General Cycling Discussion - Looking for a lighter, faster 700x35 tire

My new Sojourn has Vittoria Randonneur Cross tires, they weigh as much as the rest of the bike, + my car. I want a lighter tire but I'm not looking to go any thinner than 35s, I like the ride vs 28s or 32s. I'm finding out there's not a lot of light & fast advertisement out there for fat tires like the 35s... not much of a surprise!

I've found a couple of candidates so far, Vittoria Randonneur Hyper & Schwalbe Marathon Racer. Any opinions on those 2 or other suggestions?

700x35mm tires are made for touring, commuting and urban riding. Weight is usually not a concern for those folks.

The 700x35 Forte Metro-K is a bit lighter than the 700x28 Victoria Rand. Cross. I am running on a pair of the 559/32 and like them so far.
http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1070099_-1_1590008_20000_400237

I know someone that has the Schwalbe's and has nothing but positive things to say about them. They are pricey, but are high quality.

The easiest, most reliable way to go lighter is probably to go with kevlar beaded tires instead of wire bead. For instance, you're Randonneur Cross tires are 640 grams each. If you go with Randonneur Cross Pros (if you can find them) they're only 450 grams each. That's a 380 gram difference between the two tires, about 0.84 pounds. It's at the rims to boot, which is where weight has the greatest impact.

From the little bit of research I've done, you're not going to lose much weight swapping difference wire beaded tires of the same size.

I have the Hypers.

The 32c in a Hyper is bigger than most tires claiming to be 32c.
The 35c is HUGE.

Look at the Vittoria Rando Pro in a 32c. It's large, lite and quick.

My new Sojourn has Vittoria Randonneur Cross tires, they weigh as much as the rest of the bike, + my car. I want a lighter tire but I'm not looking to go any thinner than 35s, I like the ride vs 28s or 32s. I'm finding out there's not a lot of light & fast advertisement out there for fat tires like the 35s... not much of a surprise!

I've found a couple of candidates so far, Vittoria Randonneur Hyper & Schwalbe Marathon Racer. Any opinions on those 2 or other suggestions?

Panaracer Paselas http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=7608 . Very light, supple, and fast 700 x 35C tire. When I had them I always thought my tires were underinflated, even at 110psi. It was the lack of road vibration that fooled me.

Schwalbe Kojaks: http://calhouncycle.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1831&idcategory=0 are on my list to try once the current tires are worn out.

there are the tires VBQ's Jan raves about and of course after analyzing fast fat tires , also imports and sells ,
http://www.cyclesgrandbois.com/SHOP/T700_F30.html
Or,
Rivendale's Grant Peterson designed

Jack Brown skin wall 33's may float your boat. Green label folding bead ,
but not the tread belt, of the Blue label.
http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/jack-brown-green-blue/10-092

Our new tandem came with Schwalbe Duranos. I am surprised how light they are and how well they ride, plus how well they are wearing. They only go to 32mm with a wire bead, though.

My new Sojourn has Vittoria Randonneur Cross tires, they weigh as much as the rest of the bike, + my car. I want a lighter tire but I'm not looking to go any thinner than 35s, I like the ride vs 28s or 32s. I'm finding out there's not a lot of light & fast advertisement out there for fat tires like the 35s... not much of a surprise!

I've found a couple of candidates so far, Vittoria Randonneur Hyper & Schwalbe Marathon Racer. Any opinions on those 2 or other suggestions?

It's not really tyre weight that sets speed and acceleration but rolling resistance, which comes from tyre wall thickness and the compound used. (Look how little difference a huge amount of weight on the rim makes even on a climb: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/)

The Marathon Racer is probably as fast as any 35 out there - probably as fast as many 25mm clinchers. The Marathon Supreme costs more and isn't quite as fast but has superb puncture protection and will last longer. Conti Sports Contacts are fast, but I didn't like the lack of wet weather grip that mine have. (Since then I've heard other people rate them highly: Conti may have added more silica to the compound.)

