|
Originally Posted by RubeRad
(Post 20965258)
?? With a history of 11K posts, you should be able to see that this thread is like 75th percentile for staying on topic.
Anyways, Kedosto yes, thanks for the excellent writeup. Any idea whether the Contis claim tubeless-ready, or might hold sealant even if not? Do the sidewalls seem like they might be porous? https://www.continental-tires.com/bi...s/top-contact2 It doesn't say anything about being tubeless ready. So it's a safe bet they are not otherwise they'd have that plastered all over the website. |
Originally Posted by RubeRad
(Post 20965258)
?? With a history of 11K posts, you should be able to see that this thread is like 75th percentile for staying on topic.
Anyways, Kedosto yes, thanks for the excellent writeup. Any idea whether the Contis claim tubeless-ready, or might hold sealant even if not? Do the sidewalls seem like they might be porous? Now if you'll excuse me, I have a cape and tights to go change into :). |
Originally Posted by Kedosto
(Post 20965232)
The Top Contact II's mount with ease. They are folding bead tires, so they can be a bit floppy with the first mount but with subsequent remounts they hold their shape. I've always found wider tires much easier to mount than the skinny ones anyway. I have mounted the Conti's on Ryno Lites, DT Swiss 545D, Velocity Dyad, and generic Specialized stock rims (probably Alex).
Both the Marathons and Top Contact II's are high quality tires. For me, the decision came down to flat protection. I can do it the heavy way with a thick extra layer of rubber, or I can do it the lighter way with a thin layer of high-tech fabric. I suppose the Marathons probably are better at flat protection but if the Conti's already exceed my needs, why bother? I just feel like when when the level of flat protection is already so high, there's no need for me to go to the extreme. My real world experience with the Armadillos has proven valid and they use a special weave of Kevlar which is supposed to be weaker than Vectran. I probably would still be rolling Armadillos if they didn't ride so harsh. The Conti's are plush, smooth rolling, flat resistant, lightweight (for their size), grippy, durable, high quality tires. I'm happy. -Kedosto I also don't ride through piles of nails and broken glass. I mean it happens on a rare occasion but I don't typically commute through streets that look like they are in a 3rd world war ravaged nation. So I feel like the puncture protection of the Contis would serve me okay with minimal risk (all hail the biking gods....they are wise...may their vengeance not strike me down) and the improved ride quality makes that risk worth it (more praise to the biking gods and their infinite wisdom...may I not be stricken with a flat tire for my insolence) |
Originally Posted by RubeRad
(Post 20965258)
?? With a history of 11K posts, you should be able to see that this thread is like 75th percentile for staying on topic.
|
Originally Posted by TMonk
(Post 20965275)
Just doing what I can to make the world a better place, one bikeforums.net thread at a time :). Like you I've been 'around the block' a few times here.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a cape and tights to go change into :). |
Thanks for the catch ont he units conversion. I left off the third sig dig. I think the switch over from HP-48 to RPN phone app caught me out.
|
Originally Posted by Darth Lefty
(Post 20965344)
Thanks for the catch ont he units conversion. I left off the third sig dig. I think the switch over from HP-48 to RPN phone app caught me out.
Given that, it's 2.54mm/in and that it's more then 1.5in, I thought that 38.xx sounded too small. |
Also, Schwalbe specifies a strict ± 1mm allowance for ETRTO tyre width (on a compatible rim), so you're already there at 39.xx
|
Originally Posted by Skipjacks
(Post 20963728)
It wasn't well answered. It was answering a question nobody asked.
That chart shows how wide of a tire you can fit on a rim of any given width. That is not what I asked. It's not even close to what I asked. And spreading outright lies like "bike tire measurements are precise" is not helpful to anyone. It's REALLY unhelpful to someone finding this thread who doesn't know that labeled tire sizes are notoriously inaccurate. Why the snot did I take you off ignore? What the hell was I thinking? Go ruin someone else's question thread for your sick laughs instead. For anyone else finding this thread in the future....here is real information on tire sizes, measurements, and safe rim width/tire width information as well as a detailed explanation of various tire measurement systems https://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html |
Originally Posted by trailmix
(Post 20965559)
Haha, I have had him on ignore for years. I realized that his sole purpose on this forum is to derail other people's threads.
The question is very bizarre from the OP, when the answer is printed on the side of most reputable tyres. Maybe it's not in the US as it's a European standard. Maybe that's what all the fuss is about in this thread. |
Originally Posted by Skipjacks
(Post 20965270)
Here's the official webpage for the Conti Top Contact II's
https://www.continental-tires.com/bi...s/top-contact2 It doesn't say anything about being tubeless ready. So it's a safe bet they are not otherwise they'd have that plastered all over the website. |
Some more data. This is an HS 420 run as a rear tyre only for between 1200-1400 miles.
It's 23-622 or 700x23c. Clearly marked on the side of the tyre. Schwable allows a deviation of ± 1 mm new. The rim width is correct. The treadwear is absymal. I'm 188cm/80kg (6'2", 176#) and if I recall, you're at 215#, so your treadwear might be even worse. The glass/debris protection is good. I have 4-5 gashes like the two in the photo that go down to the green gaurd. They're cheap, about £18 or so each. I'll stick a caliper on it tomorrow, measure 3 spots and provide a mean/std dev/std err for you. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...683b432f26.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...80d31d9414.jpg |
Damn, my chain looks quite stretched. I should sort that out. The teeth still look good though. Maybe I'll leave it.
|
How are you supposed to figure out what the listed size is when the manufacturer gives 2 different sizes on the same tire?
https://www.continental-tires.com/bi...s/top-contact2 Look at the size chart. The 37-622's are what I'm looking at .37-622 would indicate it's a 37 mm wide tire. But next to that it says it's a 28" x 1 3/8" ire. 1 3/8 inches is about 35 mm. Schwalbe is no better. The Marathons are listed as a 37-622 and as a 700x35, so same thing. So what is the actual claimed size of either tire? 37mm or 35mm? I am so confused. |
2 mm is the width of a nickel. If your fender is that close, you may want to get wider fenders or narrower tires.
|
Originally Posted by alan s
(Post 20965777)
2 mm is the width of a nickel. If your fender is that close, you may want to get wider fenders or narrower tires.
