Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - What size tires do you use?

Does anyone ride long distance on 700 x 23 size tires and/or a firm road bike seat?

Most people do. I've done centuries on everything from 700x23 to knobby cross tires.

I ride both 23's and 25's. Not sure what you mean by a "firm" road bike seat? Do they make a soft one?

Lotsa folks do, but I ain't one of 'em. 32-35mm tires and a Brooks B17 or a hardshell recumbent seat (both of which qualify as firm, I guess..) I find the wider tires to be just as fast, far more comfortable, and far more capable of handling the odd pothole or gravel. And as a bonus, I don't need tire levers to change wide tires - bare hands do it every time.

SP
Bend, OR

ps - Anomaly, centuries don't qualify as "long distance" in my book, but then I'm a rando.

I ride both 23's and 25's. Not sure what you mean by a "firm" road bike seat? Do they make a soft one?

After going to three bike stores yesterday I can confirm there are some gel road bike seats you could almost use pillow and some others as firm as a wood bench.

ps - Anomaly, centuries don't qualify as "long distance" in my book, but then I'm a rando.

On a recumbent?

I'm still trying to figure out why riders post "century a month" challenges in the long distance forum?:D

Gel seats are generally not a good idea for long distances. Because they are soft and move they tend to generate heat and friction. Both are bad things for long distance riders. Your LBS is probably not the best place to ask for assistance regarding long distance riding unless they have some experience in these types of events. Everyone's butt is different so there is no "perfect" long distance saddle. You'll see lots of leather saddles as well as "racing" saddles at long distance events. These are popular because they are smooth and provide a lower friction environment for you to sit on.

Tires are one component of a good riding long distance bike. A well designed frame and complaint wheels can have an equal if not greater effect on ride comfort than tires. Some road frames will not accept larger tires. Larger tires can compensate for too stiff wheels and/or frame. Tires have a rats nest of information available, some of it accurate, some inaccurate and most of it over generalized.

I run 23c. Saddle is not incredibly hard, but it's not soft, either. The most important saddle thing is that it has to fit your butt. Usually the harder, the better. Most LD riders don't have issues with hardness of saddle. The sitbones get used to that. The issue, if any, is usually with friction sores, which have many causes.

As Homeyba says, a frame and fork that's comfortable for you is the most important thing. If you have that, then you can find a saddle that works with the position you have on that frame. Then tires will be no big deal, except that wider tires are nice on brevets involving gravel roads.

What. About on smooth gravel roads? Anyone ride 25mm tires a good distance on gravel?

I am riding 25's and do some back road riding on occasion, (more dirt road than gravel) nothing more than 5 or 10 miles at a stretch and they (and my butt) hold up fine. As for a saddle I am using a 20 year old Selle San Marco Rolls. Not the softest saddle in the world but works for me. I haven't taken the Brooks plunge yet but am thinking of it.

ps - Anomaly, centuries don't qualify as "long distance" in my book, but then I'm a rando.
Well, there has to be a distance cutoff for this forum somewhere, and 100 miles seems to be a reasonable compromise. You know you have the sickness when 200k is a short ride. I always joked that it takes me 100 miles to warm up, but in some sense that is true.

I use 700c X 25. I don't see any reason to go with 23mm because they aren't any faster.

I was testing a Fi'zi:k Aliante which is pretty soft, but I went back to a much harder saddle. I think I may get an Aliante even though I did end up with sores in strange places.

since the forum double posted my comment, I figure I would add to the comment about distance and comfort. I have found that I can get away with almost any saddle for distances less than 80 miles. After that, the saddle better fit or I'm in at least a little pain. The problem with considering a century "long distance" is that almost any cyclist can finish a century with a little suffering.

I think that 25mm might be a little small for gravel roads. I've ridden gravel roads on tubulars. If the gravel is well packed and there are dirt tire tracks, you can ride almost any tire.

32mm for me. Moved up from 28 the past few years. The difference with the 32mm for comfort is awesome; chip seal, crushed stone paths, even loose-pack gravel roads are comfortable.

(For honesty's sake, my Pasela TG 32mm actually measure 30.6mm on my CR-18 rims.)

I'm still trying to figure out why riders post "century a month" challenges in the long distance forum?:D

If I recall correctly, people whined about it being in the road forum when they created this one.

Back on topic, I use 23s and a "hard" saddle. Soft saddles can actually be worse than hard ones by adding numbness problems. Focus more on the width and the shape.

I use 25's and never over 100 psi, I haven't had problems with pinch flats and I weigh in 230. I also use a Rolls saddle, it works for me.

Just switched from Conti GatorSkins 23mm after two or three sets to Conti GP4000 25mm. Very happy with the change so far. I use a Selle AnAtomica leather saddle and have been very happy with it for the last three years.

