As in skinnier? Or thinner walled/tread.

I assume you mean skinnier. It depends really it's all a balance. In the city you can get away with skinnier tires but you need more puncture protection cuz glass and shit. Gravel you can get away with less puncture but need to have more.volume cuz bumpy ride. MTB you need big knobs and big volume cuz off road grip and shit.

A skinnier tires isn't necessarily better. But for gravel and city yea you can get away with skinnier tires compared to true off road.

Anyways fuck you your question is dumb

For gravel and city I would run 28-38mm tires with a low tread profile or no tread. Could go bigger but I would stay away from lots of tread, since that will slow you down+wear quicker in the city.
Bigger tires allow less pressure and tend to be more puncture resistant.

"better" depends on the qualities you're looking for in a ride. For asphalt I'd say 28mm slicks, but there's a reason gravel bikes are all built for ~40mm, and on loose chunky gravel I'm more confident and comfortable on my 4.6".

>>1992231
i hate florida because there's all this super fine "sugar sand" that spills out into the road, shoulder and sidewalks and <28s are a deathtrap when you hit that shit while cornering at speed

>>1992231
for me it is 32mm

>>1992199
Depends on how comfortable you want your ride. Knobbies on the other hand are unnecessary on a bicycle for two reasons. One, a bike is not heavy enough for knobbies to dig into the ground and two, humans can't make wheels spin out. I wish we could. I would do burn it's all the time

>>1992287
Burnouts*

>>1992287
>humans can't make wheels spin out
Humans actually can, it's seems like more balancing technique than power
https://youtu.be/IS8MkdXP9O8
https://youtu.be/qVk-kZnhAco

>>1992247
Yeah, where I live in northern Europe this time of year the bike paths are coated with a loose layer of gravel left over from sanding the paths in the winter. That's definitely sketchy on road-slicks and I prefer my gravel bike until they swept that stuff up probably some time in June. Just serves to illustrate my point that "better" i entirely subjective to local riding conditions and rider strength, skill level, and personal preference.

>>1992249
That's fine.

>>1992287
>humans can't make wheels spin out
It's easy on ice. Particularly on icy hills. Knobs don't help. Studs do.

There is no reason to not use as wide a tire as possible wherever you go.

A Conti GP5000 25mm has 8W rolling resistance in perfect asphalt, a Continental Contact Urban 40mm has 18W rolling resistance. In less than perfect asphalt, the differences are even lower.

Hell, 47mm schwalbe fucking marathons at 5bar pressure have 20W rolling resistance. And then you can take the pressure down to 2bar for maximum comfort, and it will still be at 30W RR. You don't have this flexibility with smaller tires.

>>1992287
>One, a bike is not heavy enough for knobbies to dig into the ground and two
yeah those tire tracks in the dirt?
fake, a figment of my imagination
Try riding in the mud with slicks and report back on how well they do

>>1992308
Well, there's the clearance issue for one. Laid back non-judgmental retro-bro douchebags will be like "noooo you can't just use disc brakes! everything on your bike has to be 60 years old or I'll ask you how many races you won last year" and then act surprised when their 43mm rene hearse organic cotton tires won't fit

>>1992308
You don't actually know what you're talking about.

>>1992318
And you're going to let people get fooled by me and not grace us with your knowledge, I guess.

File: duty_calls_2x.png (21 KB, 601x659)

21 KB PNG

>>1992320
Yes, because arguing with yet another retard on the internet is a fool's errand.

>>1992323
Agreed, you'd just waste those couple minutes per ridden hour that you saved over your tire choice.

>>1992308
I agree. I trusted jan heine on this one and he was right.
>>1992318
he's right. please reread op. if we are talking about asphalt and gravel for city/commuting, you should go with the biggest tire you can get, and I even suggest plan for a frame with adequate 2,1" clearance, or go for the old 27,5" conversion trick. Of course we are talking about tires with beautiful supple profiles, not coarse high profile mtb tyres.

No, skinnier tires are better for one thing and one thing only, and that's rolling resistance at the expense of traction and comfort, hence why everyone obsessed with skinniness is either invested in competition road biking or an autismal minmaxer.

