# 23mm tires - why so popular?



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Curious if anyone knows the history of why 23mm (700-23C) clincher tires have become the overwhelming popular choice, compared to say 25mm? (especially with "higher performance" tires).

If one reviews 'smooth roller' resistance data (eg, http://biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm ), there is negligible difference between similar tires in different widths -- under 1 watt, and usually much less.

Or has it become largely a "fashion/style" statement, like 22" , 0.35-aspect-ratio tires on a pickup truck ;-)

I suppose an elite world-class time trialer might benefit from the narrower aerodynamic profile, but seems vast majority of us would be better off with 700-25C ... yet 25mm Michelin Pro3 or Krylion Carbon are pretty hard to find.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Regarding rolling resistance, it may be even more stark than that- Jan Heine's _Bicycling Quarterly_ tests showed that wider tires don't just equal skinnies in rolling resistance, they actually _*beat*_ them. 

They also showed that rolling resistance continues to drop the wider the tire goes... though I believe Heine's tests did indicate that the benefits sort of plateau beyond 28mm.

Far as why 23 is the current standard, it certainly doesn't make much logical sense... the majority of riders would certainly be better off with the combination of better comfort, pinch-flat resistance, rough road versatility and lower rolling resistance offered by wider tires.

But logic doesn't seem to enter into it, ego does- the market seems to be dominated by the 'wannabe/poseur racer', so most roadie bikes aren't designed with wide tires in mind. Got reminded of that the hard way when I measured my current bike and found that anything bigger than 27mm was a no-go tire-clearance-wise. 

The history is kinda sad too... back in the late '80s/early '90s, manufacturers started spec'ing _ridiculously_ skinny tires on road bikes. Plenty of bikes had 18 or 19mm, stock. 

The mindset and marketing was like, "Well, if 700x20 is lighter and therefore MUST be better, then we should go 700x18, and that'll be NIRVANA!". It was basically an arms race to the narrowest possible tire, practicality be damned.

Tsk. Idiots and deceivers. The consumers and marketers, respectively. 

Finally, a few years and a few zillion pinch flats and jarred tailbones later, ppl finally stopped the insanity (somewhat), and backed off to the 23mm standard. Still not wide enough for many riders, really, but less obviously awful in any case.

Recently, wider tires do seem to be on the uptick popularity-wise. 25mm isn't uncommon, and there's actually a quite good selection of high-quality tires in the 25-35mm range now (to my surprise).

Far as finding 25mm Pro3Races go, I hear that Michelin isn't starting production of those 'til late August. Wait a couple of weeks? Or check out Continental, Challenge, Grand Bois, etc, who make nice wider tires.

Sign of the (changing) times: Former racing god Andy Hampsten (of 'only American ever to win the Giro d'Italia' fame) runs 700x33s on his primary road bike now. It's Ti, too.

Oh my. What's a poseur racer trying to call 'Fred' on wide tires to do? :lol:











...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Speaking as an (un-offended) wannabe/poseur racer, I don't have trouble with pinch flats when running 23s.

Also, as a likely idiot, I steer clear of intimidating scientific journals like Bicycling Quarterly. I do kind of wonder what these differences and advantages add up to in real-world terms, and whether they justify riding heavier tires when I am satisfied with the durability and comfort of the tires I have.

BTW, I think that Hampsten has been posted in more threads than my Karate Monkey, which is saying something. Hampsten needs to stop living in the past -- _the race is over, man!_ 33s are for masochists:


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Hampsten needs to stop living in the past -- _the race is over, man!_ 33s are for masochists:


he should ditch the gumwalls and rise stem too. and titanium is sooo 1998. carbon, neg. rise stems and 23mm black/black tires. that's what Hampsten needs to be selling.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Speaking as an (un-offended) wannabe/poseur racer, I don't have trouble with pinch flats when running 23s.


I, on the other hand, got enough pinch flats on 23s for us both. :sad:

What do you weigh?



> Also, as a likely idiot, I steer clear of intimidating scientific journals like Bicycling Quarterly. I do kind of wonder what these differences and advantages add up to in real-world terms, and whether they justify riding heavier tires when I am satisfied with the durability and comfort of the tires I have.


Have you seen what the good wider tires weigh these days? The diff between them and 23s ain't much.



> BTW, I think that Hampsten has been posted in more threads than my Karate Monkey, which is saying something. Hampsten needs to stop living in the past -- _the race is over, man!_ 33s are for masochists


LOL. I'm thinking if/when I get a custom frame, it's gotta have clearance for at least 33s. Those Jack Brown Green labels he's running are kinda sexay.  

...


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

I switched to 25's a few years ago due to the fact that I'm a big guy, at 275 lbs, and now I swear by them. Better ride, no pinch flats, etc. In fact, I did 2K miles last year with only 1 flat, and this year I'm already well past 2k miles with no flats.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> ... Far as finding 25mm Pro3Races go, I hear that Michelin isn't starting production of those 'til late August. Wait a couple of weeks? Or check out Continental, Challenge, Grand Bois, etc, who make nice wider tires....


I've got 700-23C Pro3 Race tires on bike now & am pretty happy with them. But looking ahead, I might opt for the 25mm Pro3 or Krylion when the present tires wear out in a few months. Too bad all the pretty sidewall colors are confined to the 23mm line ;-)


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> What do you weigh?


I weigh 170, but ride some pretty bad roads.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Another better question would be why do we even call them "700X__"....when the ERD is 622mm


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I weigh 170, but ride some pretty bad roads.


You know what'd be nice? Variable tire-size spec'ing on complete bikes.

Small bikes get the 23s, medium-size 25s, and the 'beeg' frames for Clydesdales get the 28s.

Oh, and for female-specific lines... 20/23/25 for S/M/L women.

Seems fairly logical. Prolly too logical for most of the bike industry. :lol:

...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Except that I ride a 60. . .


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Except that I ride a 60. . .


Good lord man! Eat a sandwich!  

...


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

I'm riding 32c at 95 psi....I'm a real happy guy


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Easy answer*



tom_h said:


> Curious if anyone knows the history of why 23mm (700-23C) clincher tires have become the overwhelming popular choice, compared to say 25mm? (especially with "higher performance" tires).