You could also reduce rolling resistance by fitting latex inner tubes - you can find 35s if you look hard enough, people use them for cross racing.

Let's compare my 23C Orium (280g) to my 32C City (680g). The mass of the tire is located at the outer-most edge of the wheel. Therefore, per Newtonian physics, this should present a worst case weight penalty scenario. Additionally, the wider 32C tire generates more drag at higher speed. If an extra 400g per wheel amounts to less than 0.5mph penalty, then the difference between worst and best tire (same size), when properly inflated, will also amount to less than 0.5 mph.

Train the motor. Don't waste time and $ seeking out magic bullets to cure speed deficiency. Physics is the ultimate reality check.

I cruise between 17 and 18 mph (no wind).

Let's compare my 23C Orium (280g) to my 32C City (680g). The mass of the tire is located at the outer-most edge of the wheel. Therefore, per Newtonian physics, this should present a worst case weight penalty scenario. Additionally, the wider 32C tire generates more drag at higher speed. If an extra 400g per wheel amounts to less than 0.5mph penalty, then the difference between worst and best tire (same size), when properly inflated, will also amount to less than 0.5 mph.

Train the motor. Don't waste time and $ seeking out magic bullets to cure speed deficiency. Physics is the ultimate reality check.

I cruise between 17 and 18 mph (no wind).

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no physical sense at all. You've come up with an arbitrary number for the drag of a heavier wider tyre (which doesn't necessarily exist) and insisted that the difference between two tyres of the width can't be larger than this - without giving any reason at all.

Your key error is



Let's compare my 23C Orium (280g) to my 32C City (680g). The mass of the tire is located at the outer-most edge of the wheel. Therefore, per Newtonian physics, this should present a worst case weight penalty scenario.


That rim weight will be the worst situation for increasing the amount of energy needed to accelerate the wheel to a given speed - angular kinetic energy - but will have no affect on what maximum speed will be or the power required to maintain it. Because it doesn't alter drag from the tyre at all.

Read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance

Mass of tire, size of tire, and construction of tire (tread and casing) all affect speed. Rim mass and tire mass can be treated as one mass at a fixed distance R from the axis of rotation. The moment of inertia is proportional to the mass (tire or rim) and the square of the distance from the axis of rotation. If the tire and rim have the same mass, then the moment of inertia of the tire will be more than the rim due to the larger distance from the axis of rotation (square of the distance).

The penalty of a heavy rim+tire is approximately 1.8x the penalty of a non-rotating mass on the bike. The 28C has lower mass, smaller size, and smoother contact patch. Its case construction probably yield a lower rolling resistance. Yet my odometer (calibrated to +/-0.1mph at 20mph) only shows a maximum of 0.4mph gain over the larger 32C. Therefore, the actual improvement is no more than 0.5mph and no less than 0.3mph.

The OP wants keep the same size tire. Therefore, any improvement in speed must come from a reduction in tire mass, and tire construction (casing and thread). It is impossible to gain more than 0.5mph simply by switching to a "lighter/faster 35C". The physics does not add up unless once can shave-off 1/4 the mass of rider and bike by swapping out tires.

It's not really tyre weight that sets speed and acceleration but rolling resistance, which comes from tyre wall thickness and the compound used. (Look how little difference a huge amount of weight on the rim makes even on a climb: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/)

The Marathon Racer is probably as fast as any 35 out there - probably as fast as many 25mm clinchers. The Marathon Supreme costs more and isn't quite as fast but has superb puncture protection and will last longer. Conti Sports Contacts are fast, but I didn't like the lack of wet weather grip that mine have. (Since then I've heard other people rate them highly: Conti may have added more silica to the compound.)

You could also reduce rolling resistance by fitting latex inner tubes - you can find 35s if you look hard enough, people use them for cross racing.

I used Marathon Racers a couple years ago. They were slower than the Paselas I had been using, and the ride wasn't as nice.
Not that they were bad tires, but I am not entirely sure who they are for.

