noglider 

My wife needs a lighter bike. Until I build her one, what's the fastest 559mm (26" mountain bike) tire?

I see there are Continental Gatorskins and Panaracer Paselas. They look good, and I'll probably lean to the lighter one, whichever that is.

There's a Schwalbe Marathon race-something, but at over $60 each, it seems a bit unrealistic.

ColonelJLloyd 

Pasela 26 x 1.5 (~35mm) is a good tire for the money. They're good enough for the XO-2 with Berthoud fenders I've been building up at my LBS. Let it be known that I have very little experience with ISO 559 tires.

nlerner

I have Schwalbe Marathons on my Specialized HardRock and like them just fine. I have heard very good reports of the Paselas in that size.

Neal

rhm

I had Primo 26 x 1 somethings for a while. They weren't Comets, but looked very similar. Not recommended; didn't last long.

I actually have an extra pair of Paselas in 26 x 1 1/4 or 1 1/2, only a few miles on them....

-holiday76

performance bike sells a 26" slick for like $10 a tire. Can't speak for it, but did i mention it's $10?

Little Darwin

I have a pair on a spare bike. There aren't many miles on them, but they do seem fairly light, and roll nicely.

hueyhoolihan

as a previous poster noted, Primo makes narrow 559 tires. and they are light and yes, they wear out in a hurry. but then again what lightweight tire doesn't?

but if you want a 700c racing slick in a 559 size. the Primo line, and other wheelchair sport type tires, are where to look.

BTW, 25mm is about a narrow as they come, in slicks that is.

jgedwa

I have used the Forte 1.25 tire from Nashbar on several bikes. I think they are very light and roll well. And dirt cheap.

Does racy have to mean narrow? If not, then I am huge fan of Schwalbe Big Apples. They come in both 2.35 and 2.00. They are fantastic. And the smaller 26 tires are really going to rattle your teeth. Big Apples are not the lightest thing around, but they roll beautifully. I have them on three bikes: 26x2.35 on a Stumpjumper that is set up as an around-town bomber. And 29x2.35 on a MTB frame with an IGH hub and Dirtdrops that functions as something like an End-of-the-World tourer. And the same size 29ers on a set of rims that I often put on my main MTB when I don't need the knobs.

jim

Grand Bois

You've said that you love Paselas more than once here. Why would you consider anything else?

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

I've got Bontrager 26 x 2.25 whitewalls on my Varsity. They aren't bad. They're nothing special but they can run at very low pressure (because they are fatty) and I've run over just about anything and everything and never had a flat.

I realize not all bikes will fit a 26 x 2.25 but if you want a cheap tire that is fat and gets the job done, the Bontrager works.

I agree with Grand Bois though, Paselas and be done.

tcs

If there's a methodical ISO559 street tire rolling resistance test, I'm unaware of it.

In addition to tires mentioned, off the top of my head there's the Schwalbe Kojak folding, Avocet FasGrip City Carbon 12, Specialized FatBoy and Continental SportContact, all in 32/35mm width. All have reasonably fine TPI carcass construction, light weights and smooth treads. Hint: mate them with some quality, light tubes like the Maxxis Flyweight.

tcs

I'm sorry about this, I didn't invent the system, and don't get mad at me, but...I think you have 26 x 1.25 or 1.50 Paselas.

See:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html

WNG

Nashbar also carries their line of tire, which is likely the same as the Performance mentioned by Holiday.
They're slicks, but reviews have been very good. consistent quality construction, great traction, and wears well. And also $10ea.

WNG

Because he wants a temporary quick fix to her current mtb w/o big $$$. He's replacing it with a lighter bike.

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

There is. Jobst Brandt invented it. As you might imagine the test is not specific to tire size though.

https://www.analyticcycling.com/Force...esistance.html

Here's a graph of rolling resistances on 26" tires as measured using Mr. Brandt's method.





Personally I'd just disregard all the scientific (or quite possibly pseudo-scientific depending on how you feel about Jobst Brandt) mumbo jumbo and go with whatever slick 559 you've got handy or available cheap. There's nothing terribly high-end in that size and as evinced by the responses in this thread, many people can't tell the difference anyway.

I suspect that empirical results such as these are simply mental <playing with yourself> anyhow. J

well biked 

My favorite racing tire in 559 was the Hutchinson Python Airlight, 26 x 2.0. They call it the Python NG now, I think. Oh wait..........

noglider 

I should say that I put slicks on her bike about three years ago. I said, "Here you go. I'm not sure you'll notice the difference."

She rode it about 40 feet and stopped to shout, "I really notice the difference!"

So the tires she has are already pretty good. I don't want to take a chance with an unknown. So Grand Bois is right. I might as well go with Paselas. I'll put them on, and I'll say, "Here you go. I'm not sure you'll notice the difference," and see what happens. She was definitely working too hard this morning. We took a ride and on a very slight downhill, I was coasting and braking so as not to run into her back wheel. She had to pedal.

Her bike has a front suspension fork, so I don't think I should worry about tires being too hard. And she's very lightweight herself.

That chart by Jobst is nice, but it's a bit deceptive, because the bottom of the scale is well above 0. The chart makes the differences look twice as big as they are. But that Cheng Shin tire is impressive compared with all the rest. Unfortunately, the chart is out of date. Many current tires, including Paselas, didn't exist then.

Yesterday, I put slicks on someone else's mountain bike. Big difference, and he acknowledged it instantly. I've done this for many people. It's so irritating that so many bikes come with knobby tires, sometimes aggressively knobby, to no advantage to 99% of cyclists. I'm teaching a bike repair class to kids in 5th through 7th grades, and most of them have seriously knobby tires. I'd like to show them the difference, but I don't want to sound like I'm saying they can't enjoy cycling unless they spend big money upgrading their bikes.

tcs

Yep, a fourteen year-old tire comparison is pretty close to useless. There's little reason to believe the one or two tire models on the chart still offered are still fabricated the same way from the same materials.

Oregon Southpaw

It really is amazing, the difference, and I agree wholeheartedly that part of the reason cycling isn't that big amongst "normal" folks is that their idea of a bike is some BSO with knobby tires that rolls like a slug.

I have great single-track around here, but I used to ride my mountain bike as a commuter, so I threw on some slicks (Geax Streetrunner) and could not believe the difference. I always figured I'd reinstall the knobbies if I wanted to hit the trails. I never did.

clubman 

Continental Goliaths benefit from some tread that bites when cornering. The transition between slick and tread is...well slick.

Zaphod Beeblebrox 

Am I reading correctly that you believe 'slick' bicycle tires are 'slick' in cornering?

you do realize this is not the case.

noglider 

How do you know the tread bites? Because you hear it? I ride slicks at high speeds while cornering. My tires never give way if the surface is hard.

frantik

clubman 

No...I mean yes. I'm trying to say that I've ridden a few poorly designed twin tread or semi slick 559 tires that get sketchy on corners and Goliaths aren't one of them. Even in wet conditions or on the paint. So they get my vote but I'm a conti fan in general. If only they made some 590's and 597's.

Tom...I love slicks too but I rode Goliaths for a few years and found they just held the road well at all times. Confidence inspiring.

I just returned to the fold with my first mtn bike frame in years...an 87 Fisher Montare...whoo hoo.

Grand Bois

He's perfectly capable of answering for himself and Paselas aren't expensive.