Tires - Balloon/Urban type
- Thread starter D-Man
- Start date
Here's a shot of the 2.2 Hank tire. The center slick portion is about an inch wide. Notice how its kind of flat on top with not much point. Probably why it works better when you let the air out of it and rolls better. I'll bet the Maxis hookworm is the same.
recumbent
100 kW
Thanks "D" for all the pictures and double testing, you are d-man indeed.
I have Shwalbe 195's and like those lots. But will go 2.0 when replacement time rolles around.
I have Shwalbe 195's and like those lots. But will go 2.0 when replacement time rolles around.
recumbent
100 kW
D-Man said:
Which tires are those then?
If you have an aluminum frame bike, they are also bad for transfering road vibrations.
Sorry, I didn't put which tire it was. I changed the post. Its the 2.0 Big apple. I do have the aluminum frame/steel fork though. Don't have a steel frame one to compare. I don't really know why. It can take out a bump but the tires are jumping around and its the worst ride I've ever felt.
BiGH
100 kW
freecycle them! don't throw em out lol.
some poor kid might want 26" tyres for his bike!
some poor kid might want 26" tyres for his bike!
Freddyflatfoot
1 kW
Just put my Maxxis Overdrive tyres on yesterday. Inflated them to the recommended max pressure of 50 psi.
Must say that they are way more comfortable than the cheap Duro slick I was running at 85 psi on the front and the cheap slick I had on the back at 65 psi.
Be interesting to see how they wear, and if they affect my efficiency much.
Puncture protection should be good with the inbuilt kevlar belt, although my tubes have been slimed!
Refelective sidewalls should give a bit of added safety margin for night riding. Tyres are 1.75 wide, so may suit you guys that are going for the 'fat' look!
Rob
Must say that they are way more comfortable than the cheap Duro slick I was running at 85 psi on the front and the cheap slick I had on the back at 65 psi.
Be interesting to see how they wear, and if they affect my efficiency much.
Puncture protection should be good with the inbuilt kevlar belt, although my tubes have been slimed!
Refelective sidewalls should give a bit of added safety margin for night riding. Tyres are 1.75 wide, so may suit you guys that are going for the 'fat' look!
Rob
Thats a skinny tire to me.
I'm never going back to anything less then 2.2 and it has to be a slick. One thing about pressure. When you air down, you'll find a "sweet spot." If your off, it won't feel soft. Just a couple of lbs of pressure can make the difference between soft and not soft.
Freddyflatfoot
1 kW
Skinny? Skinny? me thinks my 23's on my road bike are skinny!
Actually prefer to run 1.5's on my MTB for road use, but I settled for these!
Obviously we have different preferences!
But then again, I have driven American cars that have been very softly sprung. Me thinks you guys have soft a****! :lol:
I think I prefer the lower rolling resistance of higher pressures.
Cheers,
Rob
Actually prefer to run 1.5's on my MTB for road use, but I settled for these!
Obviously we have different preferences!
But then again, I have driven American cars that have been very softly sprung. Me thinks you guys have soft a****! :lol:
I think I prefer the lower rolling resistance of higher pressures.
Cheers,
Rob
Got my first official flat on the Hank Tire today. :x (Had an unofficial flat on the neighbors rose bush awhile back, (a mental error it was :? ) Anyway, took 1100 miles on this tire to get one. Had a pump with me but I couldn't pump much faster then it was coming out! I was amazed how fast it could come out of a small slit. Couldn't even walk the bike very much. Damn tire would fall off the rim. Luckly I was near a gas station. Called the neighbors for a pickup. Didn't have a patch kit with me as I never thought the air could come out that fast!! When I got back I realized that I might have been able to fix it with some electrical tape that was wrapped around the handle of my pump. I used a piece of it over the hole on the tube and it did stop the leak when airring back up. Probably could have made it back if I would have thought of it at the time. Oh well.
Didn't have a patch kit with me as I never thought the air could come out that fast!! When I got back I realized that I might have been able to fix it with some electrical tape that was wrapped around the handle of my pump. I used a piece of it over the hole on the tube and it did stop the leak when airring back up. Probably could have made it back if I would have thought of it at the time. Oh well.Just for fun, I decided to count the gashes/slits on the tires to see how many there actually are.
Results:
Front tire: 3 gashes
Rear tire: 15 gashes
So thats 1/18 for a flat. Thats with no liners. I use to have a slime tube up front but it was never punctured.
Results:
Front tire: 3 gashes
Rear tire: 15 gashes
So thats 1/18 for a flat. Thats with no liners. I use to have a slime tube up front but it was never punctured.
xyster
10 MW
D-Man said:
Over 1,100 miles, or just on the day you got the flat? (broken glass fields and all that...)
Its for the 1100 miles xyster. I'm thinking of getting the kevlar liner from panaracer. I know you used them. Just seems like a lot of gashes for the rear tire as these tires are soft. I might want to get the right tubes too as these are for up to 2.1. Just don't want to stiffen the ride in any way with no suspension. Any thoughts?
Edit: Might just go with the 2x thicker tubes from panaracer. Looked at some thorn tubes and those things are way to heavy!
Edit: Might just go with the 2x thicker tubes from panaracer. Looked at some thorn tubes and those things are way to heavy!
xyster
10 MW
D-Man said:
Just that I can't tell the panaracer belts are in the tire at all -- but I do have suspension, and may not be as sensitive to the bumps as you are anyway. Unlike some plastic-ish belts, they're a very soft fabric. I had to trim to size using very sharp scissors. Typical scissors didn't cut the kevlar.