Somebody mentioned Grand Bois Cypres tires. My wife (110 pounds soaking wet) uses those. They are VERY thin
and if you aren't quite light you will have quite a few flats. They have a really sweet ride. Here's an American source for them..
http://www.compasscycle.com/Tires.html

It's not really tyre weight that sets speed and acceleration but rolling resistance, which comes from tyre wall thickness and the compound used. (Look how little difference a huge amount of weight on the rim makes even on a climb: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/)


For every day riders yes I agree. For racing, it meant almost 2 minutes on this test. That would be huge in a race.

It's not really tyre weight that sets speed and acceleration but rolling resistance, which comes from tyre wall thickness and the compound used. (Look how little difference a huge amount of weight on the rim makes even on a climb: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/)

There's about a 5% difference between normal and rim loaded on a sustained climb by a professional rider. While maximum speed may not change much, is it unreasonable to think that the slower acceleration will be more noticeable, particularly for a casual rider? Even if maximum speed doesn't change, that change in acceleration could conceivably give the impression of a "slower", less responsive ride.

Mass of tire, size of tire, and construction of tire (tread and casing) all affect speed.

No, mass doesn't. You think it does, but you're wrong. See those links.


The penalty of a heavy rim+tire is approximately 1.8x the penalty of a non-rotating mass on the bike. The 28C has lower mass, smaller

See my explanation of how angular KE affects (very slightly) acceleration but not speed.

(Btw - I have a physics degree from the UK's equivalent of MIT. Trust me: a lot of people think what you do, but it's complete bs and against the laws of physics.)

I disagree meanwhile. Mass will affect speed. The study is in a controlled environment where air resistance doesn't come into play. In the real world, aerodynamics will play a part. The faster you go, the more it will play the part. If it wasn't the case, then nothing would be aerodynamic. There are a lot of variables that have to be taken into consideration though. Over chip seal a fatter tire will be faster than a skinny tire, on smooth pavement, the skinny tire will win out. Until some real world research is done that uses the tire how it's designed to be used and not both of them at the same pressure, then all this entertaining, but far from scientific.

There's about a 5% difference between normal and rim loaded on a sustained climb by a professional rider.


Yes. WITH ALMOST TWO KG OF EXTRA WEIGHT ON A STEEP HILL CLIMB! Please use your common sense. The problem isn't a magical rim effect - the speed difference is only around 30s more (on a 50 minute climb) than with the weight on the frame - but that this is a light, athletic rider hauling extra weight up a hill. The guy probably weighs only 150lbs, so for him a 1.8Kg weight penalty is pretty significant.

(As for the slight difference between rim and frame weight, the rim weight was added by putting water in the inner tubes - a LOT of it! This may well have added to rolling resistance - in fact I'm surprised the difference wasn't bigger.)



While maximum speed may not change much, is it unreasonable to think that the slower acceleration will be more noticeable, particularly for a casual rider?


Yes, it is. At least if you bother to READ THOSE LINKS and get out a calculator and do the maths. Really.



Even if maximum speed doesn't change, that change in acceleration could conceivably give the impression of a "slower", less responsive ride.

The amount of extra mass that can feasibly be changed on a rim by changing from one 35mm tyre to another will equate to around 1% slowdown in initial acceleration and much less at higher speeds. No, you're not going to notice it. Read the links. Otoh, you WILL notice the difference between a fast and a slow 35, so the OP is exactly right to ask for recommendations.

I disagree meanwhile. Mass will affect speed. The study is in a controlled environment where air resistance doesn't come into play. In the real world, aerodynamics will play a part. The faster you go, the more it will play the part..

You're wrong about mass (except for the effect on RR, which is negligble in deciding bike speed.) Re aero - yes, you're correct. But aero is a cube law and RR a square law, so tyre aero only becomes more important than RR at very high bike speeds - TT and pro peleton stuff. See http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245 or the docs on Schwalbe's site.