I bought a hybrid bike thinking I'd be fine with 40mm in the city, with a lot of people claiming you can comfortably use far less tire still, but the cobbles around here are so bumpy and slippery I'm now planning a new build with 60-65mm semi-slicks. Wider is always better unless you have a literal or metaphorical finish line to reach in the lowest time.

>>1992287
unnecessary? What da hell are you on about, go try and ride any MTB with 2 inch slicks and tell me how it goes.

less rolling resistance = better

large tires (2.25" ~ 57mm) are way better than skinnier on rough gravel, it's the difference between walking or floating over it at full speed.

>>1992407
>full carbon fatbike

why?

File: 1675274738273271.png (517 KB, 720x724)

517 KB PNG

>>1992407
Honestly probably a goofy ass ride I'd love to give er a spin

On the topic of tires, anyone recommend some fast 650b gravel tires in the >= 2.00in range?|

>>1993054
race kings
i think rocket rons come in a 650
gravelking slicks or rh if you want no knobs (both are 48mm/1.9" though), but rh does make a 2.2" knobby. not too sure about the rr of that one, but i rh tires feel a lot faster than gravelkings on smoother gravel.

>>1992199
Whatever you do, don't put on 1.75 inches tires. They are the most awful tires of all.
I lived years with them and i always looked at my builds with disgrace.

>>1992287
>humans can't make wheels spin out
i can do that easily if you shifting your weight too far forward when climbing for example

File: Schwalbe_G_One_RS_News_GF(...).jpg (65 KB, 810x540)

65 KB JPG

>>1993054
Schwalbe G-One RS it has the same rolling resistance as a slick

>>1992199
Pavement only: 28mm
Pavement and occasional nicely packed firm gravel: 32mm
Mix of pavement and bad condition gravel: 40mm
Casual mountain biking: 2"
Hardcore intense mountain biking: 2.3"
Downhill: 2.7" front 2.3" rear
Memes: 4.8"

>>1992287
retard

File: opt.jpg (927 KB, 1591x2048)

927 KB JPG

>>1992249
32mm is a good width, i currently run 38's which I find are better for comfort, sacrifice a little speed but the roads round here are dreadful and smooth surface is rare.

t. unracer

>>1996241
I officially diagnose you with autism, of the severe gay variety.

>>1992199
Pavement only: 37mm
Pavement and occasional nicely packed firm gravel:37mm
Mix of pavement and bad condition gravel: 37mm
Casual mountain biking: 1 3⁄8"
Hardcore intense mountain biking: 1 3⁄8""
Downhill: 1 3⁄8"" front 1 3⁄8"" rear
Memes: 23mm

>>1998886
tell me where "ballon" tires touched you
It's going to be okay

people suggesting sub 32s for gravel are larping

>>1992199
>Are thinner tires better for bikes that are used in the city
Storm drains

File: continental-ride-tour.jpg (79 KB, 920x754)

79 KB JPG

Let me guess, you "need" more?

>>1992200
There's something I've never understood as a commuter: how the fuck is grabbel not more prone to punctures? I'd say riding over thousands of fucking uneven harsh and potentially sharp ROCKS that have enough space between them to pimch rubber is more likely to give you puncturew than some smooth flat ass asphalt, but I know I'm wrong so please tell me why my intuition is incorrect

>>1999215
In the city you have broken glass(common), syringes, nails/screws/bolts, and other bad things.
Off road you have rocks(some sharp or round), thorns(bad near me), and generally harder impacts.

It's always better to go wider for puncture resistance. You need less pressure at a given weight and casing thickness, while the tire can deform around terrain so less pressure is on the nail/glass/thorn.

Then add in tubeless to refill small punctures and flats are almost a thing of the past.

For max puncture resistance I would go
>tubeless, largest tire I can fit, thickest/most durable casing, at a reasonable pressure.
non-pneumatic tires are aids so we won't talk about them.]
>>1999212
I "need" less
>t. 23c used tire enthusiast.

>>1999215
Gravel isn't as sharp as glass.

>>1999221
You don't have to state the obvious for retards, it's not as if they're capable of benefiting from it.

>>1999228
Well that wasn't a nice thing to say.

>>1999231
The less we shame morons the worst society becomes. Be "nice" to them at your own peril.

