Planemaker

I saw some new Panaracer prototype tires at a race a couple weeks ago and Salsa has launched a new company Teravail with some tires designed for the Dirty Kanza.

https://teravail.com/

NormanF

For now, its hard to beat Schwalbe Marathon Dureme tires for all-around value.

New gravel tire offerings don't come close.

Planemaker

I am sure your tires work well for you.

I live in Kansas and ride in the Flint Hills where the gravel roads have lots of flint rock that range 0.5 - 2 inches in diameter. The Panaracer prototype tire was recently used in a 119 mile race in the Flint Hills with no flats while most riders experienced multiple flats (even running tubeless). The Teravail Cannonball tires were designed specifically for the flint rock here in Kansas.

Lots of tire choices out there and not every tire works for everybody. These are just two new tires that might be worth considering.

YMMV

Barrettscv 

See: https://www.bikeforums.net/recreation...ail-tires.html

FlashBazbo

The tread pattern of the Teravail Cannonball is essentially a Challenge Gravel Grinder clone. File tread center with knobbies on the edges. Excellent tread design. The differences? The Teravail is spec'd for tubeless applications (the GG isn't) and it is about 35% HEAVIER than the Gravel Grinder. (How do you make a same-size tire that much heavier?)

DirtRoadRunner

Where in the heck to you find these tires? I would like to buy a set, but couldn't find them for sale anywhere.

And the Challenge Gravel Grinder is very similar to the Continental Speed Ride. File tread tires are excellent on hardpack and roll great on pavement - along with having excellent characteristics on wet pavement. However, they aren't that great on loose gravel uphills or mud. I like promoting the ContiSpeed ride because it is literally a $30, 420 gram tire that is very similar to the "gravel-specific" tires costing twice as much.

FlashBazbo

Actually, the tread pattern of the Speed Ride is a lot more street-oriented. I bought a set because they were cheap and, at first glance, I thought they might have a Gravel Grinder-type tread. I was disappointed with them. The Speed Ride is almost all file/street tread with little knobbies waaaaaay out on the fringes where they don't do anything. The knobbies are placed so far out that they are essentially decorative. You may as well ride slicks as Speed Rides. The Challenge Gravel Grinder knobbies are larger and are placed so that they make contact in turns and in deep gravel/sand/dirt.

To me, it looks like the knobbies on the Teravail Cannonball fall somewhere in between.

justin1138

Tubeless ready tires tend to be heavier than there non-tubeless counterparts. By design you wouldn't be using a tube either (the tube would make up most, if not all, of the weight penalty anyway), so the weight difference between the Cannonball and the Challenge Gravel Grinder is sort of a moot point.

On the whole, this company is making some interesting tires. I'm digging the Lickskillet and the Cannonball.

DirtRoadRunner

Having worn out two sets of SpeedRide's on gravel roads, I completely disagree that they are a street tire or anything like a slick. The small file tread (each with a little + indentation on it) really grips well on hardpack gravel and even dry singletrack. They are worthless in the mud, but are very fast on hardpack and even loose-ish gravel, and only lose traction on very loose climbs (where a tire with more lugs is certainly advantageous).

Also, haven ridden my 25c slick-tired road bike down several gravel roads, the difference in traction between a real slick and the Speed Rides is remarkable - those little lugs make a HUGE difference in traction.

NormanF

Treads make a difference on gravel and hard pack.

Which is why I upgraded from Schwalbe Kojak slicks on my new ride.

FlashBazbo

Not exactly a moot point. Yes, the tube makes up most of the 35% difference -- but you're not taking into account the weight of the tubeless tire goop. There's easily a 125g+ per tire (mounted) weight difference in rotating weight. 250+g per bike -- that's over half a pound in old money. That's pretty substantial.

justin1138

Fair point, didn't consider sealant. I'll fully admit to having no experience with the tubeless set up at this point, but 125g of sealant seems a bit excessive...

Planemaker

I use Orange Seal and 4 oz weighs aprox 120g.

In am hoping the wewight of the Terravail Cannonball with add some additionl degree of flat protection which is needed in the Flint Hills (not everybody's gravel I know) because the rocks can be large and sharp. In addition, for those running tubeless it might be easier to get the psi down into the low 30's or high 20's which will make for a faster tire on the rough gravel, more comfortable ride and additioanl flat protection.

