Smokey

IN the tech tip posted here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6571222&postcount=1), a good suggestion for determining the optimum tire pressure based on weight, it also seems to be a good way to figure out what the maximum weight a tire is really rated to support.

the formulas are:

Tire Width=20: Pressure(psi) = (0.33 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 63.33
Tire Width=23: Pressure(psi) = (0.33 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 53.33
Tire Width=25: Pressure(psi) = (0.33 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 43.33
Tire Width=28: Pressure(psi) = (0.33 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 33.33

Tire Width=32: Pressure(psi) = (0.17 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 41.67
Tire Width=37: Pressure(psi) = (0.17 * Rider Weight in lbs) + 26.67


Example: You are 150lbs running 28's

Pressure (psi) = (0.33*150) +33.33 = 82.83psi (rear)
Front Pressure = .9*Rear Pressure = .9*82.83psi = 74.55psi front

While the guys and girls hanging out in this forum may find the 150lb example rider laughable, you can rework the formula as follows;

MaxPSI-(Number at end of previous formulas)=X divided by (0.33 or 0.17 as determined)

lets go with a Kenda Kwick Roller Sport 700x32c 100psi max

rework the formula to:

(MaxPSI-41.67)/0.17=MaxRiderWeight

100-41.67=58.33/0.17=343Lb

A Vittoria Zaffiro 700x28c 120psi tire works out as

120-33.33=86.67/0.33=262Lb

But a Michelin City 700x28c is only 87psi max

87-33.33=53.67/0.33=162Lb..not exactly a good choice for a Clyde...wish I knew this before I ordered some...

A Continental City Contact 700x37c 85psi

85-22.67=62.33/0.17=367

A Panaracer Extreme 700x20c 155psi

155-63.33=91.67/.33=277Lbs!!!