>>1992199
the only bikes that make sense are mountain bike
narrow tires are for insufferable cityfags

>>1999221
Well, I can sort of see your point, but many people like putting 3mms on their grabbels and I was wondering how that made any sense at all, and then you recommend wider tires which does make sense to me.

>>1999228
Are you implying cities have more glass than trails have sharp rocks and thorns? Because, again, a path with millions of tiny hard uneven rocks is more likely to contain a sharp object than a smooth colored bike lane where you might find ONE glass shard in kilometers, and where it would stand out anyway.
I might be a retard, but it sounds like you live in fucking Philadelphia.

>>1999310 here
Meant to reply to >>1999219

>>1999311
I was just stating the situation. On one side you could be in LA or oakland riding past homeless and that could be worse then me riding "gravel" which is really a smooth DG(decomposed granite) that has no sharp rocks.
Or you could be the guy going down rock gardens as his "gravel" compared to me riding on 1970's glass smooth tier bike trails.

I know gravel riding in the UK isn't the same gravel in the states. Same with even road riding, different states have different aggregate compounds that can be easier or harsher on tires. Look at chip seal for instance.

No, I live in california

>>1999310
>where you might find ONE glass shard in kilometers
You don't seem to understand how glass behaves. Nor people for that matter.
>and where it would stand out anyway.
lolno

>>1999310
Breh wtf are you on about? Cities are full of slicey shit. Rocks are just rocks

>>1999219
>t. 23c used tire enthusiast.
Why? Isn't it well established that tires that thin have only downsides when you compare them to 30-35mm wide tires

>>1999391
They ride different and sometimes I enjoy that. There is a particular section of clean, smooth bike trail that those tires just sing along wonderfully at.
I have other bikes with 28's and 33's on for when I want that. The 23's also show how much going from that to 28's helps.

>>1992247
That reminds me of a time when I was a kid where I found an ancient bike at a junk yard, it was one of those ones with the banana seats and everything. I took it around the block a few times and then went down a big hill at the end of my street with a semi busy road at he bottom , which is where I found out that the brakes didn't work. I ended up trying to make the turn and skidded on a sandbar left over from the winter road treatment. Shredded all the skin off of the right side of my leg, especially where my ankle and knee are.

>>1999391
They're lighter and faster on purely flat surfaces like a track, and cheaper since yea everyone moved on to 28's and up. Otherwise yea no real reasons lol

>>1992199
thin tyres are for aerofaggery
thick tyres are way better in the city unless you have nice smooth roads

>>1992407
based but fully slick slicks are kinda dumb cos you die the moment it rains
that bike but with a little tread would be amazing

>>1999212
those tyres tempt me alot
the tread pattern looks so nice but contis always feel slippery to me
and desu they dont come wide enough

>>1999567
>you die the moment it rains
Bullshit.

>>1999602
surely youd just slide around all over the place

>>1999604
>surely
Why do you speak if things you have no experience of?

>>1999571
I have used those tires (42-622) exclusively through every season for the past three years and I live in northern europe. During summer they roll very effortlessly because of the thin slick patch in the middle and during fall/winter/spring those side patterns sink into the snow/mud/soft ground and give excellent traction. Haven't had one flat yet and those tires only cost 20€/$. I wish they had reflective side walls like the slightly more expensive contact plus relfex tires which I plan to get next. These haven't shown any sign of wear yet so that might take a while

>>1999397
>>1999435
You must live in a nice rich area that has well maintained roads because otherwise tires that narrow are pretty harsh to ride on. But when everything is just right, it feels great.

>>1999619
i guess i havnt ridden slicks in the wet but have you?
post with bread on the seat or its a picture you got from reddit

>>1999622
i wanna get the whitewalls

>>1999628
You can get those in 47mm width which should be wide enough for just about anything

File: s-l960xdfadfdf.jpg (64 KB, 960x960)

64 KB JPG

>>1999636
thats narrow as fuck for me i need 2inches++
i have a mountain bike i wanna get some wide 26 inch semi slicks on and tyre clearance is basically not an issue at all on this frame and fork
i could get 3 inch wide tyres on if i could find any
2.4 shwalbe supermotos are my current best option ive found

>>1999644
do you ride exclusively on trails?