As others have noted, there was a time in the '80s when "narrower is better" was the mantra, and it didn't hurt sales that narrower tires were lower weight - marketing made easier. The combination of pinch flats, poor traction at high pressures, discomfort, rapid tire wear, and finally actual data showing that the narrower tires were not at all faster had the pendulum swing back to the current 23mm "standard." This is a width that a large portion of the riding public can use at 90-100 psi without getting pinch flats, and so it "works." If you get pinch flats at those pressures, you need to improve your skills or use wider tires. As a matter of historical interest, until the late 70s, the standard road bike clincher was 32mm (1 & 1/4 ihches).


----------



## ridenfish39 (Jun 20, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Good lord man! Eat a sandwich!
> 
> ...


I weigh 170 and am 6'2" tall. As i am typing this I am eating a large Quiznos sub, baked Lays chips, a chocolate chip cookie, and a beer. I cant eat enough to keep weight on.
Oh...and I ride 23mm tires and have never pinch flatted. I ride rough roads, sometimes dirt, on a really stiff bike(system 6). When you race a rigid single speed mountain bike, chipped, potholed roads seem smooth on a road bike.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

I've got an older Serotta racing bike. It's proved itself to be just as fast as carbon bikes that weigh 5 pounds less, and yet, it's also built to be able to fit 28s. I run 25s on it all the time.

It's from 91, so it's not THAT old. 

So, less than 20 years ago, bike designers still understood that you might occasionally want to fit larger tires on yer bike. 

I'm a big guy, and I don't get pinch flats, but man, it's amazing how much comfort is added with just 5mm...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

buck-50 said:


> I'm a big guy, and I don't get pinch flats, but man, it's amazing how much comfort is added with just 5mm...


So true dat. :thumbsup: 

The evolution of my thinking on this issue was a long & painful one. I started out on some goddawful ultra-narrow Specialized tires in the '80s, on my first decent road bike... I think they may actually have been "27x3/4s"... lol. And they were basically unrideable, for all the flats and lack of ride comfort. 

As the bike was used, I can only conclude that the original owner knew that they were turkeys, and unloaded them on me with the bike instead of the stock tires. He also got me with the 38cm handlebars... horse's ass. 

_Edit- Oops, almost forgot. I tried 20s next. This where knowing a little math ended up working against me. I figured that "10% more air volume *must* make a difference!" Ha ha ha ha... no._ 

Moved up to 23s pretty quickly... less flats, but still too many. Ride was 'okay' at best.

Then came 25s. Flats finally became pretty rare, ride was nice enough. But then I tried 28s... ahhh. Now those were good.  

Unfortunately, due to sh***y tire clearance on my current bike, I'm back to 25s (maybe 27s if I pony up for some Challenge Parigi-Roubaixes). That's the smallest I'll go. Life's too short to ride too skinny.

And it seems like more and more ppl are waking up to the advantages of going "phatter". Which is weird, 'cuz I always thought anything over 23 would remain pretty niche. Guess it shows you never can tell.

If things keep going this way, I think there's an almost even-money shot within 3-5 years at 25s being spec'd nearly as often as 23s. Or maybe even (longshot) becoming the new standard. The current big influx of bike commuters may shake up things quite a bit.

We'll see. On the other hand, the 'poseur racer' mindset is awfully tough to break, and it's marketed to very persistently... and ridiculously successfully. 

...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Mmmmm, sandwich. But I just had a hunk of peanut butter fudge cake and one of <a href="http://www.vansteenberge.com/htm/2en/21200en.htm" target="_blank">these</a> and I think I am done for the night. I just seem to be able to stuff myself silly and not gain any weight (as long as I keep riding). I'll probably be struck by lightning sooner or later, so it all evens out.

I really have no dog in the tire size fight. I think that tires are narrow due to the popular conflation of road biking and racing. As (or maybe just if) serious but non-competitive cycling continues to grow, I think equipment will evolve. There are already a slew of "enthusiast" bikes and frames available that allow folks to have a light, high tech bike that actually suits their riding style.

That's all fine with me as long as there is an adequate selection of needlessly narrow tires for poseurs like myself.  And also rock hard @$$ hatchet saddles. Got to have one of those. :thumbsup:


----------



## livin4lax09 (Mar 15, 2008)

ridenfish39 said:


> I weigh 170 and am 6'2" tall. As i am typing this I am eating a large Quiznos sub, baked Lays chips, a chocolate chip cookie, and a beer. I cant eat enough to keep weight on.
> Oh...and I ride 23mm tires and have never pinch flatted. I ride rough roads, sometimes dirt, on a really stiff bike(system 6). When you race a rigid single speed mountain bike, chipped, potholed roads seem smooth on a road bike.


+1. Except I'm only 6'


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Room 1201 said:


> Another better question would be why do we even call them "700X__"....when the ERD is 622mm


An artifact of history. A 700c wheel, originally, was one that had an outside diameter of 700mm when equipped with a "C" width tire (there were "A" and "B" tires, too). The number is meaningless now, since we no longer use that width measurement. But it hangs around, and not just for 700. The way it's based on tire width leads to a kind of counter-intuitive result sometimes. A 650B wheel (based on a smaller tire width) is larger than a 650C.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I just seem to be able to stuff myself silly and not gain any weight (as long as I keep riding).
> 
> ...As (or maybe just if) serious but non-competitive cycling continues to grow, I think equipment will evolve. There are already a slew of "enthusiast" bikes and frames available that allow folks to have a light, high tech bike that actually suits their riding style.
> 
> That's all fine with me as long as there is an adequate selection of needlessly narrow tires for poseurs like myself.


No worries. I highly doubt 23s are ever going to go away... probably at most, they'll continue to (very slowly) become less all-important in the 700C market.

And I envy you your high metabolism! :thumbsup: 

...


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

I rode those 18-20 sized tires in the late 80's and early 90's. At the then weight of $130#'s, it was a hard ride. The 23's suit me fine now, at 150#'s with 110-115 psi I don't feel pounded unless the road is particularly rough. Might try some 25's when I wear through all my 23's but that will be a while. 