Probably worth bearing in mind that pro racers regularly ride 160+ miles on 21-23 mm tires. Granted they're going a bit faster than the average recreational rider, but still...

I wonder if the OP is looking for justification for riding what he's already got. Hopefully the above is justification enough.

Personally, most of my LD riding is done on 42 mm tires, which give up very little in terms of performance, but are extremely comfortable and more versatile than any other tire I can think of - especially for gravel/dirt roads.

If I recall correctly, people whined about it being in the road forum when they created this one. .

Sometimes you guys should read the previous posts quoted and try to pick up on why certain comments were posted before replying. You totally missed the purpose of my comment, didn't ya!?

Tubulars aside, my narrowest tires are 28c. They'll still take me over 30 mph, and are comfy for 50-100 miles (longest distance I've done so far). I've found with narrower tires inflated harder, I get finger numbness.

And I ride a B17 on both my "distance" bikes.

I went from 23mm to 25mm to 28mm to 32mm tires over the years. I could not fit anything bigger than 32s with fenders on my bike, otherwise I would try. I did not get any slower, but I do feel more comfortable on 32mm especially over rough roads and on rides over 100 miles.

Tires: 23s, 25s, or both

Saddle: Brooks, hard saddle customised to me

OK... I have a related question:

What high quality 32's are available? Are there any good ones out there besides the Grand Bois tires?

The main thing that I'm afraid of is buying a set of bigger tires and find that the ones I chose ride like I'm pedalling through molasses. Right now I'm leaning towards either a Grand Bois 32 or a bit smaller Challenge tire.

I am very happy with Panaracer Pasela TG 32mm. The price is right, weight and rolling resistance is low, handles high pressure well, ride is decent at lower pressures, puncture protection is good and long wearing. It also handles better in rain than Vittoria Rubino in 28mm that I have on the other set of wheels.

I did not try GB or Challenge tires though.

Sometimes you guys should read the previous posts quoted and try to pick up on why certain comments were posted before replying. You totally missed the purpose of my comment, didn't ya!?

What was your purpose? Were you saying that a century isn't long distance or that it is?

I read the whole thread, so there's no need to be a dick.

Yeah Beanz, you're being a bit obtuse here. You know as well as I do that century-a-month was started on the LD forum over at bicycling.com, and migrated over here when bicycling.com went crazy.

For the benefit of others who think your comment might be a entree to white-ant the status of this forum and centuries, 100 miles is a starting point for many LD riders and fits into some of their training schedules. Many, many many road forum members on BF wouldn't have a clue about imperial centuries, and certainly 98% of them who complete one wouldn't go any longer distances and into randonneuring.

Look at the participation rates in 200, 300, 400 and 600 (and then 1000 and 1200) randonnees, and you will see the brittle racer bpys just can't go any distance greater than 200.

Back on topic -- I ran 25, 28 tyres, and even 32mm for a long time on my steel-framed touring bike that served double duty as a randonnee bike. I then stuck exclusively to 25mm on my fixed gear that did a lot of centuries (a month, indeed). But the CF Merlin has 23s on it, and like Dante, I don't run then over 100 psi (mostly 80-90psi!).

I think tyre pressures have a lot to do with how a bike rides, rather than the tyre profile. I've run 32s at 100 psi and beaen my arse to a pulp (with a Brooks saddle), yet run the 23s at 80psi and get the same comfort level as wider profile tyres at slightly higher pressures.

The CF frame probably has helped improve the ride even more, but now having had a brief test ride on Machka's Ti frame, I think that might be even better, irrespective of whether it runs 23, 24 or 25s (at around 90psi).

The 24mm spec is a deliberate inclusion there -- I notice one of the on-line bike shops to which I subscribe has 700 X 24C Conti GPs for sale. Bearing in mind, of course, that Contis are renowned for slightly overstating the sizes of some of their tyres... these might be an interesting compromise.

I ride on 28s, but more of my riding is currently on my commute (108km round trip), over what are in certain cases nightmarishly bad roads, than on genuinely long rides, and my light touring bike does duty for both, so while I'd *love* to be able to ride on 23s, say, I'm sticking with these until my riding moves off of the horrific asphalt holocaust which is my work commute ride.

OK... I have a related question:

What high quality 32's are available? Are there any good ones out there besides the Grand Bois tires?

The main thing that I'm afraid of is buying a set of bigger tires and find that the ones I chose ride like I'm pedalling through molasses. Right now I'm leaning towards either a Grand Bois 32 or a bit smaller Challenge tire.

I don't know of any top quality 32s. IMO the Paselas are very good, but not quite to the level of the Grand Bois or the Challenge. There is a price to pay with the GBs, unfortunately: in my experience they are the most puncture-prone tires available. I probably flatted every 250 miles or so, and the front one eventually suffered a 1.5" gash that ended its life. (With the Grand Bois Hetre 42mm tires I have had a total of three flats while wearing four tires down to the cords.)

