RiBMo tires are amazing

[liveforphysics]

I was having some awful luck with flats while commuting. After the goat-heads (a spiky thorny tire-dooming plant seed) start collecting on the sides of the road, I was averaging over 4 flats a week commuting. Most being punctures, the remainder being pinch-flats from impacts.

I tried what my local bike shop recommended:
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/ftb/road-tires/trainingall-season-road-tires/all-condition-armadillo

These tires not only felt like crap to ride on, but they flatted equally easily as my previous tire:
http://www.vittoria.com/en/product/rubino/#product-99

These tires went flat about ever-other ride, but at least felt pretty good to ride on while they had air in them.

I mentioned to Chalo that I was spending more on tubes than I ever spent on gasoline commuting, and likely causing more pollution just in wasting tubes. He recommended I try a tire made by Panasonic-Panaracer called a RiBMo (the name is a portmanteau of the words 'Ride-Bicycle-More').

This is the tire I'm running in 28mm width:
http://www.panaracer.com/urban.php

Holy shit. The first ride on these tires blew me away. They feel so sticky, yet roll so freely. Somehow feels better than the rubino pro slick to ride on, these things roll so free I kept changing directions on the street I was playing on because I kept suspecting I was feeling a favorable tail-wind it rolled so free.

I fell in love with the tires 3 weeks ago just based on how they felt on my first ride with them. Guess what hasn't happened in those 3 weeks of daily commuting on roads littered with thorns and goatheads? Zero flat tires since switching to RiBMo's.

 

[grindz145]

Nice! I honestly had really good luck with the Armadillos myself. I also for ebike applications I really dig the tire liners like the "Mr Tuffy" etc. They're too heavy and complex to use normally.

 

[The fingers]

The 26x2 would be a good replacement for the 26x1.95 Armadillos I'm currently running on my MTB. 8)

 

[jkbrigman]

I was having some awful luck with flats while commuting. After the goat-heads (a spiky thorny tire-dooming plant seed) start collecting on the sides of the road, I was averaging over 4 flats a week commuting.
...
I mentioned to Chalo that I was spending more on tubes than I ever spent on gasoline commuting, and likely causing more pollution just in wasting tubes. He recommended I try a tire made by Panasonic-Panaracer called a RiBMo (the name is a portmanteau of the words 'Ride-Bicycle-More').

This is the tire I'm running in 28mm width:
http://www.panaracer.com/urban.php

Holy shit. The first ride on these tires blew me away. They feel so sticky, yet roll so freely. Somehow feels better than the rubino pro slick to ride on, these things roll so free I kept changing directions on the street I was playing on because I kept suspecting I was feeling a favorable tail-wind it rolled so free.

I fell in love with the tires 3 weeks ago just based on how they felt on my first ride with them. Guess what hasn't happened in those 3 weeks of daily commuting on roads littered with thorns and goatheads? Zero flat tires since switching to RiBMo's.

First, huge props to Chalo for the informed suggestion!
Second: THANK YOU LFP for this posting! I believe the subject of tires has not been covered enough on E-S and it's something we don't have much user data on. It's great to see a post about the Panaracer tires, I thought they might be Good Stuff but I've already spent $200 on tires to test, so I have to chill out a little on buying tires. (and BTW, I ended up with Schwalbe Marathons 26"x1.5"). I'll be glad to try the Panaracer after the Schwalbe wear out.

LFP, did you get the Aramid belted version or the steel belted version?

 

[Teh Stork]

Thanks for sharing this

 

[Chalo]

Yep, RiBMo is my favorite tire so far. There are five of them in my household right now, with thousands of accumulated miles and no punctures yet [knocking wood].

Recently I got a pair of the similarly protected, similarly performance-oriented Panaracer T-Serv 700x35, because we didn't have that size of RiBMo in the shop, and because it uses the same belt material. The T-Serv is a very nice tire, no doubt. But for reasons I cant identify, probably the casing shape (T-Serv is round while RiBMo is rounded triangular), it does not ride quite as nicely as RiBMo and doesn't feel as fast.

The difference between the Kevlar and steel versions is only in the bead (the cord that holds the tire on the rim), not the belt. Kevlar beaded tires weigh a little bit less and are foldable. They're also a little harder to put on.

 

[Drunkskunk]

Nice! I've never had any complaints about my armadillos, but better is better. I found a few at $22, I may have to give them a try.

 

[liveforphysics]

Nice! I've never had any complaints about my armadillos, but better is better. I found a few at $22, I may have to give them a try.

For the difference in how they roll alone its worth it IMHO.

It would be interesting for someone to do a proper wh/mile analysis on them vs others like the armadillo.

 

[voicecoils]

I agree they are nice tyres.

I've run them on 2 bikes for about 1000 miles each.
One set of 700x28c on a non-powered bike and 26x1.75 on my BMC powered hardtail.

No punctures on the 700c bike and I've since sold it to a happy new owner.