Comparing an inflated 19 to a 25mm back then, it was like balloon tires. Let alone anything wider. :biggrin5:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

I've been looking for 25's and they're very hard to find at LBS. 

The owner of one shop got kind of snippy when he eavesdropped on a conversation I had with a helpful young mechanic. The mechanic was agreeing with me that equipment/bikeweights, doesn't make that much of a difference except at the highest levels and placements in competition, and that riding wider tires would benefit most people, but working in a bike shop you're kind of constrained from saying that about light expensive bikes.. The owner started in with how most people are not going to give up their light bikes. I was saying that a good fitting al, steel, or carbon frame won't make much of a difference and he got agitated. I have no problem with anyone riding a beautiful bike if it makes them happy. I just don't believe there is going to be much of a difference performance wise...

I won't buy anything of any consequence from that shop, that's for sure, he's a bitter former rider.. He doesn't even ride anymore, because ' he used to ride hard, and cant see just riding along anymore...' I stop and smell the roses when the opportunity arises.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Some people watch where they're riding, others don't. I haven't had a pinch flat in over two years, with 23's. I can't think of the last time I had a pinch flat when I was riding solo. If there is a pot hole ahead, you either go around it, or hop over it.
I usually ride 105/110 psi.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Of course, wider tires aren't only about pinch flats (though wow, they've sure helped me there).

They're also about better ride comfort, lower rolling resistance, and (if wide enough) increased ability to tackle gravel/dirt roads and fire trails, i.e. versatility. Also, the bigger contact patch might help some ppl corner faster/more confidently. :thumbsup:

...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> . . .lower rolling resistance. . .


Why do people who ride heavy bikes that are set up so they are riding with their chest in the wind even when their hands are in the drops care about rolling resistance? 

I find that riding narrow tires focuses the mind.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Why do people who ride heavy bikes that are set up so they are riding with their chest in the wind even when their hands are in the drops care about rolling resistance?
> 
> I find that riding narrow tires focuses the mind.


By the same token, why do ppl care about the 50-gram or so weight diff between a good 23 and a good 25 or 28 on a 200 pound rider-bike combination?  

I think the only good answer to that would be "every little bit helps"... which, ironically, would be the only good answer to the "why care about rolling resistance" question. :thumbsup: 

...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> By the same token, why do ppl care about the 50-gram or so weight diff between a good 23 and a good 25 or 28 on a 200 pound rider-bike combination?
> 
> I think the only good answer to that would be "every little bit helps"... which, ironically, would be the only good answer to the "why care about rolling resistance" question. :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Ah, but there is an even better reason to worry about the extra 50g of tire: its _rotating weight_! :lol:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Ah, but there is an even better reason to worry about the extra 50g of tire: its _rotating weight_!


Sure... but if you were to A-B compare two wheelsets that differed in weight by 100g (two 50g heavier tires), you likely would have a hard time telling the diff. :wink5: 

Also, it mainly matters for acceleration purposes (and climbing). Once you're up to speed, its not going to make you ride slower.

In fact, if you want to get picky 'bout it, a heavier wheel can actually help at speed with the 'flywheel effect'. Not that we're trying to set a world-hour record or anything. :lol:

However, all else being equal, I'd take the lighter wheels, just 'cuz I like easier acceleration too (assuming I can notice the diff). But if it's only 100 grams, and I'm getting better comfort, better rolling resistance, more versatility, faster cornering, better pinch-flat protection, etc. by going wider, then wow, that's a good trade-off in my book. 

...


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> And it seems like more and more ppl are waking up to the advantages of going "phatter". Which is weird, 'cuz I always thought anything over 23 would remain pretty niche. Guess it shows you never can tell.
> 
> If things keep going this way, I think there's an almost even-money shot within 3-5 years at 25s being spec'd nearly as often as 23s. Or maybe even (longshot) becoming the new standard. The current big influx of bike commuters may shake up things quite a bit.
> 
> ...


Head tubes are getting longer, too. While the poseurs will always sway one side of the market, the big boys are also spying on what's being spec'd out of the custom shops, and trying to grab a piece of that pie.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Room 1201 said:


> Another better question would be why do we even call them "700X__"....when the ERD is 622mm


Not the ERD (effective rim diameter), but the BSD (bead seat diameter) is 622 mm on a 700 wheel. Not sure where the ERD is measured and am too lazy right now to look it up.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

kicker is.....you can only buy what is available....to the best of my knowlegde, the pro3 race is not even available in a 25C and I am having a he!! of a time finding a pro2 in a 25 old stock...but I ain't switching to 23...I have 23's on my langster and as soon as the wear out, I get 25's for it


----------



## rideorglide (Dec 3, 2005)

I got Serfas Seca 23s on my regular bike and lam very happy with them so far, even though I'm a 198# guy. Lack of rolling resitance is niiice. That said, I don't ride longer than 2 hrs, maybe if I did, I might feel differently.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Touch0Gray said:


> kicker is.....you can only buy what is available....to the best of my knowlegde, the pro3 race is not even available in a 25C and I am having a he!! of a time finding a pro2 in a 25 old stock...but I ain't switching to 23...I have 23's on my langster and as soon as the wear out, I get 25's for it


Word was that Michelin wasn't going to start production of the 25C Pro3Races 'til late August. Wait a lil' while longer? 

Or maybe PM that MichelinBicycleTech guy who posts from time to time... maybe he has more info:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=1712579&postcount=9

You also may still luck out on finding some Pro2Race 25s at an LBS... I bought a pair just last week at VeloTech in Palo Alto.

...


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Some people watch where they're riding, others don't. I haven't had a pinch flat in over two years, with 23's. I can't think of the last time I had a pinch flat when I was riding solo. If there is a pot hole ahead, you either go around it, or hop over it.
> I usually ride 105/110 psi.


I had one the other day. 'Course, it was halfway down a dirt road on underinflated tires, so I'm not blaming the tires, just the idiot that left without 2x checking his air pressures!

