Originally Posted by chas58

I have the 160, 240, and 295.

I have found that I only use them under specific conditions, and would rather ride a traditional tire if I can.

Personally, all of them are too narrow to work if its rutted – something like a 4” tire at 7psi is needed if the path has been walked on or driven on much. Althought they are listed as different sizes (1.9” on up for 26” wheel), they all have a pretty narrow carcass of about 42mm. So, I can’t go super low on pressure. The “wider” sizes do have huge lugs that require more clearance, but the carcass is still pretty small.

I think the 160 works fine for commuting (if its not too rutted). I can slide on them, but they are super easy to catch and control in a slide. It cuts through deep snow, and the tread pattern works great in snow, while the studs keep it safe. Higher pressure allows me to ride mostly on rubber only, while lower pressure allows me to keep the studs on the pavement.

I’m thinking the 106 would be good if you didn’t really need studs, but just wanted a margin of safety for occasional glare ice.



I don’t like the 295s, unless I’m in a blizzard (where they can be lots of fun). They have huge amounts of traction on ice. I enjoy riding them on frozen lakes, where under high torque, my bike will pull a wheelie rather than spin. The are a blast on a lake. But commuting, not so much. Very heavy and slow and cumbersome.

The 240 – this tire isn’t good at anything, but has the negatives of the 295 and the 160. I guess if you are really paranoid about any slippage they are good as they don’t slide like the 160.

Here is an idea -put more studs on the front tire than the rear. I do sometimes ride the 240 up front and the 160 in the rear. This gives me solid steering and turning, but less rolling resistance. Remember the rear tire takes twice as much load, all of the torque, and presumably twice the rolling resistance. You could try the 160 front and 106 rear if you wanted a faster cheaper combo.