roker

I moved from suburbia to mass urbania and now I need to tread on smooth road surfaces as the current MTB tires give me a slow startup and slow ride.

My current tire measurements are 26 x 2.0 and I found some slicks that are 26 x 1.25:

https://www.performancebike.com/bikes..._1035134_-1___

Will those work?

What are my options for replacing the wheels to road wheels? I'd like to keep this as inexpensive as possible because I don't know how committed I'm going to be to this yet.

thanks in advance.

Wordbiker

Buy some 26X2.0 slicks and call it good.

Lowering the bottom bracket by swapping to a tire with 3/4" less height causes all sorts of pedal strike issues with little gain in rolling resistance over a 2.0. Aerodynamics is however a constant.

roker

any suggestions on which websites to buy it from?

Metzinger

Disagree.
Only if you've got a very low bottom bracket, could this be an issue.
I've never had a real problem running 1.25s on an MTB. Faster, better aerodynamics, better acceleration and braking.
I'd recommend Panaracer Paselas with the kevlar bead. A little pricier, but worth every penny as they don't seem to ever wear out.
As light as good road bike tires. Around 220g.

cmcanulty

I just put 1.25 on my mountain rims and it works fine and no need to change wheels

wrk101

Here's my Trek 950 with those exact tires. Worked great. Forget about replacing wheels. At that point, it would be cheaper to sell what you have and get a nice used road bike.

HillRider

I've done exactly the same thing and had no problems with clearance or pedal strikes even with 175 mm cranks.

The current tires on the bike are Nashbar's "Streetwise" 26x1.5" semi-slicks which are a bit better than the 1.25" tires on some of the crushed limestone trails but the 1.25" were just fine on paved surfaces.

sedges

I have been running the 26X1.5 Kenda Kwest high pressure model on my mountain bike for a few months now. They work well to 100psi. I like them a lot. If you consider jumping curbs and riding over stairs part of your urban biking a bigger, softer, lower pressure slick might be better. Michelin's city trek tire comes in 1.8 and is rated up to 85psi. Might be a good choice, too.

2tall

Try the Kenda Kross Plus 26x1.95. I have them on a mid-80's Giant Rincon, and like the way they roll on the street. Very durable.

They're a larger-volume 65psi tire that doesn't look out of place on an MTB, and are very forgiving when over the curb, in potholes, and other unforseen rough stuff. One can easily slide off the pavement into a gravel lot or onto a gravel shoulder and not feel like it's impending suicide.

They roll very fast. I've used the bike and Kendas on centuries (two last year, two so far this year), and have been very pleased.

Make sure you get the "plus" version. It has a Kevlar belt for more durability.

sonatageek

I have Schwalbe Marathon 26 x 1.75 on my mountain bike commuter bike and have had no problems for over 2500 miles. I think any tires 1.5"-2.0" should work without any issues. I have a set of 1.25" Panaracer Pasela tires and my rims were a bit too wide to really mount them with confidence.

wunderkind

fyi... the kenda kwest high psi does not have K-shield as the normal 65psi one. YMMV.

tjwarren

Wha? I thought the "x2.0" (x1.25, etc.) referred to the width of the tire, not the height.

LarDasse74

Tires are round.

2tall

Prior to the Kenda Kross Plus 2x1.95's, I ran Ritchey Tom Slicks in 1.4. They were much narrower, and visibly didn't have as tall a profile as the 1.95's. Not measurably less diameter to lower the bottom bracket that I was aware of, but there was a definite perception of reduced gearing from the smaller effective diameter.

The Ritcheys were definitely NOT a durable tire. Flats galore, and the reduced volume/higher pressure put more stress on the rim in the rough stuff. Ran two centuries with them and didn't like their fragile nature.

tjwarren

Are they? I'm not a mechanic, but it seems to me that tires are an arbitrary horse-shoe shape. I see no reason why a change in width would force a change in height. A narrower tire may be shorter, but I see no reason why this would have to be so.


Where is tire width measured? Is it the distance between the beads? Or is it the widest part of the tire?

wrobertdavis

Look up any chart that lists circumference of various tire sizes and you will see that bigger cross section has bigger circumference (which means taller). As an example, numbers from a Cateye cycle computer calibation chart show the following:

26 x 1.25 has circumference of 1953 mm
26 x 2.00 has circumference of 2055 mm

This means the 26 x 2.00 tire is about 32+ mm taller

Bob

tjwarren

huh. Ok. thanks for the info!

LarDasse74

I suppose you are right... a manufacturer could presumably make increasingly wide tires with an increasingly flat profile, but they generally do not. A flatter contact patch is not necessarily desirable nor is it what the rider is looking for when he buys wider tires.
Almost always, wider tires are also taller tires.

edit: Ther is no real standard technique for measuring tires, and a 1.25" wide tire of one brand or model is almost always noticably different from a 1.25" wide tire of another brand or model.

norwood

I would have to disagree with you here. These Ritchey 1.4 Tom Slicks are over 14 years old. Granted they're not on the street on a daily basis, but they've got lots of miles on them and they have performed beautifully.

garage sale GT

Some of the performance brand tires don't have flat protection. It will be more necessary with a narrower high pressure tire because it won't be wide and low pressure enough to just roll over glass. I would make sure you get a tire with a kevlar belt or other form of flat protection.

MTBs already have a high bottom bracket. Lowering it a bit won't make the bike dangerous. It may still be higher than a typical road bike. I had no problems with pedal strike with 1.5's and block pedals.

2tall

I guess everyone's mileage varies...mine picked up every staple, piece of glass, and even a couple of nails in the year that I ran them. For the first time I got in the habit of carrying a spare tube with me even on short rides. I don't think the Tom Slicks have any advertised flat protection, so that might be a factor, at least with my style of riding.

They were light (main reason for going to them in the first place) and rolled fast, but just weren't working for me. Admittedly, I'm a Clyde at 230, so a lighter person might have a different experience.

Esteban32696

I did the same type tire swap with my Giant MB. Swapped out 1.95" knobby tires, for 1 .5 semi slick city tires, less that $10 each at Niagara Cycle. Works well. Faster, quieter ride, but harder.

HillRider

This is correct for cyclometer calibration but you are reporting the diameter difference, not the radial difference. For pedal clearance considerations, the bike will be lowered by half that distance so the clearance will decrease by 16 mm.

wrobertdavis

I said the TIRE is 32 mm taller, and it is. You are correct - the pedal height would be changed by half that distance.

Bob

CCrew

Panaracer Urban Max's in 26x1.25 for the win. Put them on the wifes Specialized MTB and she loves them.