FYI - I have run Continental Speed Cyclocross tires which are standard clinchers as tubeless, 40 psi, all season (over 2,000 miles) with no issues at all. I had my first and only tire sliced open two weeks ago on a race in the Flint Hills which had some roads that could only be described as barely passable.

wheelsmcgee

I was there and rode the 77 mile route, and even that had some rough patches. I usually run fairly high pressure on gravel, but even got a pinch flat after about 5 hours on the road...ugh, fixing that wasn't fun.

Still, it was worth it...this part of Kansas just has its own kind of unique beauty. I wish I stopped to take more pics...here's one I took on a nice 4 mile uninterrupted stretch, heading South toward Beaumont:

FlashBazbo

I'm going to have to retract some of what I said above. I'm always looking for a better tire (or any other piece of bike equipment) for the gravel, so I decided to take a serious look at the Cannonball. In "getting serious" about comparing the Cannonball with the Gravel Grinder, it appears to me . . .

The Cannonball with sealant and the Gravel Grinder with tube would end up within 50g of each other. The Cannonball still heavier, but obviously not by that much. It's a wash.

Both tires are 38mm wide, are 120tpi construction, and have the same minimum inflation pressure recommendation of 45 psi. Unless you want to go below pressure recommendations (burp risk vs. pinch flat risk), it's a wash.

The Cannonball has more file tread which pushes the little knobbies farther out on the edges than with the Gravel Grinder. I think this would give the Cannonball an edge on pavement and hard packed stuff -- the Gravel Grinder an edge on loose or deep gravel or sand. Still, it's not a huge difference. Impossible to know, for sure, without testing them both. I'll call that a wash.

The Cannonball is retailing for over twice as much as the Gravel Grinder -- $85 (Tree Fort Bikes) vs. $36 (Bike Tires Direct). YIKES! (And you thought the Challenge Gravel Grinder Race was expensive?) That's NOT a wash!

Except for price, the Cannonball could pass for the tubeless version of the Gravel Grinder.

For me, I'm hesitant to go tubeless in a race without a lot of testing first. Unfortunately, at $170 (plus sealant) per set, that's not an investment I'm likely to make. Maybe someday, when the price comes down. Way down.

Supermau

I don't know much about much but I really dig the Challenge Gravel Grinders.

Tim_Iowa

I order Schwalbe tires from bike-discount.de. They're $20-40 each with $23 flat shipping for the whole order.

Jiggle

If you're not trying to use low pressures (such as in a cyclocross race), tubeless is reliable. Especially if you're using a tubeless specific rim, of which there are now many.

Mr IGH

That's about 4x what is needed, that's how much I use in a 2.5" wide 29'er tyre. For a 38mm I'd expect 1~1.5oz is plenty.

allroader55

Sidewall reinforcement for tubeless. Nearly all tires designed to be tubeless are heavier than tubed clinchers that people just use tubeless (even though not spec'd to do so).

allroader55

I am hoping to do the DK next year, and I have been wondering if the CGG can work for me if conditions are dry and hot. On the tubeless vs tubed, I think your math is about right. There really is no advantage in weight unless one runs a lighter tire that was designed to be tubed, and is therefore lighter, or if one runs a thick heavy duty tube in their clincher. The difference is all about running at lower pressure. For me right now, lower pressure is not worth the hassle of everything that is tubeless. Does it really help in reducing flats (if the tubed tire is run at higher pressure) is the big question?

FlashBazbo

allroader, this year's DK200 was my first experience with a rocky, flat-inducing gravel course. For decades, I've been a roadie, so I'm conditioned to hold my line, no matter what. On a rocky course, this is not the best way to operate. I ran over a LOT of big, sharp-edged rocks I should have missed. (The MTB swerve serves a person well at Dirty Kanza.) Still, even hitting more rocks than the average racer, I had ZERO flats with my Challenge Gravel Grinders. I weigh 172 and I had them inflated to 50 front / 55 rear.

allroader55

Great information! Were you running tubes or tubeless?

FlashBazbo

I ran tubes and will likely do it again. I might go down to 45/50 this year. We will see.

allroader55

Thought that is what you meant. Thanks again.

I am planning to run tubes. This would be my first DK, so I think it is best to stick with what I know. I might get creative and try Orange Seal in my starting tubes (of course test at home first) which is supposed to be very good good in butyl tubes. But that is about it in terms of trying new things.