narrower cyclocross tyres...

[andyoxon]

Has anyone used 32/33c cyclocross /knobbly tyres for track/rougher stuff?  35c tyres are too big for any of my bikes.  Currently I have some 32c Paselas on the shelf, possibly not as tough or as good a ride if at lower inflation pressure on tracks...  Or not much diffs?  So e.g. schwalbe X-One

[Torslanda]

IIRC Schwalbe Smart Sams used to be available in 32mm but might take some finding.

CX Pros are made in 30mm.

As are CX Comp.

X-One Speed is 33mm

Michelin make the Cyclo X Jet in 30mm. Vittoria make the Cross Pro TNT in 31mm.

HTH

[Torslanda]

Don't know about Paselas at low pressure but operating any tyre outside the suggested pressure range means you won't get the best out of it.

IMO you might as well buy  a pair of Michelin World Tour and complain they're useless on mud...

[jiberjaber]

Also worth mentioning Panaracer Gravelking Mud Folding Tire 33-622 (700x33C).  I run them tubeless but you could run them with a tube also.  Work pretty well and I've had them down as low as 20psi.

[andyoxon]

Thanks for the info.

[andrew_s]

A pair of Clement LAS 700x33 folders for £30 here:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=120043

[sojournermike]

Schwalbe Racing Ralph in 33c (iirc) or similar sized Challenge Almanzo or Grifo (not tubeless)

[Blodwyn Pig]

I've just got back from a Ruff Stuff winter weekend, at Beverley YHA, and Olive was wearing 32 mm marathon greenguards . Coped admirably, better than most mtb's. Pic in 'members bikes, page 352

[andyoxon]

Thanks all.   BP, what sort of pressures were you running them at? 

[Brucey]

if your clearance is limited then (at risk of pointing out the B obvious) you have a choice of a near slick tyre with a large casing or a tyre with lots of tread that has a smaller casing, or something inbetween.

Wet stones and mud require an amount of tread, and the thickness of puncture protection in some tyres eats up clearance too; for example marathon greenguards stand noticeably taller than other tyres of notionally the same width and tread groove depth.

The fastest most comfy tyre will be one with a wide casing, minimal tread and puncture protection etc. But this may be the least suitable tyre for any kind of muddy conditions, too.  As a compromise I have used a more knobbly tyre on the front than on the rear; the setup rolls reasonably well on tarmac and yet allows riding on muddy trails without the front end washing out all the time.

cheers

[Shuggie]

A pair of Clement LAS 700x33 folders for £30 here:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=120043

Cheers, Andrew 👍

Hugh

[andyoxon]

if your clearance is limited then (at risk of pointing out the B obvious) you have a choice of a near slick tyre with a large casing or a tyre with lots of tread that has a smaller casing, or something inbetween.

Wet stones and mud require an amount of tread, and the thickness of puncture protection in some tyres eats up clearance too; for example marathon greenguards stand noticeably taller than other tyres of notionally the same width and tread groove depth.

The fastest most comfy tyre will be one with a wide casing, minimal tread and puncture protection etc. But this may be the least suitable tyre for any kind of muddy conditions, too.  As a compromise I have used a more knobbly tyre on the front than on the rear; the setup rolls reasonably well on tarmac and yet allows riding on muddy trails without the front end washing out all the time.

cheers

Thanks brucey.  The greenguards look quite a good option, for swapping on for rough stuff; may work well at the low end of inflation 65/70psi.  They're certainly heavy duty at double the weight of my Pasela PT 32c tyres.  At the rear, it's not so much height, as the width betweeen the stays.

[grams]

Marathon Greenguards aren't knobblies. They don't perform any better on mud than slicks of similar width.

(I say that, my avatar is me doing a CX race on Marathons)

[Whitestone]

My Croix de Fer came with Clement XSO tyres, 32C iirc, they are fine on rough and muddy canal tow path but also roll OK(ish) on tarmac. The tread is not quite slicks on the central part with low profile knobs to the sides. Not sure I'd fancy my chances in deep mud with them but for stuff that isn't much above the rim they've been fine.

[trekker12]

I've been riding Schwalbe CX Comp 32mm on my Croix de Fer through this winter. First fitted for an adventure cross in the autumn in which we encountered gravel paths, farm fields and sand. On the paths and fields they were fine but in the deep sand there wasn't much grip.

Since then I've commuted on them and have been fine on the muddy lanes I use but the deep mud on the bridleway short cut I sometimes use they struggled. This might be because I had them at max pressure (65psi IIRC) as the route is 95% tarmac or muddy lanes.