1 rear puncture on the 26" where something sharp hidden in a pile of leaves I rode through tore through the sidewall and half across the tread, a 1.5" gash. I've since swapped to 2.15" Schwalbe Big Apples just for a change and to try lower pressures.

RiBMo's roll great and get few punctures in part because of the thick centre section IMO. On the 700c set they feel much like a road tyre but on my 26" bike, the thick section creates a 'triangle' shaped profile which feels quite exciting to ride when you roll off the centre tread and onto the side while cornering.

On another note, the tyres I rode from Perth to Sydney almost 3500 miles were Schwalbe Marathon Mondial and got zero punctures. 2 of the 3 bikes used them and no punctures between 4 wheels made us quite happy!

 

[rogerc]

Would these tires be good for a 26 inch MTB build?
Bike would be used on fire roads with some loose gravel, some uphill climbs but nothing drastic, no jumps or anything radical.
RC

 

[Chalo]

Would these tires be good for a 26 inch MTB build?
Bike would be used on fire roads with some loose gravel, some uphill climbs but nothing drastic, no jumps or anything radical.
RC

There is a 26 x 2.0" version of the RiBMo I use on my wife's hub motor wheel. It has the same triangular cross-section and smooth ride quality as the 700c versions, and it would be a great choice for a mostly pavement-oriented MTB. For more than about 25% dirt miles, I'd get something with more tread features, like maybe the Schwalbe Marathon Plus Tour or Marathon Plus MTB. They weigh more and don't ride as sweetly or as fast, but they'll bite into loose surfaces better. There is no better puncture protection available anywhere than what Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires offer.

 

[swbluto]

Does anyone have recommendations for 20" tires with the absolute minimum in rolling resistance and max durability and puncture resistance?

I noticed the RiBMo tires didn't come in the 20" size.

 

[Chalo]

If you want low rolling resistance, 20" is the wrong tire size.

If you want low rolling resistance, durability and puncture resistance have to be traded off to some degree.

There are sound practical reasons that normal bikes are normal. Some beardy guys think they have figured something out because they are just so darned smart, but 150 years of continuous development by actual smart guys says they are on a dead end, again. Because nothing you can think of doing with a bicycle hasn't been tried before, and either adopted or rejected on its merits.

 

[swbluto]

If you want low rolling resistance, 20" is the wrong tire size.

There are sound practical reasons that normal bikes are normal. Some beardy guys think they have figured something out because they are just so darned smart, but 150 years of continuous development by actual smart guys says they are on a dead end, again. Because nothing you can think of doing with a bicycle hasn't been tried before, and either adopted or rejected on its merits.

Sounds like someone has a bad case of conventionality bias. Didn't history already prove recumbents are naturally faster and that's why they got banned? Wait, I'm pretty sure that was also a case of conventionality bias.

And conventionality has a certain momentum to it that spans generations, I won't deny that.

And, this physicist at http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html, proves your idea of "higher rolling resistance because of smaller wheel" isn't the right kind of thinking, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You need to take into account aero to calculate the total power losses, and smaller wheels are naturally more aerodynamic due to a lower frontal area (And possibly other unidentified affects). The difference in rolling resistance between 20" and 26" is much smaller than the difference in drag between 20" and 26".

If you want low rolling resistance, durability and puncture resistance have to be traded off to some degree.

Good to know. Figured there was a tradeoff looking at how none of the schwalbe tires excelled in all three, and I know that "belted tires" typically have higher rolling resistance. However, these RiBMo tires seemed promising, based on LFP's reports and being developed in Japan and everything. I know that it's possible to take advantage of the van der waal force with the appropriate design to improve 'grip', without comprising durability and hardness/rolling-resistance. I suspect that the RiBMo tire might be operating off this principle, but I don't have the tire in front of me, so idle speculation.

 

[-dg]

There are sound practical reasons that normal bikes are normal. Some beardy guys think they have figured something out because they are just so darned smart, but 150 years of continuous development by actual smart guys says they are on a dead end, again. Because nothing you can think of doing with a bicycle hasn't been tried before, and either adopted or rejected on its merits.

This.

Bicycles are highly evolved systems, subjected to selective pressure and refinement for a long time. An old design that is very effective in its niche, like the shark. The variations have almost all been tried, usually multiple times over the past hundred and fifty years. The overall result is not very different from the bicycles the Wright brothers worked on. Most of what are promoted as improvements are either trivial or special purpose, or more marketing than technology. Materials and manufacturing advances have helped around the edges, so a modern road bike is perhaps three to five pounds lighter then the same type from the 1930s or earlier. But the last truly major advance was the development of the pneumatic tire in 1888.

Since bicycles are such an evolved and refined system of compromises it is hard to make them better and easy to make them worse. For example, chain drives have a number of drawbacks, but they have been the dominant form for over 120 years and still there are no credible alternatives. Shaft drives have been tried over and over with no success.

