Originally Posted by
twodownzero
240 grams is over half a pound. That is certainly not insignificant, especially since it's on the outside of the fastest moving part of the bicycle. A 1.25" wide tire is over 30mm wide; it's not a narrow tire by road standards by any definition.
My Surly has 1.6" wide tires and my Ribble 23mm. If the Ribble would fit wider tires, I would probably ride it a lot more. My Surly will fit basically anything I want to put on it within reason.
The tipping point between decreased rolling resistance and weight/aerodynamics is probably closer to the 1.25" wide tires than 1.8". I run my 1.6" tires at ~40 psi. A 1.25" wide tire could probably be kept in the 55-65 psi range at my weight and provide a decent ride.
I, too, plan on using the 1.8" Compass tires as my next tires, but it's really hard for me to decide if the 1.25" would be a better choice. Objectively, the lighter and more aero 1.25" tires are probably a better choice, but if the ride was much harsher, I'd miss my wider tires.
Points in order -- my perspective.
1. Agree, a pound or so of weight on/off the tires is not insignificant, but it isn't much. If I were racing road, and doing a lot of climbing with it (I do a lot of/enjoy climbing, but I don't race), I'd be taking it into account. But I don't race, so within reason (i.e. other constraints) I don't care.
2. A 1.25" tire is roughly equivalent to a 32mm tire. Agree, not narrow, but not all that wide either. The question is: on a 559 ERTRO wheel (26") does one want to go that narrow? See #4.
3. Aero resistance of tires is a non-issue for me. I don't race, and I don't ride at racing speeds; I ride quickly, but not at racing speeds. Rolling resistance is an issue. The
same tire at 1.6 or 1.8 width, at appropriate pressures, will have less rolling resistance than the 1.25 version. The wider tire will be less 'aero', no question, but that is an utter non-issue for me. It is an issue if one is racing/time-trialling etc.
4. That leaves the question of 'decent ride', that I addressed in my first post. A 32mm tire in 700c size gives a really nice ride at the appropriate pressure. The same tire in a 1.25" width but in the 559 size (26"), at the same pressure, gives a noticeably harsher ride. Not because of width/pressure, but because the overall diameter of the wheel/tire assembly is too small, = too sharp an angle of attack against sharp-edged obstacles, e.g. surface imperfections in real roads. I know this from experience.
I used Panaracer Pasela TG (folding bead) tires in the 26" size for years, typically either 1.5 or 1.75s, whichever was on sale. I once bought and tried a set of the same tire in 1.25" and the difference was immediately noticeable: no increase in 'speed' but a distinctly harsher ride over typical road surfaces. I liked the slightly lighter feel, but I took 'em off and sold 'em anyway because that subtle improvement in handling feel was trumped by the harsh ride. Similarly, I wouldn't go to a 2"+ tire for all-around riding on a '26er' because then the higher weight becomes really noticeable, at least to me, to a point where it would trump the admittedly ultra-smooth ride.
So, that's my perspective. As always, ymmv