Hey D-man, still got those 26X2.0 Big Apples? Cause I'd trade them for the set of 26X2.35 Big Apples I got here, got them to replace the 2.0's that are pretty much worn out but have hardly used them before deciding I do not want.
Still got that tire-moulding fuzz thing in the middle.
Still got that tire-moulding fuzz thing in the middle.
vanilla ice
1 MW
I'm going to try a 700x40 Kenda rear on my Schwinn Hybrid. I think thats pretty fat for a 700 eh? Biggest I've seen are 38 to 42 unless they are the "29er" non-urban tread tires.
tl;dr: Fatter tires are slower, I feel it's not worth it.
I ran both the 2.0's and 2.35's around their max pressure. The fat ones seem maybe around 1.5 - 2X wider and the bike I used them on has mtb type inch wide rims, so I had issues adjusting the V brakes. I was able to fit V's and freddy fenders, but cantis would have been better.
They're very definitely better at preventing diversion, like going up a sidewalk lip at a sharp angle, or the cracks in the street that are in line with the direction of travel. Also noticeably better at going down stairs, rescuing the bike from failed pops (mostly jumping sidewalks).
First impression was that they were heavy. The 2.0's are already quite heavy tires, kinda like what comes on a department store grade mtb, but instead of being crudeness it's the built in anti-flat thing. I still have 0 flats to report with no tire liner or anything, btw. But anyways the 2.35's made the wheels feel a little heavier, not good for the start/slowdown/speedup/stop type riding I do to get around.
Then, they don't roll as foreverly as the 2.0's seem to. Where at low speeds the 2.0's felt almost like road bike tires, the 2.35's felt more like a worn 1.9 knobby at max pressure.
Once at speed the 2.0's show their width through aero, and the 2.35's show it a lot more.
2.35's allow harder/more confident cornering then the 2.0's, especially on sand. But in most cases the bike feels more nimble with the 2.0's. 2.35's felt much better rolling over grass, less bumpy. They were also much more capable up 45 degree slope of wet grass, however they still suck at that.
With the 2.0's I can be crouched back over the seat with rear wheel locking up a bit and slightly skipping from hard braking up front. Braking any harder would cause the rear to lift up, so more traction is moot. On sand/grass etc I'd imagine the 2.35's would fare better, but then again I'm nearly always on pavement.
I ran both the 2.0's and 2.35's around their max pressure. The fat ones seem maybe around 1.5 - 2X wider and the bike I used them on has mtb type inch wide rims, so I had issues adjusting the V brakes. I was able to fit V's and freddy fenders, but cantis would have been better.
They're very definitely better at preventing diversion, like going up a sidewalk lip at a sharp angle, or the cracks in the street that are in line with the direction of travel. Also noticeably better at going down stairs, rescuing the bike from failed pops (mostly jumping sidewalks).
First impression was that they were heavy. The 2.0's are already quite heavy tires, kinda like what comes on a department store grade mtb, but instead of being crudeness it's the built in anti-flat thing. I still have 0 flats to report with no tire liner or anything, btw. But anyways the 2.35's made the wheels feel a little heavier, not good for the start/slowdown/speedup/stop type riding I do to get around.
Then, they don't roll as foreverly as the 2.0's seem to. Where at low speeds the 2.0's felt almost like road bike tires, the 2.35's felt more like a worn 1.9 knobby at max pressure.
Once at speed the 2.0's show their width through aero, and the 2.35's show it a lot more.
2.35's allow harder/more confident cornering then the 2.0's, especially on sand. But in most cases the bike feels more nimble with the 2.0's. 2.35's felt much better rolling over grass, less bumpy. They were also much more capable up 45 degree slope of wet grass, however they still suck at that.
With the 2.0's I can be crouched back over the seat with rear wheel locking up a bit and slightly skipping from hard braking up front. Braking any harder would cause the rear to lift up, so more traction is moot. On sand/grass etc I'd imagine the 2.35's would fare better, but then again I'm nearly always on pavement.
BiGH
100 kW
the only situation the flat tires are really needed is if you are hitting bumps and breaking things!
otherwise bring on the skinny tyres
i'm running a 1.5" front and a 3" rear (only because of the spoke breaking problem i WAS having.
otherwise bring on the skinny tyres
i'm running a 1.5" front and a 3" rear (only because of the spoke breaking problem i WAS having.
albie
100 W
i have the fat tyres (hookworms) on the rear cause I like having traction.
Skinnier tyres at the front for control. Similar to a motorcycle.
I wouldn't go anything less than 2.0" tyres on a high speed / high powered bike like mine.
I was doing the max power / max range test run today in wet weather... and my tyre setup performed awesomely. Cushioned the bumps on the rear (i'm running a down hill tube which can run at 50psi) since i have a rigid tail... the front has shocks so that was ok too. nice ride into work... can't wait to ride home tonight!
Skinnier tyres at the front for control. Similar to a motorcycle.
I wouldn't go anything less than 2.0" tyres on a high speed / high powered bike like mine.
I was doing the max power / max range test run today in wet weather... and my tyre setup performed awesomely. Cushioned the bumps on the rear (i'm running a down hill tube which can run at 50psi) since i have a rigid tail... the front has shocks so that was ok too. nice ride into work... can't wait to ride home tonight!
Similar threads
