Originally Posted by RubeRad

?? 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?

Originally Posted by RubeRad

?? 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?

Originally Posted by Kedosto

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

Originally Posted by RubeRad

?? 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

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 .

Originally Posted by Darth Lefty

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 Skipjacks

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

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.

Originally Posted by Skipjacks

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.

Originally Posted by alan s

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 acidfast7

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

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.

Originally Posted by acidfast7

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.

Originally Posted by noglider

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.

Originally Posted by Skipjacks

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

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.