Aerodynamics is really the only low hanging fruit in the quest for the better bike. The advantages of a slippery form and sleeker riding position are obvious and compelling. Yet it remains an unsolved problem. Most of the attempts in this area have been ineffective, or have impaired some other aspect of the bicycle so much as to be useless.

Recumbents of course are waiting in the wings to take over if only the UCI would un-ban them so that ordinary people could legally purchase and ride them. Just like the UCI had to un-ban mountain bikes and hybrids and beach cruisers and scraper bikes before they could become popular.

I'd actually like to see recumbents be more successful. Electrified recumbents in particular seem like they have a lot of potential to replace the automobile for the typical single driver use cases. I'm not sure what really is holding recumbents back. I tried one but could not see over traffic to maintain situational awareness and never did have the sense of control I have on an upright or the ability to float over the tank traps that pass for roads here. I don't know how universal these concerns are, but perhaps to replace the automobile with the electric recumbent you first must replace the automobile.

 

[itchynackers]

Yes, I've got almost 4000 miles on my Armadillos with zero flats or problems of any kind, whereas I was getting flats often with other combos. If my armadillos ever wear out (not showing it yet), then I may try the ribmo.

 

[MadRhino]

I ride the Thick Slick tires on my Tricross, rolls nice on a very tough sole.

 

[cwah]

Any of you tried the marathon plus?

http://www.amazon.com/Schwalbe-Marathon-700x25-Allround-Beaded/dp/B000QSZZ7Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379513441&sr=8-1&keywords=marathon+plus

I only had few puncture on the front wheel with these tyres, never on the back wheel. And punctures were every time when I hit a massive nail.

Check this:
[youtube]Uz8fT13rtlk[/youtube]

 

[alsmith]

I have a Marathon plus on the front. It's been quite good at puncture resistance- I've had 2 in about a thousand miles and one was probably my fault because I let tyre pressures drop too low. Grip is good even in the rain, but the tyre feels a bit hard, or solid, transmitting road bumps, potholes, possibly even grains of sand through the bars (no suspension).
The Michelins were a better ride but the front was a bit squirmy in the damp or wet.
So I'm going to try another manufacturer for the front next time.

By the way my motor is a big 5300 Crystalyte front wheel drive so you'd probably not see the same with rear wheel drive, or a small light geared motor.

 

[mattrb]

These things look huge. Good luck with preventing flats!

 

[Chalo]

Marathon Plus is an exceedingly flat resistant tire-- my household has two pairs in service, along with another pair of similarly constructed tires-- but it has drawbacks. Compared to RiBMo, it's slow, it has a deadened ride quality, inconsistent grip and handling, and it weighs an almighty ton. It costs at least as much as RiBMo, too.

Marathon Plus stacks up much better against other heavy armored tires than it does against RiBMo.

 

[neptronix]

I have marathon pluses and they are fantastic.
They definitely roll better than the armadillos i had when i started this venture into ebiking, and have stood up to the endless miles of goathead-littered streets and bike trails that Utah has. ( never seen so many tire popping objects anywhere else )

For a 20", just get a moped/motorcycle tire. Shinko has a 2.25", Pirelli offers 2.5" and 2.75".. they are puncture proof based on their thickness alone, unlike bike tires which are designed for the lowest weight possible.

 

[alsmith]

Marathon Plus is an exceedingly flat resistant tire-- my household has two pairs in service, along with another pair of similarly constructed tires-- but it has drawbacks. Compared to RiBMo, it's slow, it has a deadened ride quality, inconsistent grip and handling, and it weighs an almighty ton. It costs at least as much as RiBMo, too.

Marathon Plus stacks up much better against other heavy armored tires than it does against RiBMo.

I would be happy if all I could get was a Marathon Plus, but I'd prefer that extra bit comfort with decent puncture resistance.

 

[Supertux1]

I am running some 26"x1.95 Kenda K838 slicks + RhinosDillos Tire Liners + Extra Thick Slime Tubes. 1500 miles now, no flats, bike in sig. About 65-70psi.

I have ridden through construction sites with nails and staples littered everywhere, over broken bottles smashed on the bike path on the less fortunate side of town, railroad tracks, car parts in the bike lane and off the occasional curb.

 

[-dg]

And, this physicist at http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html, proves your idea of "higher rolling resistance because of smaller wheel" isn't the right kind of thinking, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You need to take into account aero to calculate the total power losses, and smaller wheels are naturally more aerodynamic due to a lower frontal area (And possibly other unidentified affects). The difference in rolling resistance between 20" and 26" is much smaller than the difference in drag between 20" and 26".

If you read all the way to the bottom of your link you see the rebuttal. The test results were for resistance with the tire pressed against a 4.5 inch diameter roller. This deflects the tire in ways that a flat road does not so the collected data while interesting and possibly useful for sorting very similar tires cannot tell us anything about tires of different sizes or construction.