I am very pleased with the Challenge Parigi-Roubaix so far. I only have a few hundred miles on them, though. They have been flat free so far. The ride is slightly rougher than with the 30mm Grand Bois, but still quite good.

Regarding "riding through molasses", I was very concerned with that when I first started out with wider tires. In fact, my first pair was from Rivendell and I did notice that I had a harder time riding with my usual crowd. But then I tried the Grand Bois and was shown that width doesn't have much of anything to do with speed. I know from the local club rides that the gigantic Grand Bois Hetres roll better than many/most other clinchers regardless of diameter. The only thing you've got to be careful of is perception: It's natural for today's cyclist to equate fat tires with slow tires, and the absence of the typical high frequency vibration provided by narrow high pressure clinchers can reinforce that perception. The test is riding with your usual buddies: pay attention to your effort with various tires, and try some downhill "freewheel races" as well. Keep an open mind, and I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised.

Regarding "riding through molasses", I was very concerned with that when I first started out with wider tires. In fact, my first pair was from Rivendell and I did notice that I had a harder time riding with my usual crowd. But then I tried the Grand Bois and was shown that width doesn't have much of anything to do with speed. I know from the local club rides that the gigantic Grand Bois Hetres roll better than many/most other clinchers regardless of diameter. The only thing you've got to be careful of is perception: It's natural for today's cyclist to equate fat tires with slow tires, and the absence of the typical high frequency vibration provided by narrow high pressure clinchers can reinforce that perception. The test is riding with your usual buddies: pay attention to your effort with various tires, and try some downhill "freewheel races" as well. Keep an open mind, and I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised.

I suspect that like so many things with cycling, there are no absolutes. It quite well may be that the construction of the tyre (ie, how it is designed to be moulded, and even the fabric used along with the rubber compound) may contribute to issues of rolling resistance. As you point out, one type of tyre did in fact feel slower, whereas another of the same width was better and equal to ones of a narrower profile.

I can't remember if the Seattle boys did their rolling resistance tests with the fullest range of tyres, or if their results were skewed by a very limited N to achieve the outcome they desired. Maybe you can tell us if you know or have the particular article handy.

They certainly didn't test every tire made, but they did include a fairly good cross section, IMO. They also hired an outside statistician to crunch their numbers, and according to him, their findings should be quite accurate. Grain of salt and all, but I don't know of anything more reliable.

Their claim, essentially, is that supple casings with high thread counts and thin treads without too much "stuff" -- ridges, knobs, etc. -- make a tire fast. So a narrow tire with a stiff casing and thick tread is going to roll more slowly than a narrow tire with supple casing and thin tread. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff...

The interesting bit is that, construction for construction, wider tires seem to roll slightly better than narrower ones. This bears more investigation, IMO, as they didn't have a large enough sample of "construction for construction, narrow-medium-wide" tires.

At the least, though, the conclusion that wider tires aren't automatically slower seems to hard to escape.

Oh, and the Rivendell tire that was like riding through molasses? It was the 27mm Rolly-poly, with thick tread and stiff plastic casing. Comparing it to the 27mm Challenge Parigi-Roubaix is night and day -- though I expect the Rolly Poly would last twice as long and suffer half the punctures...

They certainly didn't test every tire made, but they did include a fairly good cross section, IMO. They also hired an outside statistician to crunch their numbers, and according to him, their findings should be quite accurate. Grain of salt and all, but I don't know of anything more reliable....


The fact that BQ sells some of the tires they tested, Grand Bois to name one, is enough (for me) to cast suspicion on their tests and results. Having said that, Jan is a pretty stand up guy and I really don't think they'd "rig" their results but I find it hard to believe that they can do a test like that and be completely unbiased. You'll have to decide on your own. Below is a test a European cycling magazine called Tour did, it's a pretty good read...

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/en/continental/bicycle/general/downloads/download/tourtest_gp4000s_en.pdf

Like with everything else, when you pick your tires you're going to end up with trade-offs as Six Jours mentioned. A fast low rolling resistance tire will probably be susceptible to flats and cuts, a high mileage tire will have poor grip, a smaller tire may be lighter but it might have a harsher ride etc. The idea is to find a tire that has the best combination of attributes to meet your cycling requirements.

Isn't that the test, performed by Germans, in Continental's lab, that miraculously (snicker) found German-made Continentals to be the best tires? :p

In all seriousness, it's a fine idea to take all of it with a grain of salt. My problem with the Tour tests, as with almost all rolling resistance tests, is that they are done on a steel drum. The minute I start riding a steel drum, I'll go buy the Contis!

The interesting bit about the BQ tests is that they are done on real bikes and real roads. That makes them more valid, to my mind. But it is true that Jan's tests almost always end up supporting Jan's presuppositions...