Similar to the Clement described above they have a lower tread pitch in the middle for rolling resistance and knobblies on the edge of the tyre for mud.

 I have had one puncture though as there is limited reinforcement but I bought them because they were cheaper than everything else.

[andyoxon]

Thanks again.  I'm not so much thinking about mud, as gravel/stoney.    Frinstance off to NYMoors again at Easter, and I want to have another go at high moor 'cinder'/rocky tracks - snow allowing.  Ideally I'd have an n+1 sporting 35-45c, but was wondering about making the best out of a 32c.  Tried last year on my 28c Paselas - bit of an uncomfortable experience...

IMG_20170712_083943046 by ao, on Flickr

IMG_20170712_081821405 by ao, on Flickr
p.s.  this was a pretty good bit ahead, the previous section had been re-done in fairly large grade cinder (I think).

Of course it's always poss that 32c won't be hugely different.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I note you say "uncomfortable" rather than difficult. I've never used Paselas but both those photos look like things I'd consider rideable on 28mm Rubino Pros – but as you say, the top one would certainly be uncomfortable (and I'd probably end up walking a lot of it cos of that*). The cindery-gravelly one that wouldn't be a problem. Where they would fail completely though is in mud. I think Paselas have a bit more tread (Rubinos have a slick centre strip) so maybe they'd work better. I don't think going up from 28 to 32 would make a huge difference though – 35 would be better.

*Ed: And cos I have zero off-road skill; less than the tyres have, certainly!

[trekker12]

I wouldn't bother replacing my CX Comp on that kind of surface but run with a bit less pressure in them. I don't know how much more comfortable they would be over the Paselas though.

[mattc]

...
Of course it's always poss that 32c won't be hugely different.

I think you'll find quite a big change from 28 to 32. Of course someone will say that going to 35 would make a bigger difference 

On my current bikes, a 28mm slick feels like a slighty comfier 25 - but still a "road" tyre. The bike with 32s on is really starting to feel like it has fat, big-volume tyres. But it's all relative

[Someone else can do the math, but you get a lot of extra air when you go from 28-> 32 ]

[Paul H]

If your ride is going to be mostly tracks like that, I'd be tempted to take the guards off and use bigger tyres, whatever you're going to want on the new bike.  If it's dry you won't need them and if it's wet they're just going to be clogging up with mud anyway.  When it's muddy, knobbly tyres and guards is like riding with a drag brake on, the choice is grip or guards, I don't think you can have both.

[sojournermike]

...
Of course it's always poss that 32c won't be hugely different.

I think you'll find quite a big change from 28 to 32. Of course someone will say that going to 35 would make a bigger difference 

On my current bikes, a 28mm slick feels like a slighty comfier 25 - but still a "road" tyre. The bike with 32s on is really starting to feel like it has fat, big-volume tyres. But it's all relative

[Someone else can do the math, but you get a lot of extra air when you go from 28-> 32 ]

About 30% I reckon

[Brucey]

the size of the casing is important, the volume of air per se within it is not, it is just a quantity that happens to get bigger as the tyre does.

  If it were, a tyre x2 width would be x4 comfier, and a wheel x2 diameter would be x2 comfier  etc etc. [Numerous additional falsehoods available on request.... ]

cheers

[mattc]

the size of the casing is important, the volume of air per se within it is not, it is just a quantity that happens to get bigger as the tyre does.

Try a 50mm-wide solid tyre, then let me know whether the air inside a tyre is important.

[Brucey]

the size of the casing is important, the volume of air per se within it is not, it is just a quantity that happens to get bigger as the tyre does.

Try a 50mm-wide solid tyre, then let me know whether the air inside a tyre is important.

I think you have missed the point. The tyre could in theory have a rising spring rate if the volume was significantly reduced whenever the tyre was squashed at bit more as you go over the bump, i.e. the pressure in the tyre would vary appreciably as the tyre is worked. In this event the volume would be important.

 But if you bother to do the sums, you soon work out that this effect is insignificant.  The volume of air inside the tyre is not of importance. In fact you could fill part of the space inside the tyre with something solid and it wouldn't make any difference unless it physically prevented the tyre from deflecting. On the other side of the coin there are single-wall rims with a massive well that add maybe 30-40% to 'the  tyre volume' and these don't make for the slightest difference in the way the tyre rides.

It is entirely reflective of sloppy thought processes and/or a need to use trite phrases to say that tyre volume makes any practical difference to anything.

cheers

[mattc]

Blimey.