I really wanted to try these, but they don't come in the sizes I need for my recumbent, so I just ordered the Schwalbe Marathon HS 420. I'll write up a review after I've had a few months on them.

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.

We're beyond the fender problem. They are now sitting in the rafters of my basement with several other bike parts.

Now I just want to know how to figure out what size a tire is claiming to be.

I'm thinking those teeth look worn and awfully pointy.

The Michelin rep told us they deliberately made the bead a little smaller to minimize air leaks in tubeless tires. And they were noticeably harder to mount due to that. We never had a problem with accuracy in width though, but then most car tires then weren't squeezed in like some bicycle tires are now.
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

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.

[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.

So manufacturers label a tire width based on a formula of bead to bead divided by 2.5?

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.

I have been using Marathon HS 420 or the their earlier models of this line touring/city tires such as HS 308 in 47-622 for over 22 years. I haven't had a flat tire while riding in over a decade. I used to ride about 5000 all weather miles a year, and since retiring about 2000 miles/yr. The front tires are good for at least 15,000 miles and the rear about 5000 miles. My wife's old AMF Hercules had the HS 270 37-590 model and they showed almost no wear and never went suffered an on the road flat.

Sorry man. I like you,and have a modicum of respect for you, but your wrong.

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

Has anyone ever convinced you that you're wrong by saying "your wrong" or even "you're wrong?" It's not a very good argument method.

I have more experience than you do. I've fixed thousands of other people's bikes. Tire sizes vary from their ratings. This is where theory and practice diverge. Read all you want, but take measurements also.

Heh. That is what I read a few years ago, and the practice might have changed.

Like I said, I like you, but I always discount everyone's advice if it doesn't come with quantifiable measurement.

So far, in this thread there is one and I plan to add some. It would be nice if others did the same for HS 420 (as that's what I'm commenting on and have commented on from the beginning compared to other people referring to decades of experience.). Not all tyres or not even all Schwalbe tyres just the HS 420, which I own.

wow, acid even managed to spread his acid to the normally placid noglider. sad.

I think he is the reason the ignore function was created.

I'm with you (again), I had thought the width was measured at the widest part of the tire when mounted on a standard rim, and the standard for one company may not be the same as anothers (that's how they did it for automotive tires when I was in the tire business years ago). This style of measurement does make sense, and I may not have thought about it without this thread. I've been mounting thinner tires than the stock size for my bike for so long I don't even remember what it looked like with wider tires.

Schwalbe measures exactly as you describe (at the widest part of the tyre on a rim width they deem comparable, which I posted a chart for earlier). They allow ±3 mm on the widest tyre (60mm or 2+ inches). On the smaller tyres, less than 38 or around 1.5inches that are bang on the measurement ±1 mm. These are all published (including the height of the wheel/tyre combo.)

That's why I don't understand the OP's question. Perhaps it is different for other companies. I can only speak for Schwalbe and that's all I have done in this thread. Maybe other companies have ****ty QA/QC, I don't know, but I won't be a non Schwalbe tyre again.

Where's [MENTION=153248]Kojak[/MENTION] when we need him? He used to work for one of the big bicycle tire companies and should know the answers to these questions.

Schwalbe techniques for measuring are published. As they maintain the ETRTO standard practice.

I'm tight for time now (on the pot on my mobile after returning from Oxford trying to get another big deal done with a different biotech company) but when I have a sec I'll post the documents. They're from the same publication that I posted from earlier.

I'd be surprised if continental didn't do they same thing for tyres made in Germany but they may not. They're a much larger and diverse company than Schwalbe as bicycle tyres are a much smaller component of they're business. I would also wager they're on fewer bikes as OEM than Schwalbe for the EU marker (tighter tolerances are important for framebuilding factories in Taiwan.)

I'll gladly ask the Michelin Man himself at this point.

Or the Goodyear Blimp pilot.

Somebody has to know this.

I'm reading through the thread, I'll chime in when I'm done....

I've skimmed through thread, and now I need a drink... holy cow.

Okay, so I haven't worked for Schwalbe for a few years now but unless there has been profound changes at the company (not likely), Schwalbe internally relies solely on the ETRTO system of tire measurement. Any other measurement numbers published in the catalog or on the sides of the tires are secondary to the ETRTO #. So, a 37-622 would measure 37mm wide +/- the stated tolerance (I think 3 mm). Much of the +/- relates to the fact a given width of a tire can fit on a range of rim widths; a wider rim lets the tire sidewalls spread out a bit more producing a wider measurement when mounted.

Now, after writing this, it seems as though the need for an exact measurement has been mitigated (if the fenders have been ditched), but generally speaking if the width tolerance is 37mm max, I would not go with the 37-622 Schwalbe tire (tyre) as it might ultimately inflate up to as much as 40mm wide, and even if it maxed out at 37mm wide, a wheel that is even minutely out of true will rub.

I cannot speak for other manufacturers, they may have a different methodology for publishing tire measurements, so take my words with a grain of salt in that regard.

As for the Marathon Supreme tires, they are fantastic in terms of grip and rolling resistance. Schwalbe once made this tire in some sizes with a wire bead that made it reasonably affordable. In looking at the catalog, the wire bead version is no longer produced. It's possible that there may be some out there on the interwebs.... would be worth searching out if a grippy, fast touring tires is what you're looking for.

I hope I've helped in some way, if my post is redundant, my apologies but I started getting dizzy reading the thread.

Cheers

Thank you for taking the time to read the thread and provide your input.

Have a nice evening (here) and a good rest of your week.

All hail the tire god!

This could have been the most redundant post in history but its was BY FAR the most clear and specific, and with the most direct from the factory (literally) information. So I'm happy to have it!

If I got a 37mm tire that inflated up to 40mm....I'm thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing in terms of rolling resistance and overall ride comfort. (I also doubt that it would really inflate that wide since my rims aren't crazy big. I'm guessing my roughly 20 mm rims are probably close to the test size for a 37-622 tire)

I was bouncing back and forth between the Schwlb's and Continentals. But Biektiresdirect has the Schwalbe's on sale today for $32. That might tip the scales heavy in thier favor.

I think you could buy a car tire for less than $80, but then it probably wouldn't fit on your bike. BTW, why are bike tires more expensive than car tires?