| |
Main
Date: 18 Mar 2007 03:03:06
From:
Subject: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
actually much difference between a 1.25 and a
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 21:12:26
From: landotter
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 10:16 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > 1.25" is 32mm, quite wide and floaty, ...I'd take the 1.25" as it's going
> > to be
> > slightly more responsive. It's still a fat tire.
>
> More proof that all things are relative. For hybrids and mountain bikes, 32
> mm would be thin.
Well, for a mtb, sure. A mtb with such skinnies is really a de-facto
hybrid with 26" wheels. For a heavy duty hybrids, isn't around 37mm
the norm? And that's usually a very heavy duty tire that weighs around
600-700g, often with an annoying tread that saps rolling resistance.
My last Nexus equipped bike I had a few years ago came with such
tires. After wearing them out, I switched to reasonably durable 32 mm
Michelins with skinwalls that weighed around 350g. That's something
like a pound and a half of reduced rotating weight. The bike felt far
nippier, floated over bumps better due to the nicer casing, yet had no
increased punctures, as the new tires still had a decent amount of
rubber between the road and the tube.
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 19:58:20
From: landotter
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 9:25 pm, k <kfel...@earthlink.net > wrote:
> yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> > rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> > I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> > actually much difference between a 1.25 and a 1.5?
>
> The 1.25 will be 1/4" (6.35 mm) narrower than the 1.5", assuming both
> are made by the same manufacturer. Different manufacturers will size
> their tires/tyres with varying degrees of accuracy, so a 1.25 from tire
> maker "A" could be a tiny bit wider or narrower than a 1.25 from tire
> maker "B".
>
> The 1.25 will be a tiny bit lighter than the same make/model in a 1.5,
> possibly saving you as much as 30 seconds on a 30 minute commute. It
> will also ride a bit more harshly, and be a bit more vulnerable to pinch
> flats. It will also need to be reinflated somewhat more frequently,
> require inflating to a somewhat higher pressure and will be a bit less
> tolerant of being ridden while underinflated. The extra time spent on
> more frequent inflation to higher pressures could very well offset the
> savings in time and effort while commuting to and from work.
Blah, blah, blah. Such hysterics. 1.25" is 32mm, quite wide and
floaty, and usually capable of running around 75psi, which is a nice
comfy pressure that's still not squidgy feeling. It's no worse than
the 1.5, both are pretty fat road tires. Between a 1.25 Pasela and a
1.5, there's little weight difference, no price difference, and little
performance difference. But, as there's a price difference, it's
probably two different brands of tires, likely the 1.25"s being higher
quality with less mass, and a nippier feeling off the line... Even if
they're otherwise identical I'd take the 1.25" as it's going to be
slightly more responsive. It's still a fat tire. This is not an
argument between 23mm and 32mm. I certainly wouldn't give this bike
shop a penny of my cash. When they lie, to you, turn around and find a
new place to shop.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 03:16:38
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
landotter wrote:
> 1.25" is 32mm, quite wide and floaty, ...I'd take the 1.25" as it's going
> to be
> slightly more responsive. It's still a fat tire.
More proof that all things are relative. For hybrids and mountain bikes, 32
mm would be thin.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 02:25:58
From: mark
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
yoko.guruma@gmail.com wrote:
> I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> actually much difference between a 1.25 and a 1.5?
>
>
The 1.25 will be 1/4" (6.35 mm) narrower than the 1.5", assuming both
are made by the same manufacturer. Different manufacturers will size
their tires/tyres with varying degrees of accuracy, so a 1.25 from tire
maker "A" could be a tiny bit wider or narrower than a 1.25 from tire
maker "B".
The 1.25 will be a tiny bit lighter than the same make/model in a 1.5,
possibly saving you as much as 30 seconds on a 30 minute commute. It
will also ride a bit more harshly, and be a bit more vulnerable to pinch
flats. It will also need to be reinflated somewhat more frequently,
require inflating to a somewhat higher pressure and will be a bit less
tolerant of being ridden while underinflated. The extra time spent on
more frequent inflation to higher pressures could very well offset the
savings in time and effort while commuting to and from work. Whoever
told you that you would need a presta tube is taking the piss (I think
that's the proper use of that phrase).
If you are riding on paved roads then my advice is to get a good quality
1.5 tire with a slick tread or with minimal tread pattern. If you want
to spend more money and ride lighter tires, get a 1.5 tire with a Kevlar
bead (folding tire).
k
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 06:59:52
From: landotter
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 7:23 am, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 18, 10:17 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18, 11:06 am, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 18, 9:03 pm, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> > > > rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> > > > I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> > > > actually much difference between a 1.25 and a
>
> > > [oops] ... 1.5 tyre?
>
> > > thanks,
> > > Charlie
>
> > Other features of the tire can have more of an effect than the size.
> > So the short answer is: No, there is not much difference between 1.5
> > and 1.25 on a commuter. I have never known presta valve tubes to be
> > more expensive. Anyway, if your rims have holes for schrader valves
> > (car type) that that is what you should use. It's the hole in the rim
> > that dictates what sort of valve you use. It may just be that your
> > local store only has more expensive presta tubes in a size that would
> > work with 1.25's, but that is not the rule.