>>1999654
i have big nobbies for offroad already
these are for the road and pavements and some offroading when theres less mud

>>1999644
You got the right idea.
>>1999623
I do. Admittedly I stand for sections that are bad, and I slow down for wooden plank bridges if the tires are 25 or smaller. Yeah they just feel really nice on the smooth flat sections.
I wouldn't run them everyday for commuting, that's for sure.

>>1999669
>these are for the road and pavements and some offroading when theres less mud
42-47mm width is optimal for this use case though. Since you're putting the wheels on a mountain bike that probably has suspension so you don't need that much headroom for lower pressures to make your ride more comfortable, what's your reasoning behind all this? Do you just want more strength training out of your rides by riding a fatbike on pavement?

>>1999332
>>1999354
Move out of Detroit.

>>1999675
it doesnt have suspension
reasoning?
i just dont like skinny tyres
i have some 1.5 marathons they feel wrong for my bike and riding style and the state of uk roads

>>1999675
oh also il be running high pressures to keep the rolling down unless im going offroad with them but thats not rly what these are for they dont look like they would handle mud well
its not a fatbike also just an mtb

>>1999709
>uk roads
ahh. Found the issue. Also marathons are super stiff as well..... so they ride harsh.
Currently I run one 26 rigid mtb with a 1.5 up front and a 1.9 out back. Works pretty good for mostly road and light dry dirt. However my roads are probably better then yours, and if you do lots of offroad or just dirt road bigger is better.
>>1999683
>it's just detroit
heh, hahahah.
sigh

>>1999712
yeahh even road riding is offroading here
i find myself skittering about on all the grvel and mud puddles and stuff all over the roads on the marathons and decided that the flicky feeling in corner entry wasnt worth it for the lack of grip
thats the only advantage i can feel too i dont think narrower is faster

>>1999714
Narrower is faster and I can generally hear it. Even fat slicks sing more and have more rolling resistance.
However that doesn't really matter unless you want max efficiency or are racing. The comfort is worth it in many cases anyways going with larger tires

>>1999712
Never got a flat on my daily 20km commute in Zurich.

>>1999716
i think theyre faster when you consider the higher cornering grip
its very hilly around where i live though so thats just me

>>1999740
Could be true. I have had decent grip with 23's and larger but I take it easy since I am mostly on bike trails where dog walkers/hamplanets, and other obstacles can appear around corners.

Redpill me on running a wider tyre in the back than on the front.

>>1999868
More grip for offroading, and my favorite. More cushy ride for bad roads or heavy impacts.
Narrow front could be for "aero" gains or lighter weight. Since narrow tires are both lighter, and with narrow rims more aero.
IMO if I was buying new tires I would just get the largest that don't rub/send road grit into your paint.

>>1999868
Why would you? Typically the wider tyre goes in the front for better steering traction.

>muh rolling resistance
>muh watts
>muh grams
If you can't go fast from mere 20W of rolling resistance and you are a gram minmaxing cuck, you're a leglet and should start doing squats until you hit 2 plates.

>>1999925
okay, okay, okay.
so are you a big or thin tire guy?

>>1992199
Define thinner.

Current good standard is to run slick tubeless tires between 28 and 34 can go up to 40 for gravel.

>>1999683
Step into any major city in America and witness the glass
Hell step onto a college campus.om a Saturday

>>1999741
yeah when im offroad im going way slower
i just have the tyres with the biggest knobs i can get to churn through mud
on the road im going 45mph down hills or 2mph up them so i think for me the wider the better
i get wobbles on my 1.5s lol
>>1999868
motorcycles do it
front wheel should be slightly taller as well as narrower
the effect this actually has on the bike is complicated and subjective but its completely standard for motorcycles so mountainbikers saying it feels better kinda feels right
i havnt tried a mullet myself tho so idk
>>1999917
i have never heard of anyone doing that
>>1999927
he rides an ancient mtb with the chain rusted and the tyres flat
its stuck in one gear
>>1999951
under 1.9 inch is thin over 2.10 is big
to me at least
>>1999955
wait till you see the uk
theres pieces of scrap metal all around the edges of roads in places