Regardless, my own completely unbiased (snicker) real-world tests do demonstrate to my complete satisfaction that wider tires do not necessarily give up any speed. That's the take-home message, as far as I am concerned.

Isn't that the test, performed by Germans, in Continental's lab, that miraculously (snicker) found German-made Continentals to be the best tires? :p...

My point exactly Six Jours, I bet if you looked hard enough you could find an article that says Schwalbe tires (or any number of other tires) have the lowest rolling resistance. I don't think you are incorrect that wider tires are not necessarily slower. With two identical tires, with the exception of width, I think you'd find the difference in rolling resistance negligible. I think all the arguments about rolling resistance is the same as the argument that a 16lb bike is faster than a 17lb bike. If you buy any decent quality tire the rolling resistance is going to be close enough to any other high end tire as to not make much of a difference.

I can't comment on continental because they are one of my sponsors. I wouldn't want to be accused of giving a biased opinion...;) They're actually pretty good tires but to be honest, I can't tell the difference in rolling resistance between them and the Michelin Pro Race's I use quite frequently as well.

I also have to admit that the 32mm Schwalbe Marathons on my touring bike have been quite OK in terms of rolliing. This bike has used 25C Contis in Gatorskin form for some time, mounted on Velocity Aerohead rims. I changed to the Marathons after acquiring Velocity Dyads for specific touring use. At first I thought I was on molasses, but after a few seat (!) adjustments for some reason I can't remember, I found them to roll quite well, even at 80psi.

I have been a firm advocate in the past of wider tyres and still tend to stick to that maxim, but my experience with the CF frame and 23C tyres on Aeroheads running at 80-90psi has been very pleasant.

As SixJours says, finding the combination that suits the individual rider is key, and while that requires some money spent and time taken to experiment, the outcome can be worthwhile.

What was your purpose? Were you saying that a century isn't long distance or that it is?

I read the whole thread, so there's no need to be a dick.


Again, your lack of comprehension and choice of moronic language shows your ignorance!

Maybe you ought to try reading my post again. and that to which it pertains (easily pointed out as a quote ;))!

Yeah Beanz, you're being a bit obtuse here. You know as well as I do that century-a-month was started on the LD forum over at bicycling.com, and migrated over here when bicycling.com went crazy.

Another poster posted


ps - Anomaly, centuries don't qualify as "long distance" in my book, but then I'm a rando.


So I posted in a facetious manner. Quoting the other poster's comment, I figured readers would pick up that it was more of an argument to the comments I quoted. I guess not!


I'm still trying to figure out why riders post "century a month" challenges in the long distance forum?:D

It is now time to close this one.

It is now time to close this one.

But I like tires...

:D

It is now time to close this one.

You should, on account of others using the obscene language!;) Or atleast strike the obscenity from the thread.

Does anyone ride long distance on 700 x 23 size tires and/or a firm road bike seat?Yeah, they usually have PSVs and a motel up the road.

IMO the Paselas are very good, but not quite to the level of the Grand Bois or the Challenge.

But keep in mind the prices of these tires: I can get Paselas for $18 per - GB's and high-end Challenges cost more like $60. They'd **** well better be better tires at 3x the price!

SP
Bend, OR

Absolutely. And the Paselas will almost certainly last longer too. But strictly in terms of performance -- rolling resistance and "feel" -- the GB and Challenge are a bit better. Too bad we can't have it all!

I'm thinking of moving to larger tires than my current 25mm just for practical reasons; in the middle of the night it's nice not to worry so much about road hazards. If it isn't going to cost me any time, it seems like a no-brainer.

Why the Century stuff in the Long-Distance category: Because in the description under the heading, it says: "Do you enjoy centuries, double centuries, brevets, randonnees, and 24-hour time trials?"

And to the original post, one of the guys I was riding with Saturday was evidently using (or at least carrying) a 23mm tire, while I have 35's.

Conti 4000s 23's and a SLR saddle. Once did a century with a C64 full carbon unit. Best saddles to date.

But it is true that Jan's tests almost always end up supporting Jan's presuppositions...

There are studies that show if the researcher expects a certain outcome, that outcome is more likely to occur. Nothing against Jan, I love checking out those studies, but the only sure way to do it is have an independent researcher with no stake in the outcome do the research.

On a non-research based, purely personal note, I have to say that I have been absolutely thrilled with continental. I used an attack/force combo for 2000 miles with no flats, and I have 1000+ miles into a pair of 25mm GP4000's also flat free. Oddly, some of my friends have had trouble with gatorskins flatting here in the NW. If nothing changes in their quality, I will probably remain a Conti customer for life.

There are studies that show if the researcher expects a certain outcome, that outcome is more likely to occur.

Yeah, but those studies were run by people who expected to find that. :p