(Also, if you're not riding on perfectly smooth roads then kinetic energy is drained in bike vertical motion - which is why pros often ride stages on such roads on crossers with bump-absorbing 28s - because they're faster, not just more comfortable. Something to mention to your roadie friends, K...)



For every day riders yes I agree. For racing, it meant almost 2 minutes on this test. That would be huge in a race.


Completely true. But I think a Clyde on 35s probably isn't competing in the Tour...

I've got the same tires on my Sojourn. I don't handle enough tires, that I hadn't thought about them being any heavier than other tires of the same size. But I will say, that after a bit over 10,000 miles on them, I have had zero flats so far. (Front tire is still good at 10,000 miles, rear tires have lasted about 5,000 miles.) I also like the reflector strip on them.

You're wrong about mass (except for the effect on RR, which is negligble in deciding bike speed.) Re aero - yes, you're correct. But aero is a cube law and RR a square law, so tyre aero only becomes more important than RR at very high bike speeds - TT and pro peleton stuff. See http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245 or the docs on Schwalbe's site.

(Also, if you're not riding on perfectly smooth roads then kinetic energy is drained in bike vertical motion - which is why pros often ride stages on such roads on crossers with bump-absorbing 28s - because they're faster, not just more comfortable. Something to mention to your roadie friends, K...)



Completely true. But I think a Clyde on 35s probably isn't competing in the Tour...

Like you, I'm just an average everyday rider. I ride on 28's and have found these to be a good do most everything size for me. Seems fast enough and they are comfortable. I don't have roadie friends and the only racing I do is triathlons which I ride on a bike I use specifically for this and it has 23's on it. Am I faster on this bike, somewhat. Definitely on the climbs and accelerations, but for triathlons, it doesn't really matter. I ride around 20-24 mph on the race and tend to notice aerodynamics more in this situation. But recreational riding, I don't notice tire size at all. Well, with the exception that anything below 28's are not very comfortable.

PS This might help -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Advantages_of_light_wheels

The advantage of light bikes, and particularly light wheels, from a KE standpoint is that KE only comes into play when speed changes, and there are certainly two cases where lighter wheels should have an advantage: sprints, and corner jumps in a criterium.[15]
In a 250 m sprint from 36 to 47 km/h to (22 to 29 mph), a 90 kg bike/rider with 1.75 kg of rims/tires/spokes increases KE by 6,360 joules (6.4 kilocalories burned). Shaving 500 g from the rims/tires/spokes reduces this KE by 35 joules (1 kilocalorie = 1.163 watt-hour).


So, 35J compared to 6360J - about a 0.5% change in performance. And the numbers would be worse for a Clyde.

So, really - forget about tyre weight and worry about the rubber compound used and rolling resistance. The better makers will give you a realistic speed rating that lets you compare their tyres inside their own range.

I have the Hypers.

The 32c in a Hyper is bigger than most tires claiming to be 32c.
The 35c is HUGE.

Look at the Vittoria Rando Pro in a 32c. It's large, lite and quick.

I've got a set of the Rando Pro 35's on my touring bike: the ERTO code is 37-622, meaning a 37mm tire - huge indeed!
... but quite a comfy ride. I think I will go for the 32's when they wear out.

Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard The tour guard has a Kevlar belt for flat protection, They are also sold with a Kevlar bead as well, that's what I use. They come in many sizes. They are light and fast. Faster than most touring tires. Partly because the sidewalls are so supple. The sidewalls are not very resistant to scrapes. But, I did get 6,000 miles out of a pair. The tread was still ok but the tape over the bead started to unravel. Probably the fastest 35's out there. I have used 35's 32's 28's and 27+1 1/8". If you scrape things like curbs or rocks the sidewalls might not be for you.

So, really - forget about tyre weight and worry about the rubber compound used and rolling resistance. The better makers will give you a realistic speed rating that lets you compare their tyres inside their own range.