Now I just want to know how to figure out what size a tire is claiming to be. |
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 20965638)
Damn, my chain looks quite stretched. I should sort that out. The teeth still look good though. Maybe I'll leave it.
|
Originally Posted by Skipjacks
(Post 20964024)
I'll back that up. My Michelin Proteks are listed as a 35mm tire
They mount as a 37mm tire. It's so well know that Bike Tires Direct has warning labels on Michelin products saying that they are wider than advertised. But the bead is smaller than it should be. They are the hardest tire I have ever mounted. I mean they are a FIGHT to mount on a 700C wheel. The same 700C wheel I mounted the Continentals I tried out (the ones that were much thinner than advertised) without using a tire lever. Just pushed it on with my hands like it was nothing. So yes...your experience with Michelin car tires is my experience with Michelin bike tires. We mainly did OEM replacement work when I was in the tire business, and didn't sell many Continental tires as there weren't many of them that were OEM. So I can't comment on how accurate their sizing was. |
However, I can confirm that the GG works. ALso, that treadwear is at about 1000 miles (or about 200-400 miles ago.)https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7acb45c91f.jpg
|
Originally Posted by acidfast7
(Post 20965568)
That is not true. This can be evidenced by my detailed responses. Thus, can you please stop trolling me?
The question is very bizarre from the OP, when the answer is printed on the side of most reputable tyres. Maybe it's not in the US as it's a European standard. Maybe that's what all the fuss is about in this thread. Those of us who have more experience than you, and we do exist, know that the tire's width does not match the rating. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the width rating is not a measurement of inflated width but of bead-to-bead distance, divided by 2.5. Reading the specifications and telling us that this is what we encounter is not a substitute for knowledge gained empirically. Stating that you are the expert does not make it so. Enough of us know about the variations between rating and measured width that asking about experience makes sense to many of us, though you lack enough experience to understand the usefulness of the question. So listen and learn rather than call the rest of us wrong. OK? Try it. |
[MENTION=468175]Skipjacks[/MENTION], either of the tires you asked about should satisfy you, and if not, yippee, another opportunity to try new tires. The Vittoria might be nice, too. Those are three of the best brands.
|
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 20968457)
As von Neumann said, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
Those of us who have more experience than you, and we do exist, know that the tire's width does not match the rating. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the width rating is not a measurement of inflated width but of bead-to-bead distance, divided by 2.5. Reading the specifications and telling us that this is what we encounter is not a substitute for knowledge gained empirically. Stating that you are the expert does not make it so. Enough of us know about the variations between rating and measured width that asking about experience makes sense to many of us, though you lack enough experience to understand the usefulness of the question. So listen and learn rather than call the rest of us wrong. OK? Try it. Do you mean bead to bead when the tire is uncurled and laid flat? As in the total length of the rubber between the beads? My mind just got blown. I guess that kind of makes it a more neutral measurement though because it eliminates the variable of the rim width and inflation pressure. (I still think Continental uses a broken ruler) By the way...this is the 3rd or 4th really interesting thing I've learned about bike tires and tire manufacturing in this thread. |
Originally Posted by Skipjacks
(Post 20961887)
37mm actual width is my max to fit inside my fenders.
Thoughts between the Top Contact II's and the Marathon HS 420's? I know the Schwalbs are THE tire most people gravitate towards. Sometimes there is a reason for that. Sometimes products just get popular because they've been around longest. |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 20968457)
As von Neumann said, in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
Those of us who have more experience than you, and we do exist, know that the tire's width does not match the rating. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the width rating is not a measurement of inflated width but of bead-to-bead distance, divided by 2.5. Reading the specifications and telling us that this is what we encounter is not a substitute for knowledge gained empirically. Stating that you are the expert does not make it so. Enough of us know about the variations between rating and measured width that asking about experience makes sense to many of us, though you lack enough experience to understand the usefulness of the question. So listen and learn rather than call the rest of us wrong. OK? Try it. There's already one example of an HS420 is this thread that is dead on. 39.1mm with a 40 ETRTO width rating (which is tyre width and not bead to bead width.) My guess is that most users here are not using the ETRTO but this old system with inches or the 700c system, which is also not the same. Several Schwalbe tyres will be 700x32c but 35-622 and will measure that size exactly. The is very true for tyres over 2 inches in width. I think most people in this thread are incorrectly using (the needlessly unfortunately complicated) two non-interchangable measurement systems. Thus, I challenge people to actually post the ETRTO and the actual measurement of the width with a caliper and let me know how it goes. I will do this on the next day that I ride into work to demonstrate that Schwalbe does keep it within ±1 mm of the ETRTO. |
Here is a simple explanation from Schwalbe and the confusion that people are making.
Please note that in the example it's a 37-622 rating on a 700x35c tyre and that tyre will be 37mm wide ± 3 mm when inflated properly. I think that people in this thread are confusing the two systems. I suggest that people out their money where their mouth is and actually post measurements like the one already done in this thread. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6dc6d5e791.png |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.