M


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Word was that Michelin wasn't going to start production of the 25C Pro3Races 'til late August. Wait a lil' while longer?
> 
> Or maybe PM that MichelinBicycleTech guy who posts from time to time... maybe he has more info:
> 
> ...


I did find some in Madison..I really only need one..(rear), one more call this morning before i call Yellow Jersey and order it. I am just putting off the inevitable....I like the 2's, but since they are discontinued...well.....not under my control!


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

When you ride on dirt roads it's often difficult to miss all the good sized rocks. On dirt, I'm not sure if I'd ride on tires smaller than 28's.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

did a road race last saturday that was 75% dirt. Recent rain had made a heck of a lot of bumps and washboard. Didn't have anything other then my 23mm. Rode around 100 psi to no problem. I'm sure a 25 or 18 would have felt great. My shoulders and neck paid for it. There were less flats then i expected. Guys showing on their CX bikes were promptly dropped.

I think comfort wise, the wider would be great. But i really don't see it adding anything to pinch flat issues unless you're really heavy or an ijiot when it comes to checking pressure.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

If I every did something like that, I would use tubies for sure. I've got a Vit Pave that I've never used (probably a 24mm) . I'd probably stick that on the back.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I use them also. Mostly because they are one of our teams sponsors, and I can get them dirt cheap. I've even used their wire bead tire. All of their stuff works fine.


----------



## schimanski (Jan 11, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> If there is a pot hole ahead, you either go around it, or hop over it.


Not always that simple. This pic's not from here or taken by me but we've got some road sections in similar condition here and even worse with deeper holes. Imagine doin' 20mph or more and having cars on the same road. It'll test your reflexes is all I can say and if there's more than you alone, someone WILL wreck a tyre. A big no-no for carbon rims.

The pic: https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/804/dscf4514copylv8.jpg


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

schimanski said:


> Not always that simple. This pic's not from here or taken by me but we've got some road sections in similar condition here and even worse with deeper holes. Imagine doin' 20mph or more and having cars on the same road. It'll test your reflexes is all I can say and if there's more than you alone, someone WILL wreck a tyre. A big no-no for carbon rims.
> 
> The pic: https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/804/dscf4514copylv8.jpg


looks like some/many of the roads around here first thing in the spring


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2008)

I've gotten to where I like to roll around on 24's or 25's most of the time. When I race I have some narrower clinchers or tubies that I often use but the wider tires seem like the best choice for general use.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

Don't forget to look at tire maker, too. Same indicated size can vary from company to company. 
Also- some ride 23 front with 25 rear (for ride comfort).


----------



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

schimanski said:


> Not always that simple. This pic's not from here or taken by me but we've got some road sections in similar condition here and even worse with deeper holes. Imagine doin' 20mph or more and having cars on the same road. It'll test your reflexes is all I can say and if there's more than you alone, someone WILL wreck a tyre. A big no-no for carbon rims.
> 
> The pic: https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/804/dscf4514copylv8.jpg


When was the last time that thing was paved? When the Romans were in power? WOW! And I thought our roads here in Minnesota were bad in the spring!


----------



## axebiker (Aug 22, 2003)

I've recently come to the 700x25c renaissance. I will echo the fact that they are a little harder to find, unless you wnat wire bead, in which case, HAVE AT IT! 

I was running Michelin Carbons, but can't find the Krylions in the larger sizes, so I'm taking a shot with Conti GP 4-Seasons, and Michelin Lithions. I weigh about 180#, and I'm still playing with tire pressure to find the happy medium. I've got 2 pair of wheels in my garage with 23's on them, but don't know if I'll ever use them. Maybe they'll end up on the winter trainer. 

25's sure are nice for a guy with a bad disc in his back.


----------



## schimanski (Jan 11, 2002)

Treker said:


> When was the last time that thing was paved? When the Romans were in power? WOW! And I thought our roads here in Minnesota were bad in the spring!


Some of the smaller roads here are hack jobs and nothing else. It's all about paving it cheap and fast. In the worst areas it'll take three to four winters on a poorly paved road and it's gone like in the picture. I found out this summer one of my favorite roads I often rode three years ago when I lived in the area has degraded in to something resembling a war zone and that particular road was paved exactly four years ago.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

schimanski said:


> Not always that simple. This pic's not from here or taken by me but we've got some road sections in similar condition here and even worse with deeper holes. Imagine doin' 20mph or more and having cars on the same road. ..
> The pic: https://img166.imageshack.us/img166/804/dscf4514copylv8.jpg


 
By comparison, the So Calif roads look like a velodrome surface ... I'm spoiled.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Not all bikes fit larger than a 23c.
The user guide on my bike specifically stated not to use larger than a 23c tire.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ewitz said:


> Not all bikes fit larger than a 23c.
> The user guide on my bike specifically stated not to use larger than a 23c tire.


That's sad. 

And I thought I had it bad with my LeMond that won't accept tires bigger than 27-28mm or so.

...


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> That's sad.
> 
> And I thought I had it bad with my LeMond that won't accept tires bigger than 27-28mm or so.
> 
> ...


Yes, that Time VXRS ULTeam is a real albatross.

Just a burden that I will have to bear.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ewitz said:


> Yes, that Time VXRS ULTeam is a real albatross.


It may be neato for you, but for me, it'd be near-unrideable. 

I'm too heavy, and I likes dirt roads and fire trails almost as much as asphalt. 

...


----------



## knucklesandwich (Feb 23, 2007)

I don't own a regular road bikes, but rather 2 cross bikes, specifically for the reason that I wanted to be able to run fatter tires. I now realize that when I bought my first bike I did have other options (Gunnar, Surly, Soma, etc.) but I was visiting various LBS and wanted to buy something I could try out.

By the time I went searching for my second bike, I did fold the above "sensible" road bikes into the mix but ended up just buying another CX because of fit, price, and my comfort with (good) canti brakes. 

I generally run 32s (~100psi) on my commuter and 28s (~110psi) on my "better" bike because I often take a dirt road on my rides. I can see myself going to 25s on a bike, assuming I had a second wheelset at home with something wider for days I know I'm leaving the pavement.