Do you have any specific examples/numbers comparing tires with different rubber compounds?

The Marathon Racer is probably as fast as any 35 out there - probably as fast as many 25mm clinchers. The Marathon Supreme costs more and isn't quite as fast but has superb puncture protection and will last longer. Conti Sports Contacts are fast, but I didn't like the lack of wet weather grip that mine have. (Since then I've heard other people rate them highly: Conti may have added more silica to the compound.)
What kind of mileage did you get out of your Racers vs your Supremes? And did the Racers feel noticeably faster than your Supremes?

No, mass doesn't. You think it does, but you're wrong. See those links.



See my explanation of how angular KE affects (very slightly) acceleration but not speed.

(Btw - I have a physics degree from the UK's equivalent of MIT. Trust me: a lot of people think what you do, but it's complete bs and against the laws of physics.)

Go back to school to learn about moment of inertia. Heck try GOOG. I = m x r x r. Without mass, there is zero moment of inertia.

WOW that's a lot of tire tips, thanks!

...and the usual BF quantum physics/rocket surgery disagreements, but it wouldn't be BF without 'em. :D

I could have mentioned more about myself & my riding. I'm an after work & weekend non-rain MUP rider. 20-30 miles at the most usually, 40 max. Still don't have a century under my belt, that'll change this year. With the new bike and a new interest in fitness, the pleasant conditions-only riding should extend to day/night, rain doesn't matter, country roads... Basically, I'm going to ride the wheels off this thing, right after this 30 degree crap is outta here.

This time last year I was 215 lbs, now I'm 165. No exercise, zero. You'd be surprised what a Vita-Mix blender can do for you. I just started eating better. Not a bowl of celery for lunch better, just cut out 95% of the fast/junk food. The breakfast and/or lunch smoothie is your friend! (and the perfect riding fuel)


700x35mm tires are made for touring, commuting and urban riding. Weight is usually not a concern for those folks.

That's as close as anybody came to saying "If you're concerned about weight on your bike, WHY did you buy a Sherman tank Sojourn?!!"? Surprising, thought I'd get flamed more than that. :lol:


Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard The tour guard has a Kevlar belt for flat protection, They are also sold with a Kevlar bead as well, that's what I use. They come in many sizes. They are light and fast. Faster than most touring tires. Partly because the sidewalls are so supple. The sidewalls are not very resistant to scrapes. But, I did get 6,000 miles out of a pair. The tread was still ok but the tape over the bead started to unravel. Probably the fastest 35's out there. I have used 35's 32's 28's and 27+1 1/8". If you scrape things like curbs or rocks the sidewalls might not be for you.


The easiest, most reliable way to go lighter is probably to go with kevlar beaded tires instead of wire bead.

I thought all "normal" treaded tires (anything non-racing slicks) had a wire bead, and the kevlar tires had wire + the kevlar belt. Maybe those do exist, I didn't know there was a such thing as non-wire tires (newb). Those must be ones that are more prone to the sidewall tearing? I don't think my style of riding would tear those up, I'm not grinding along curbs or drifting the Sojourn much! Kevlar sounds like the plan. I'm learning as I go here, thanks for the tip.

Does gum wall always = kevlar? I hope not, I've just never liked the look of gum walls. The Paselas sounded perfect, until I saw them.


It's not really tyre weight that sets speed and acceleration but rolling resistance, which comes from tyre wall thickness and the compound used. (Look how little difference a huge amount of weight on the rim makes even on a climb: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/)

The Marathon Racer is probably as fast as any 35 out there - probably as fast as many 25mm clinchers. The Marathon Supreme costs more and isn't quite as fast but has superb puncture protection and will last longer. Conti Sports Contacts are fast, but I didn't like the lack of wet weather grip that mine have. (Since then I've heard other people rate them highly: Conti may have added more silica to the compound.)

You could also reduce rolling resistance by fitting latex inner tubes - you can find 35s if you look hard enough, people use them for cross racing.

