So it boils down to this:

I kind of have my mind set on schwalbe marathon supremes. But my dilemma is wether to get the 26x1.60 or the 26x2.0 I ride on some continental tires that are 26x1.75 and I like the width of those tires but unfortunately the schwalbe marathon supreme tires come in either 1.60 or 2.0

I will be 90% commuting and the 10% when I am not in school touring. So I want them more for speed and less rolling resistance.

What does everyone think Yay or nay on the 1.60 schwalbe marathon supreme tires. Also is there any other similar high puncture resistance tire that look like the supremes? For 26 inch wheel bike.

I know about the marathon plus tires I don't want those at least not yet since I won't be doing any long distance touring yet and they also have higher rolling resistance.


Thanks for your time and advice.

I've used a couple variants of Vittoria's Voyager tires and enjoyed them a lot:

700c x 32 mm Hyper, folding bead, 120 TPI. Great, fast, light, supple, easy-mounting tire. I don't think they make them in 26" sizes, as far as I could find just now.

26 x 1.75 inch regular Voyager, 30 TPI. Pretty much the same as above, but a bit heavier and a bit less supple. I rode this bike just a couple weeks this summer when visiting my family in the USA.

Unfortunately, all information on the Voyager series seems to have disappeared from Vittoria's website, at least in English. I really hope they haven't discontinued the series, now that I found my favorite tires... Maybe that's why I got such a good deal on the Hypers at something like 25% of the normal price...

Just a brief hint. If you're commuting you likely have fenders. Make sure that the 2.0 tires will fit both in width and in height (fender clearance).

How often do you get punctures now? (Or ever.) If you're looking for speed and improved rolling resistance, you can do a lot better if you're not afraid to change the occasional tube.

I have the marathon supremes in 26x2 for off-road loaded touring, but also used them on-road on a trip this summer. The tires are great for mixed use and the extra volume gives you the option to run at lower pressures. For purely on-road use and perhaps a bit more speed, I'd consider the narrower tires, but you'll lose the comfort off-road.

If you can actually look at the tires you are interested it may help. I got Schwalbe Marathons after having Continental City Contacts, the ones that came stock on my LHT. Both the Continentals and the Schwalbes were 26x1.5 but the Schwalbes were much beefier, much. They are wider and taller than my original Continentals. The Continentals were undersized for a 1.5. I am loving the Schwalbes.

I was actually trying to order the 2.0s, but accidentally ordered the wrong ones and got 1.5s. Since they were larger than the Continentals, I kept them and have been very happy with them.

In other words, the Schwalbes in 1.6 may be similar to your Continentals, depending on which ones you currently have. You may wish to measure the actual width of the ties you have to see if they actually measure 1.75. My Continentals were under 1.5 despite being 26x1.5s.

Bigger tires are almost always better.

Assuming they fit the bike and are of the same design, they will have less rolling resistance. Yes, they are a little heavier and less aerodynamic, but weight isn't your primary concern, and Aero doesn't mean much below 20 mph (it's effects increase exponentially). If you want more information google: bicycle quarterly tire pressure. They have inspired continental, michelin, and some german magazines to do testing that backs up the bigger is often better (especially when considering the same model of tire).

Bigger tires allow you to run lower pressure, give you more traction, and have fewer pinch flats (doh, I just got one of those last night!).

Bigger is not better when bigger means a stiff tires that have a lot of rolling resistance. But, in your case you are looking at the same tire, so that isn't a trade off.

P.S. I have ridden tires in both 1.5 and 2.0 size. Not much difference - the 2.0 tires may accelerate a little slower due to weight, but cruising speed is the same. I like the look of the bigger tires anyway. ;-)

I had the Schwalbe Marathons on my commuter, in a 700x35. They were great, they rolled quite well and were good in the wet. If I can suggests though, a tire I found to be pretty quick is the Specialized Infinity. I had a pair on my MTB and they roll really nicely. They come in a 26x1.5 I think or a 26x1.75, and are decent is wet weather.

I've had great luck with the Vittoria Rubino Pro, but it's widest size is 28 - I went 18 months between flats. I'm not using them at the moment, but only because I switched my wheels back to 27" from 700s.

I have over 6000 miles on a set of Marathon Supreme 26x2 tires and have nothing but good things to say about them. They are on an older ridged mountain bike with fenders. The only flat I have ever had with them was tube that failed at the value when I was adding air before a ride.

We've had a set of marathon supremes 1.6" (20/406 and 26/559) on our tandem for a couple of years. 2000+ miles with no flats.

Schwalbe Marathon Supreme's are the one's I go to for the best non-skinny tire that I know of.

I think 40c (1.6") is the best compromise between speed and comfort if you have a cheaper / older bike, or are riding like actual dirt roads. In my limited experience you gain a little rolling resistance between 25c and 40c. It's there. But it's not "enormous" or anything. But when the tire gets bigger than 40c the rolling resistance (or maybe it's the weight, who knows, I just know it's slower) goes up a lot more noticeably, with a lot less gain in comfort or grip.

I don't find 2" slick useful for much, personally. 40c is all I need for comfort or even dirt roads (cyclocross is off-road, and their tires are typically 35c if I remember right?). The only bike I have 2" tires on is my mountain bike, with knobby tires.

I say for the 1.6" tires for sure.