|700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||johnrossi808|
Mar 11, 2001 9:18 PM
|Are there any riders still using 20mm tires? I have been using 23mm's but now that I need new tires, I may get the 20's. I would like to know about their durability and longevity. Thanks in advance|
|re: 700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||slbenz|
Mar 12, 2001 6:51 AM
|I am currently riding with 700x20 Michelin Hi-Lite Prestige tires bought from Performance Bicycles for under $20.00 each. So far I have 450 miles on them which include some roller training time. The tires have worn extremely well, much better than their 1999 version. Knock on wood, no flats as of yet. Can't tell the difference on ride quality or rolling resistance vs. my previous tire a Continental Ultra 3000, 700x23. As a training tire, it's a great value. Hope this helps.|
|20's vs 23's||PsyDoc|
Mar 12, 2001 10:51 AM
|I rode 20's for probably 6-8 years and I just recently switched to 23's. I cannot say that I notice a "real" difference in rolling resistance, but I did notice a difference in the ride quality. The bumps were not as "J-A-R-R-I-N-G" as they were with the 20's. Because I just switched about 3-4 months ago, I cannot speak to the durability and longevity of the 23's. But, I can tell you that with the 20's they wore very well and, because I used tire liners, flats were not an issue. Once, I did pinch a tube when I was changing out tires. I find changing tires with the 23's is much easier than with the 20's, IMHO.|
|20's vs 23's||Von Zip|
Mar 12, 2001 5:10 PM
|I've ridden the 20's for years and prefer this tire to most others.
The tire in question is a grand prix contintental(spelling?)
|re: 700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||Stevo|
Mar 13, 2001 6:03 AM
|There is good engineering that says that with all other variables being equal, the wider the tire is, the less rolling resistance that tire will provide. Note however that wider usually means heavier.
I have riden 20's for years until just recently. Now I have a Michelin Pro axial 23 on the rear and have a Hi-Lite super hd 20 on front. When the front requires replacement I probably will go to 23.
|re: 700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||Nate|
Mar 13, 2001 8:10 PM
|I've been riding a pair of Continental Gran Prix's with about 2,000 miles on them. Changing out flats is harder on the hands (and tubes if you're not careful), but the psi you can put in these things tends to negate snake-bites, etc. and they seem to roll a little faster than when I've put 23's on.|
|re: 700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||BC|
Mar 14, 2001 5:00 PM
|Hey, the wider tires are better because it has a shorter contact patch, therefore it takes less effort per revolution to turn. As far as the people not having really huge tires that goes into aerodynamics and weight. Get either 23 or 25, save the 20's for really hilly rides.|
|Thanks to all who replied (NM)||johnrossi808|
Mar 14, 2001 7:36 PM
|re: 700 X 20 vs 700 X 23||Jon(unregistered)|
Mar 15, 2001 8:19 AM
|I've only been riding road for a year, but everything I've read says that wider has less rolling resistance (due to a shorter contact patch, and thus less tire flex) and corners better, due to a larger contact patch. Of course, there's a limit to the benefits, and the wider you go, the more the tire weighs, so the 23mm seems to be the best compromise. |
I might pick up some 20's for time trials and really hilly stuff, but for crits, I feel better with more rubber on the ground through all those corners.
As someone mentioned below, the Michelin Hi-Lite Prestige is a great tire, and you can get them for ~$20 at Performance. Maybe get 2 20's and 2 23's, and test them yourself? Plus, that way you've got rubber for any event save cobblestones. Jon.