Didn't know about latex vs butyl tubes until I read this & looked it up. Until now, tubes were tubes. Latex tubes are in my future, thanks.

Interesting experiment with the water! On flat ground I would have guessed not much of a difference. Once you get it in motion, it tends to stay in motion? The more mass it has, the more it tends to stay in motion. On a larger and larger scale heavier is actually better, try and stop a planet, but the effect is practically immeasurable in bike wheel terms. Initial acceleration/burst of speed aside, rim and tire (tyre) weight isn't all it's cracked up to matter, unless of course you're a CF parts manufacturer. But I still would have bet the farm that any add'l weight going up a hill would have made a MUCH bigger difference than it did.

I also could have pointed out that looking for a "faster" tire (tyre) meant I'm looking for a more slick than a typical touring tire (tyre), but not racing slick. A flat tire (tyre) won't ruin my entire day of riding, I just don't want to make a career out of fixing them. Plus the occasional cornering without sliding out sideways on a slick is always a bonus. The Marathon Racer is looking good, are they kevlar?

And yes, you guys saying "tyre" cracks me up, sorry! :roflmao2:


I've got the same tires on my Sojourn... after a bit over 10,000 miles on them, I have had zero flats so far.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

10,000 miles and no flats + they're already on my bike. Why did I start this thread?

Well, kudos on the weight loss.

wire bead =
- uses a steel hoop for a bead
- heavier
- sometimes slightly more difficult to mount
- found on tires of low to high quality

folding bead =
- uses a Kevlar (or similar) hoop
- foldable (important only for traveling)
- tend to be easier to mount, especially after "stretching" (don't know if they really stretch, though)
- described sometimes as giving a better quality ride (myth? I don't know)
- typically found on mid- to high-priced tires only

Some tires use Kevlar in the casing to protect against puncture. You'll sometimes see the term "Kevlar Belted" in tire marketing. That doesn't necessarily mean the tire has a folding Kevlar bead, though. Panaracer makes the Pasela TG in both folding and wire-bead varieties, though both have Kevlar TourGuard (TG) protection. To complicate it further, Panaracer also makes the Pasela in a standard, non-TG version.

Gumwalls are commonly called skinwalls. They tend to be a bit more flexible, and the sidewalls tend to be more prone to damage. You'll hear of some people having negative experiences with skinwalls, including the Pasela. Riding an underinflated skinwall likely accounts for some of the early sidewall failures.

If the Pasela TG sounds like a good tire to you (and it is), but you're turned off by skinwalls, then take a look at the T-Serv by Panaracer. It's very similar to the Pasela TG, but it has black sidewalls that are stated to have superior durability. The tread is the same, and it's also belted beneath the tread.

I like the ride of Pasela TGs. I've put over 12k miles on 28mm and 32mm TGs. They're quite comfortable, roll nicely, and are reasonably durable. I believe all rear tires lasted 3-4k miles before the casing showed or, in one case, the sidewall bulged. The tread isn't extremely tough, and you might notice the tread becoming more susceptible to superficial cuts and nicks from small stones and the like after 2k miles.

The Pasela TG and the T-Serv in 35mm are listed as being 440g, which is ~200g lighter than your current tire.

Just to rephrase some the above good information........

Kevlar bead replaces a wire bead to reduce the weight of the tire. It does not change the sidewalls in any way .
Kevlar belt is Kevlar built into the tire, normally only under the tread of the tire to reduce flats.
A couple of tires were made with the whole tire including the side walls with Kevlar protection. I'm not sure they are still on the market. I had a few, the stronger sidewalls make for a bumpy ride. The flexibilty of the sidewall changes how easy it is to roll the tire too. That's why tires often have very thin sidewall.

Panaracer Pasellas, and some other tires can be had in any combination of Kevlar belt or not, and Kevlar bead or not. Panaracer calls the Kevlar belted ones "Tour Guard". They can be found in wire or Kevlar bead.