----------



## rideorglide (Dec 3, 2005)

Mostly out of necessity, I've taken my 23mm Serfas Secas off road for short stretches of trail that join one piece of road to another, without any ill effects. And that's with all 197 lbs bearing down. Just wouldn't do it for any sustained off-road sections.


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*Go big and see what you think*

It seems most riders who go up in tire size prefer the ride and the better grip.

Give a try and see if it works for you -- you can always go back next time around. Tires don't last forever.

I started on 23s, now using 28s -- but those are hard to find.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Ride properly inflated 25's or bigger.. It's a revelation, and if you're riding 23's, you might not know what you're missing...

I'll never go back....


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

I use the Pro2/3Race tires in 700x23 and they work great.
700x20 seem a bit harsh.
700x25 seem a bit heavy.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Slim Again said:


> It seems most riders who go up in tire size prefer the ride and the better grip.
> 
> Give a try and see if it works for you -- you can always go back next time around. Tires don't last forever.
> 
> I started on 23s, now using 28s -- but those are hard to find.


Yup.

Oh yeah, plus 1!

I've seen the light. I'm going to try some Pro Race 2, 25s which supposedly run big, more like a 27. I just put a Gatorskin 25 wire bead rear on, and it's a revelation...Just unbelievable...I'm 170-175, and if I can get clearance on a 28 rear, that will go on...:thumbsup: 

When I saw Kerry Irons recommend lower pressures, I went from 110 psi to less than 100 on GP 4000's for a much smoother ride. Running this 25 at 90 to 95psi is even more of a silky ride.....Rode a 2 mile pretty smooth brick section, and the contrast is major between a 23 and 25. It's like getting a different bike for $40 rather than $2,000...

Sometimes real simple obvious things make a huge difference....


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

lookrider said:


> I've seen the light. I'm going to try some Pro Race 2, 25s which supposedly run big, more like a 27.


I have some Pro Race2s in 25mm, and I got them in part 'cuz I was told the same thing: "They actually are fatties... 27mm, real world!"

Not. At least not on my rims. They measure a true 25mm on my bike. 

Which is not to say they suck, quite the opposite in fact. I run 'em @ 100 psi and like 'em well enough. But if I had to do it over again, I would've gotten something fatter, like maybe a Conti or Grand Bois in a 28, i.e. the fattest thing my frame will fit.

When these wear out, that's what's going on. 




> Running this 25 at 90 to 95psi is even more of a silky ride.....Rode a 2 mile pretty smooth brick section, and the contrast is major between a 23 and 25. It's like getting a different bike for $40 rather than $2,000...
> 
> Sometimes real simple obvious things make a huge difference....


Totally. The difference in ride between 25s and 23s is pretty shocking, especially if you knock 10 psi off the pressure in going to the 25s.

Ditto going from 25s to 28s, but even more so. Ya couldn't get me back on 23s at knifepoint. :thumbsup:


...


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

my Pro2's measure 27.61 mm and the front and rear are identical in width. It might be a function of the rims?.....


----------



## schimanski (Jan 11, 2002)

jmlapoint said:


> I use the Pro2/3Race tires in 700x23 and they work great.
> 700x20 seem a bit harsh.
> *700x25 seem a bit heavy.*


Maybe so, but you do know that's inside your head only? Pro's ride 28's in Paris-Roubaix and not of the feather weight type either and it's not like they're going slow on them or can't accelerate for attacks or sprint in the velodrome.


----------



## jun1662 (Dec 15, 2004)

700x23

Combination of lightweight, comfort, better rolling resistance, a lot of manufacturers seems to produce more of these size so the market is flooded with different brands so there's price competition which means cheaper price. I use to ride on 700x20 and after trying them size 23, Its a lot better. Bigger size to me seems odd looking and probably weight much heavier though the difference may not be that much.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

^ _Bicycling Quarterly_ did some tests. Turns out wider tires actually have *better* rolling resistance than skinnies. Has to do with the shape of the contact patch... wider tires have a short, wide contact patch, skinnies have a long, narrow patch. 

Sweet spot was around 28mm. Beyond that, going wider didn't seem to improve rolling resistance any more.

But if you're talking strictly about 700x23 vs 700x20, you're right in that the 23mm would be better than the 20mm in rolling resistance, all else being equal.

Oh, and there's plenty of 25-28mm tires these days that aren't a ton heavier than 23s, probably because the wider tire segment is starting to get a bit more popular than it used to be.

...


----------



## DavidsonDuke (Sep 12, 2006)

I measured my fully inflated 700x23 Gatorskins last night with a caliper last night and they came out at 25. I measured a Bontrager 700x25 that was on a wheel on loan from a bike shop, and they came out at 24.5.


----------



## feh (Mar 8, 2007)

livin4lax09 said:


> +1. Except I'm only 6'


Same here. A hair over 6', 170, 60 bike.


----------



## palu (Aug 14, 2008)

Quick question - do most of the road bikes accept 25's? I ride a 99 Quantum Race and my tires are about done. Stumbled on this thread and now I'm interested in trying out 25's. What's the minimum clearance needed with tires (in general, I guess)?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*^* It really varies from frame to frame... you have to break out the tape measure or calipers and actually measure. Some very aggressive modern frames will actually only take 23mm maximum, which is kinda 'tarded. :frown2:

Despite that, I'd wager that the vast majority of frames can take a real-world 25. My LeMond can. But, I say 'real-world 25' 'cuz tires don't always measure the same on the rim as the stated size. Some run true to size, some narrower than size, and some quite a bit larger. A '25' can actually be a 23, or a 28, sometimes. 

Minimum tire clearance? I've heard 4mm is the bare minimum, but I'm not one to talk... I'm thinking of putting a true 27mm tire on back, which will reduce my tire clearance to 2mm, prolly. 

So if gravel sticks to my back tire, the results might be interesting when it hits the brake bridge... can a pebble _really_ wedge there and make my rear wheel lock? Inquiring minds may be about to find out. 

If you do go 25, try lowering the pressure 10psi or so. That's part of the point of wider tires.

...


