Tyre question

[steveindenmark]

Im looking for a 622x32 tyre which is fast on the tarmac as well as being very tough on gravel.

Any suggestions?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Hutchinson sector

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm not sure what "tough on gravel" means, but no tyre is not tough on gravel. Gravel doesn't eat tyres.

 

[steveindenmark]

I'm not sure what "tough on gravel" means, but no tyre is not tough on gravel. Gravel doesn't eat tyres.

That is exactly what 80km of gravel will do to tyres that are not suited to it. If you cannot add anything constructive. Why add anything at all?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

That is exactly what 80km of gravel will do to tyres that are not suited to it. If you cannot add anything constructive. Why add anything at all?

What type of tyre have you used that gets eaten by gravel within 80 kms? Tell me, so that I can fit one and test it. My daily commute is on a gravel towpath with very sharp chip and I experience no unusual wear, abrasion or punctures with any of the random selection of tyres I use on there. I'd love to be proven wrong.

As for the "fast on tarmac" bit...Steve, you've been here long enough and have seen the debates and explanations. By now you should have seen the general rules of thumb of judging a tyre's rolling resistance. Note, "fast rolling" is a meaningless term bandied about in stupid bike magazines. Rolling resistance, as you should have seen here, is applicable to all surfaces. If a tyre has low RR for one surface, it has a low RR for all other surfaces.

Now, let's have that brand and model.

 

[bluenotebob]

I've just replaced my front tyre with a Continental 622x32. My LBS were quite enthusiastic about the tyre. It's early days - I've only cycled around 200km on it - but I have not experienced any reduction in speed on tarmac, and it looks like it'd eat gravel for breakfast.

 

[steveindenmark]

I've just replaced my front tyre with a Continental 622x32. My LBS were quite enthusiastic about the tyre. It's early days - I've only cycled around 200km on it - but I have not experienced any reduction in speed on tarmac, and it looks like it'd eat gravel for breakfast.

Which continental is it.?

 

[bluenotebob]

Which continental is it.?

I'm the least technically-minded person on this forum so forgive me if my response isn't very precise … the tyre is marked CONTACT PLUS, and the invoice says it's 700x32 (although the tyre itself is marked 622x32). I'm sure that the LBS told me that it was reinforced.

 

[Tigerbiten]

If you're doing a lot of very steep up/down hill runs on loose gravel then I can see a tyre being worn out very quickly.
The more the tyre slips on the surface, the quicker you'll wear it out.
I've worn a tyre out on the back of my recumbent trike in under 1,000 miles just from the amount of wheel slip on steep wet tarmac.
In that case go for a tyre that has a thick amount of rubber making up the tread.
That's the reason I get twice the distance before it's worn out from a Schwalbe Big Apple vs a more sporty type of tyre, roughly 8k-10k miles out of a BA vs around 4k-5k from a Schwalbe Marathon Supreme/Racer/Tryker.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

I'm not sure what "tough on gravel" means, but no tyre is not tough on gravel. Gravel doesn't eat tyres.

I suspect the OP is referring to cut resistance here. I've got a random pair of old 26" MTB tyres fitted to the bike I use for messing around on gravel and woods tracks on. Both tyres came with secondhand bikes. One is covered in small cuts caused by frequent contact with sharp objects, the other (rear) tyre has survived almost unscathed. The cut-up one is a very ratty looking and fairly worn no-name cheapo job, the one that shrugs off cuts is Trek branded. Neither tyre has suffered a p*ncture in the 500 miles I've ridden since fitting them, but the Trek one seems to be wearing less quickly than the no-name. I expect to change the ratty one in another 500 miles or so, the rear Trek one probably has at least a thousand miles more left in it than the front one at the current wear rate.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I suspect the OP is referring to cut resistance here. I've got a random pair of old 26" MTB tyres fitted to the bike I use for messing around on gravel and woods tracks on. Both tyres came with secondhand bikes. One is covered in small cuts caused by frequent contact with sharp objects, the other (rear) tyre has survived almost unscathed. The cut-up one is a very ratty looking and fairly worn no-name cheapo job, the one that shrugs off cuts is Trek branded. Neither tyre has suffered a p*ncture in the 500 miles I've ridden since fitting them, but the Trek one seems to be wearing less quickly than the no-name. I expect to change the ratty one in another 500 miles or so, the rear Trek one probably has at least a thousand miles more left in it than the front one at the current wear rate.

I suspect not. He uses "eat" times distance. Who knows what that means, but lets assume it is abrasion. No tyre gets abraded to a point of no use by any type of gravel. No gravel used by any roads company is made from a substance that produces a sharp enough edge to cut tyre rubber. Any cuts in there is from glass or other non-road materials.

He was looking for imaginary answers to imaginary problems.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

If you're doing a lot of very steep up/down hill runs on loose gravel then I can see a tyre being worn out very quickly.
The more the tyre slips on the surface, the quicker you'll wear it out.
I've worn a tyre out on the back of my recumbent trike in under 1,000 miles just from the amount of wheel slip on steep wet tarmac.
In that case go for a tyre that has a thick amount of rubber making up the tread.
That's the reason I get twice the distance before it's worn out from a Schwalbe Big Apple vs a more sporty type of tyre, roughly 8k-10k miles out of a BA vs around 4k-5k from a Schwalbe Marathon Supreme/Racer/Tryker.

I've never ridden a recumbant, so I can't say whether it is more prone to wheelspin that a bicycle or not. However, bicycles don't wheelspin enough for it to make any significant difference to tyre wear.

Also remember, a skid on gravel is not the same as a skid on tarmac. A skid on tarmac transfers rubber to the tarmac. You can see it. A skid on gravel, is gravel rolling underneath the tyre, with no (or any significant) loss of material.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

No gravel used by any roads company is made from a substance that produces a sharp enough edge to cut tyre rubber.

Beg you pardon (don't shout at me ) but years ago I got a puncture by a minuscule piece of very sharp flint.
This flint makes up about 500m of a local path, it is a kind of gravel.
Granted, the flint did not cut off a strip of my tyre (a Marathon Greenguard) but it cut through the rubber, ie left a hole.
I agree with:

No tyre gets abraded to a point of no use by any type of gravel.

but cuts yes, gravel can cause them.
@steveindenmark I suspect you can either have a sturdy tyre or a fast tyre.
Of course, what is fast? It's all relative.

 

[NorthernDave]

Schwalbe Land Cruisers?

I've got them on MX Sport and they seem a good balance between speed on tarmac and an ability to cope with the off roading I do..

Plus they're cheap as chips.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Schwalbe Land Cruisers?

I've got them on MX Sport and they seem a good balance between speed on tarmac and an ability to cope with the off roading I do..

Plus they're cheap as chips.

Not sure about them: I like the way they ride, but had 2 successive pairs that got lots of cuts plus resulting punctures, after only about 1,000 miles.
If you do a lot of Sustrain like surfaces, the Land Cruisers are a false economy imo.