>
> > If you ride on asphalt exclusively, get some slicks. They will roll
> > better, more quietly, and grip better.
>
> > have fun!
>
> > Joseph
>
> Thanks Joseph, I am definitely getting the slicks. I had thought that
> the presta tubes were necessary for the small 1.25 tyres ... but ...
> no true? anyway Cheers!
If your LBS is trying to push presta tubes on you with the argument
that they're necessary for the higher pressures, then kindly call them
on their lie. That's just bullshit or ignorance or a delightful
combination plate. Of course you need an appropriately sized tube for
your tire. Presta valves *will* work in a schrader drilling, but see
if you can get a grommet to reduce the valve hole size if you go that
route. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's nice.
Get the 1.25 tires, unless the roads where you are are extraordinarily
rough. 1.25 is around the same as 32mm--a perfect utility width,
similar to the classic size on European utility bikes.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 12:54:09
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18 2007 06:59:52 -0700, "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com >
wrote:
>
>If your LBS is trying to push presta tubes on you with the argument
>that they're necessary for the higher pressures, then kindly call them
>on their lie. That's just bullshit or ignorance or a delightful
>combination plate. Of course you need an appropriately sized tube for
>your tire. Presta valves *will* work in a schrader drilling, but see
>if you can get a grommet to reduce the valve hole size if you go that
>route. It's not absolutely necessary, but it's nice.
Of course they need a Presta valve tube, and then, of course, a
Presta pump, which they happen to have to sell. Life is full of
wonderful coincidences.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 17:06:02
From: Ron Hardin
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
The reason I went to a MTB in 1988 or so was that I liked the smoother
ride of the fat tires. Which suggests one can prefer the fatter tire,
and perhaps only need to investigate (fat) slicks to reduce tire
drag and noise and make it still more pleasant.
I'm usually up around 26x2 but it varies depending on what's on sale.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 13:16:44
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On Sun, 18 2007 17:06:02 GMT, Ron Hardin <rhhardin@mindspring.com >
wrote:
>The reason I went to a MTB in 1988 or so was that I liked the smoother
>ride of the fat tires. Which suggests one can prefer the fatter tire,
>and perhaps only need to investigate (fat) slicks to reduce tire
>drag and noise and make it still more pleasant.
>
>I'm usually up around 26x2 but it varies depending on what's on sale.
Running a 2" smoother tire isn't unusual on a recumbent and certainly
ride easy enough. I do wince when I see an agressive tread on a bike
that never leaves the road - how often are they going to run into a
mud slide, anyway? And those are a lot of rubber to run around on for
commuting.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 05:23:26
From:
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 10:17 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 18, 11:06 am, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 18, 9:03 pm, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> > > rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> > > I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> > > actually much difference between a 1.25 and a
>
> > [oops] ... 1.5 tyre?
>
> > thanks,
> > Charlie
>
> Other features of the tire can have more of an effect than the size.
> So the short answer is: No, there is not much difference between 1.5
> and 1.25 on a commuter. I have never known presta valve tubes to be
> more expensive. Anyway, if your rims have holes for schrader valves
> (car type) that that is what you should use. It's the hole in the rim
> that dictates what sort of valve you use. It may just be that your
> local store only has more expensive presta tubes in a size that would
> work with 1.25's, but that is not the rule.
>
> If you ride on asphalt exclusively, get some slicks. They will roll
> better, more quietly, and grip better.
>
> have fun!
>
> Joseph
Thanks Joseph, I am definitely getting the slicks. I had thought that
the presta tubes were necessary for the small 1.25 tyres ... but ...
no true? anyway Cheers!
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 04:17:29
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 11:06 am, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 18, 9:03 pm, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> > rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> > I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> > actually much difference between a 1.25 and a
>
> [oops] ... 1.5 tyre?
>
> thanks,
> Charlie
Other features of the tire can have more of an effect than the size.
So the short answer is: No, there is not much difference between 1.5
and 1.25 on a commuter. I have never known presta valve tubes to be
more expensive. Anyway, if your rims have holes for schrader valves
(car type) that that is what you should use. It's the hole in the rim
that dictates what sort of valve you use. It may just be that your
local store only has more expensive presta tubes in a size that would
work with 1.25's, but that is not the rule.
If you ride on asphalt exclusively, get some slicks. They will roll
better, more quietly, and grip better.
have fun!
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 03:06:54
From:
Subject: Re: tyres - 1.5 vs 1.25 - a difference?
|
On 18, 9:03 pm, yoko.gur...@gmail.com wrote:
> I commute 30 minutes to work, each way, and I need new tyres. My 26"
> rims will take down to a 1.25 tyre, but will cost me a bit more, and
> I'm told I'll have to use the more expensive presta tubes. Is there
> actually much difference between a 1.25 and a
[oops] ... 1.5 tyre?
thanks,
Charlie
|
|