----------



## jmlapoint (Sep 4, 2008)

Most bikes I've worked on will easily take 25's.
See what clearance you have with your 23's. If you have 4-5 mm clearance all around, it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## schimanski (Jan 11, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Minimum tire clearance? I've heard 4mm is the bare minimum, but I'm not one to talk... I'm thinking of putting a true 27mm tire on back, which will reduce my tire clearance to 2mm, prolly.
> 
> ...


I had 2mm clearance in the rear with a 25mm. That tire ate the clear coat from the carbon rear triangle because of wheel flex. Makes an interesting noise when you sprint up to speed and the tyre's doin' it's thing.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*just to add to the conversation*

http://www.bicicletta.co.za/Downloadable Docs/Rolling Resistance Eng illustrated.pdf

same as link as in another thread, but something to think about.....

and no i DONT work for schwalbe and am not a SHILL..
as a matter of fact i have not even ridden their tires, but have tried this experiment out on my cross country race rigs (26er 1.8's at insane pressures 55-60psi, and a 29er or 700c 2.1's and low psi 28-34) and has proven itself out!! time and time again...
wider and lower = Faster


----------



## Ronman (Feb 12, 2007)

I've not tried the 25s but I'm reading with interest. Sounds like a good comparison is in order. It seems that most of the riders on 25s talk about riding with 10psig lower pressures than with 23s. Though increased sidewall deflection may play a role, I'd think the primary difference in feel between the two would be the lower pressure? Or, is this the point? I've only pinch-flatted one time, and that was on a 45mph descent over a large crack in the asphalt. I run my Pro 2s and 3s at 110~115psig and they roll very smooth. At 120psig they suddenly become harsh. Michelin recommends 115psig. Go figure. (Same w/some Conti 4000s I tried)
I don't think the shape of a contact patch has much to do with rolling resistance but, what I've read on the topic was from long ago so, maybe I'm speaking from poor memory. The difference has to do with tire deflection. Lower pressures absorb energy more readily than higher pressures, allowing the tire to roll over the surface rather than bounce off of it, which slows the tire/bike and wastes energy.
I can see wider tires giving a larger contact patch, which increases traction, but does this extra width slow steering when descending at high speeds through turns? I would think with bicycles this is not really a factor given that tires are comparatively narrow to begin with, but on motorcycles tire diameter and width is a primary factor in how a bike handles.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

*yes*

it does, tire contact shape. on mtb's 29er shapes are longer than their 26er counter parts, and with wider tires 21mm compared to 28mm, the contact patch shape changes..

fyi...hope this helps.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

schimanski said:


> I had 2mm clearance in the rear with a 25mm. That tire ate the clear coat from the carbon rear triangle because of wheel flex. Makes an interesting noise when you sprint up to speed and the tyre's doin' it's thing.


I'm on steel, but I guess the tire could eat the paint eventually. Ugh. 

...


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> I'm on steel, but I guess the tire could eat the paint eventually. Ugh.
> 
> ...


if it's rubbing, it is a pretty fast eventually!


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

tom_h said:


> I suppose an elite world-class time trialer might benefit from the narrower aerodynamic profile, but seems vast majority of us would be better off with 700-25C ... yet 25mm Michelin Pro3 or Krylion Carbon are pretty hard to find.


I come from the +300gr Clement Silk Tubulars on rough roads early season in rains while seeing the rest of the gang puncture on less gram weight cottons [mid 80's]. 

I ride 25mm. The pair I'm running presently are of wired bead, Bontrager Xlites and $24 ea. having 3,200 miles on them. I get 125 lbs cold in the casings before heading off on a ride. Never ever punctured yet this season. The speed and comfort over city-urban roadways are ...by far more controllable and comforting then a 23mm casing. Just because you're narrow does not me you'll have control. In normal riding on ....normal streets ...you are not doing pedal turns over the boards across a velodrome track. Control has something to do with performance, performance does not alway mean lite and tight.

LOL









3,200 miles


----------



## mudphalt (Sep 21, 2008)

Ive been running 23's on my pilot for the last 2k miles and am on my 2nd set... not from pinch flats but from a piece of metal, glass, etc... was running serfas tires, great traction and speed, .. just got a set of grand prix 4000's but didnt put them on yet... hopfully they will not tear up as often, I'm spending more $ on tires for my bike than on my car... LOL


----------



## Wheel Right (Jun 5, 2008)

25c's and greater are heavier, wider (more drag), corner with less precision, and more importantly provide a larger diameter wheel to rotate nominally slowing your ability to "spin up" into a sprint or hill climb. Essentially, a 25c tire on a 700c rim creates a wheel that is nearly a full centimeter taller in diameter than the Pro Peloton standard of 20c rubber. This taller wheel affects gearing, turning radius, weight, center of gravity, wind resistance, etc. When road conditions warrant (relatively flat rough roads like Paris Roubaix or Tour of Flanders) the pros are quick to go with "fat" tires like 24c Vittorias to help avoid breaking wheels, and to provide more traction over ugly wet terrain, etc.

I'm 6'3" tall, 215lbs, 100-200 miles/week. My 23c's are great. I am comfortable at the end of an aggressive 120mile ride. My bike fits me very well, my saddle fits me very well (Fizik Aliante), frame is steel (Pegoretti Marcelo), my tires are supple (Vittoria), my shorts have a great chamois design (Assos), and my shoes fit like a glove. I am no more comfortable on 25c's at the end of a long ride, than 23c's. I ride tubulars primarily, which may account for some of the comfort. When I briefly switched to an aluminum frame a few years ago, I was almost never comfortable regardless of the size of my tires. 

For comfort, look to your fit and frame materials first . . .


----------



## DavidsonDuke (Sep 12, 2006)

The key word being _nominally_, except that it refers to gearing, turning radius (!), etc.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

Wheel Right said:


> 25c's and greater are heavier, wider (more drag), corner with less precision, and more importantly provide a larger diameter wheel to rotate nominally slowing your ability to "spin up" into a sprint or hill climb. Essentially, a 25c tire on a 700c rim creates a wheel that is nearly a full centimeter taller in diameter than the Pro Peloton standard of 20c rubber. This taller wheel affects gearing, turning radius, weight, center of gravity, wind resistance, etc. When road conditions warrant (relatively flat rough roads like Paris Roubaix or Tour of Flanders) the pros are quick to go with "fat" tires like 24c Vittorias to help avoid breaking wheels, and to provide more traction over ugly wet terrain, etc.
> 
> .


Not sure i'm buying the"peloton standard" of 20c
that was a trend a decade ago but I don't think using below 23c is even common anymore aside from TTs

also the wind resistance you bring up is nil in a pack and in a TT is less then the drag created by your gloves


----------



## digby (Jul 23, 2004)

I went from conti gp 4000's 23c to conti gatorskins 28c. The 28's definitely reduce the sting on the crap roads in San Francisco. 

I'd love to run the 27c vittoria open pave but they only come in tubulars. Is there a comparable clincher that comes in that size that anyone can recommend?


----------



## homebrew (Oct 28, 2004)

I suspect tire width should be linked to the kind of ride you do. Rolling resistance tests IMO are suspect but lets assume your correct that a 25 rolls better then a 23. Consider all things equal I suspect that the 23 will weigh less. Experience leads me to conclude that 23's feel more responsive, get up to speed quicker. Not that something everybody needs I admit. So while 25's will give comfort and possibly a slight rolling resistance advantage they will feel a slight bit more sluggish. I ride for fun (no offers from Astana yet) and I prefer the responsive ride of 23's (22's see below) most of the time. Its just a bit more livley on the road. In the winter I get out 25's or even 32's on my cross bike. As to the question of pinch flats I do not get them at all as all my wheels are tubular but that's another can of worms (btw tubbies 22's are most often closest to 23's)


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

homebrew said:


> I suspect tire width should be linked to the kind of ride you do.


There are also other variable not taken into account in this thread which will impact ride comfort and performance. Take a look here and here. The Mavic SUP's are narrower then the Bontrager Selects [130 vs 140]. Given that rim width is vital in comparisons to tire sizing it would be best to have people state what rim width they're riding on too. I'd hate to be riding a 20c on a Bontrager Select rim width.

Don't ya think?

Cool.


----------



## ss-jimbo (Aug 3, 2006)

A quick note for a bit older thread. There are some quality 25s, 28s, and 32/33s out there if you look (Grand Bois, Rivendell, Panaracer for the bigger ones, Michelin, Conti, Bonty, Specialized for the 25s), but big point is why the heck are some of you running such high pressure even in 23s? I run 100 rear and 95 front in 23s and it's great. I've pinched once, but it was on dirt. The folks running 100+ in 28s or larger are especially nuts, that's the whole point of running a bigger tire.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Yesterday, I decided I'm going to get a set of GP4000's in red when PBK gets the 25's back in stock. Been reading this thread, and it seems you do get fewer flats with the 25's. Sure enough, yesterday I saw my rear tire (a 23) was flat! I didn't have issues riding it on Thursday, and even after the ride the tire was holding air...


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*Pressure*

ss-jimbo is right -- _"... why the heck are some of you running such high pressure...?"_

I've knocked the pressure down on my 28s -- much better.


----------



## Lewis_Levin (Sep 14, 2008)

*Cross Section*

Great discussion.

Just wanted to add that tires are not just about width. They are 3 dimensional. To simplify, visualize the 2D cross section of a bicycle tire. The wider tires (25, 28) are not only wider--they are also taller. (Some performance car tires are very low profile even when very wide, but this rarely applies to bicycle tires, which are more nearly circular in cross section).

The taller profile is the compliant cushion that makes the ride more comfortable. This compliance also enables the tire to adapt to surface imperfections without rebounding vertically (think of the hub moving up). If we rode on railroad tracks, very hard tires indeed would reduce rolling resistance. But, we ride on micro-accordians. Despite the theoretical increase in elastic hysteresis of the wider tire, there is a net reduction in rolling resistance because of less vertical displacement of the wheel (and bike and rider).

Also, the distance between tire tread and rim edige is greater so the tire is less likely to bottom out, resulting in fewer pinch flats even when running at lower pressures.

This final point I am much less sure on. Volume is certainly a factor. The mass of bike and rider pressing downward must be offset by the resistance of the air pressure and elastic tire casing (let's ignore the wheels assuming we're using the same wheels for different tire profiles). The force exerted by the tire casing + air pressure is based on both volume (how much "fluid" is supporting you) and pressure (how much force is required to deflect the tire). A low volume tire must use higher pressure to offset the force of gravity. A higher volume tire requires lower pressure to provide the same force. In fact, the higher volume tire may not deflect as much even at lower inflation pressure because it generates higher supporting force (this clearly varies with pressure--I am focusing on the break-even point of pressure between the high and low volume tires). 

If you want a vicious demonstration of this, take your mtn bike (if you've got one) and put 2" slicks on it and pump them up to 80 psi. You'll just ricochet off bumps that your road bike (with its 25c tires at 105 psi) seems to absorb. You MUST run the high volume tires at lower pressure or the potential energy of all that compressed gas will just bounce you. Another simple example is that a 3000 lb car is easily support by 4 HUGE tires at only 32psi. Pump up those tires to 50-60 psi and go out for a bone-jarring Sunday drive.

My final comment on volume is that volume increases proportionally to the cube of tire width (yes, I realize the inner diameter is staying the same). The proportionality factor is less than 1; the point is that volume of the wider tire is increasing proportionally much more than width. So, the 25c or 28c tire contains a much higher volume of air, which can do its work of supporting us at lower psi, more vertical compliance in the tire than in the hub height--for a more comfortable ride and lower rolling resistance.

Several posters point out that the wider tire is heavier. Certainly true. Because some wider tires are focused on commuting, their weight increases more than linearly with width--proportionally to the square of width (visualize the entire tire cut and laid out flat--it has area). In addition, many wider tires are designed with more tread thickness and puncture resistant belts. But, as wider tires become more popular we'll have choices of performance-oriented "wide" tires with minimal tread, light casings, and kevlar beads. Still the weight increase must be there for an equivalently constructed tire--but it is small and hard to imagine the weight increase being so much as to offset the gain from reduced rolling resistance.

Phew. Lunch time is over.


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*Thanks, Professor...*

... that was informative.

I hope you are right about tire makers coming out with more variety in 25s and 28s.


----------



## EverydayRide (Sep 12, 2008)

Lewis_Levin said:


> Great discussion.
> 
> ....... So, the 25c or 28c tire contains a much higher volume of air, which can do its work of supporting us at lower psi, more vertical compliance in the tire than in the hub height--for a more comfortable ride and lower rolling resistance.


I think when speaking tire it's best to speak conditions. When I road tubulars for a couple decades they were all organised for weather or for that up-coming condition. Best rides were of course those on the Clements - wide silks. LOL

Time and place.

Cheers,

Cool.


----------



## Sriajuda (Jan 7, 2009)

@Lewis_Levin: Great post!:thumbsup: 

Leaves really nothing to add.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm getting 25's this year for my new tires because I'm sick of riding harsh feeling tires. The Kenda Kalientes are great but in 23's and me being 195 I need to run around 110 in the tires. I started running over 120 when i got the bike and noticed my average speed on the same route increased as I lowered the pressure. Then went back up as I lowered the pressure too much. I found the sweetspot to be around 105-110lbs per wheel. I was more comfortable too. 

I'm excited to try something different.. Now just to decide on what tire to try.. Conti 4000's hmm..


----------



## TLud (Mar 19, 2008)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> I'm getting 25's this year for my new tires because I'm sick of riding harsh feeling tires. The Kenda Kalientes are great but in 23's and me being 195 I need to run around 110 in the tires. I started running over 120 when i got the bike and noticed my average speed on the same route increased as I lowered the pressure. Then went back up as I lowered the pressure too much. I found the sweetspot to be around 105-110lbs per wheel. I was more comfortable too.
> 
> I'm excited to try something different.. Now just to decide on what tire to try.. Conti 4000's hmm..


What about the Kriteriums? Kenda offers them in 25.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I've thought about it.. but all I've ever used have been Kenda tires. I want to mix it up a little and try something new. Something popular must be somewhat decent right?


----------



## Puchnuts (Oct 9, 2008)

If you want 27C tires, look at what Rivendell offers. Most notable their Rol-y Pol-y and Ruffy Tuffy. Difference being more Kevlar (or something) in the Ruffy Tuffy's. They both are the same aside from the amount of 'bullet-proofing.'

They are exceptional tires that not many have heard about. Low rolling-resistance and excellent grip. Here:

http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/tires_tubes_pumps_patches?page=1

I used to run 700 X 28C rear and 25 front. Now I've fallen into the 700 X 23C well. It was all my local LBS stocks. No 25's in sight. I have the Gatorskin's in 23, and wasn't impressed. I wanted 25's. I ended up getting Conti Grand Prix 4000 S (the 'S' is what you must specify, or you'll get the wrong tire) in 23 as well (there's that 'well' again). I'm shopping for a 25 as we speak/read. I'm planning to return to my previous - 28 rear and 25 front. This for my vintage namesake - a PUCH Reynold's 531 throughout frame from 1982. I have the Roll-y Pol-y's on my Trek hybrid* (customized). Excellent.



Happy Trails!

* We have very clean roads here.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

Am I detecting a little hate toward the 'racer' cyclists from the 'commuters'?


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

Maximus_XXIV said:


> Am I detecting a little hate toward the 'racer' cyclists from the 'commuters'?


no hate here.....I run 23's to 35's depending on the bike and what I'm riding on


----------



## jac44 (Feb 11, 2005)

Jeeeez I ride a gravel road with my 23's


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

I forgot to mention, I think some of my 23s are 25s...:blush2: Not a lot of standardization amongst manufacturers.

I also am not exactly sure why we are taking one set of tests on rolling resistance as gospel. It is not even scientific as the testing has not been repeated as far as I know. I am not saying it is not true, I am just saying that it may be only party true or not at all. Then again, real life is not a lab.

I have been riding from 200-220 for the last 7 years and ride exclusively on 23s and I have not pinch flatted outside of a pack in all that time. In fact, I find flats to be extremely rare until my tires wear through to the Kevlar belt and a little beyond. 

I like to ride hard on weekends but also commute to work by bike most days of the week and so it on am OCLV frame from the late 90s.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

I think I'm going to replace my Maxxis fuse tires that came with the caad9 with the 

continental GP4000's in 700x25mm I weigh 200lb @ 6'5 it seems that these tires would be great with little to no draw backs...

will they fit a caad9 frame? and do the GP4000's measure out at a "true" 25mm or bigger?

Chad


----------



## Magsdad (Jun 29, 2005)

The GP4000's will definitely fit your C-Dale in 25, because they are closer to 23's. Good tire, but small for a 25.


----------



## Puchnuts (Oct 9, 2008)

The Conti Grand Prix 4000 S tires, in 23's at least, are fantastic tires. With a TPI of around 190 (!) they feel more like tubulars than clincers. And they are as bullet-proof as their cousins' - the Gatorskins.

If you're looking into a 23, don't overlook these. And no - I don't own stock in Continental.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

thanks puchnuts and magsdad.

after doing more research the caad9 is one of the frames very tight on tire tolerences...nothing bigger then 25's 

I'm thinking of trying the GP4000's in 23's first...just to see what a "good" 23mm feels like compared to the "Maxxis fuse" tires that were sold with the bike.

the only time I had issues with flats were when it rained...and those weren't pinch flats. I've only gotten one of those and it was my own fault hitting a sneaky water cover.

Chad


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Remember the old story about porridge?

You don't want one because it is too cold.

You don't want another because it is too hot.

You want the one that is just right!

23's are "just right"


----------



## schimanski (Jan 11, 2002)

jac44 said:


> Jeeeez I ride a gravel road with my 23's


I've ridden gravel roads with 20's that were undersized. Not in the least bit comfy but nevertheless it's still doable. I've no interest in doin' it ever again, race or not.


----------

