Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - How to shop for long distance tires?

Rather than simply ask "which tire", I want to know what attributes I should consider when shopping for tires intended for long distance.

I'm very familiar with all-winter and city tire qualities (love my schwalbe marathons when riding in south Seattle). For that usage it was worth losing 2-3mph to go 16 months with only 1 flat.

Most people tell me that "comfort" is the key. I don't disagree, but I'm planning on a double century and even the RAMROD this summer - so I don't want ultra plush touring grade tires that will slow me down, or add a lot of extra resistance.

I've got a steel frame and nice saddle, and usually run sensible 25mm like Vittoria Rubinos and something equivalent. I might be able to squeeze 28s, but that's the limit.

Should I just "man-up" and deal with the harshness of "race" style tires in the hope I'll move a little quicker?

Thoughts?
Thanks

-Sean

Well. This is an interesting question. The harshness of "race" style tires is quicker for a time. When doing a double though, that harshness is going to sap a ton of energy out of you so the quickness of the tires is going to be nullified. That said I've been running Conti GP four seasons, both 25mm and 28mm depending on what I'm doing. I also run Vittoria Open Pave EVO CG that run 24mm and can't say enough about the ride quality. The Conti's so far have been bullet proof and I run them at 110/120 front/rear. The Vittoria's are fast and fantastic wet weather tires. I run them at 115/130 front/rear.

I don't like flats, and I'm a very heavy rider (250 pounds) so I've opted for what I consider to be the middle ground on all options: Conti 28mm UltraGatorskins.

They're great for flat resistance. They're not a super harsh ride, even running them at 112psi, which is enough to keep them from feeling like a 32mm touring tire. I've had no problem with them on anything from my daily 30 mile r/t commute, to the Big Time 100k (which went over some really bad roads), and even STP as a one-day double or the SiR 300k a couple weekends ago.

Assuming it'd fit, I wonder how a Conti GPxxxx in a 28mm would feel. I didn't realize they ran so big.
Thanks

Assuming it'd fit, I wonder how a Conti GPxxxx in a 28mm would feel. I didn't realize they ran so big.
Thanks


Loverly.

Rather than simply ask "which tire", I want to know what attributes I should consider when shopping for tires intended for long distance.

I'm very familiar with all-winter and city tire qualities (love my schwalbe marathons when riding in south Seattle). For that usage it was worth losing 2-3mph to go 16 months with only 1 flat.

Most people tell me that "comfort" is the key. I don't disagree, but I'm planning on a double century and even the RAMROD this summer - so I don't want ultra plush touring grade tires that will slow me down, or add a lot of extra resistance.

I've got a steel frame and nice saddle, and usually run sensible 25mm like Vittoria Rubinos and something equivalent. I might be able to squeeze 28s, but that's the limit.

Should I just "man-up" and deal with the harshness of "race" style tires in the hope I'll move a little quicker?

Thoughts?
Thanks

-Sean

There's a fellow up your way who has done a lot of research on rolling resistance, and claims wide is no slower. He recommends Grand Boes tires - which apparently worked well for him when he rode PBP in 2007 and was one of the very first finishers.

conti 4 seasons gp for me, in 28mm (26.6 or 27 measured on rims).
working well.
i've also used pasela (non tour guard) in 32mm.

will be trying some gbs this year, and some pasela in a narrower width to fit fenders.


really depends on many many things.
ride quality is one thing - but durability is another.
going on 3 seasons, no road flats on the gp 4 seasons (cursed myself now). that includes gravel, dirt, and what they call pavement up here.

do you ride in the gutter, or are you comfortable taking your share of the road?
goatheads where you live?
lots of glass and other nastiness?
your weight, luggage, etc...

you'll probalby need to try a few brands before you settle on something. i have 2 friends that ride the gb's and they love em - really wide too. another just mounted up some challenger's - so far he likes em.

In general I just don't have much experience riding longer than 7-8 hours at a time. Like everything else, I suppose I have to learn from experience which tires work for double centuries in the areas I ride.

I have met a few of those PBP guys at our local Bike Expo and take very seriously what they have to say about all things bike related. I'm tempted to experiment with 28s on my road bike and will see how it works out.

There's some nasty chip-seal around here, and I'm convinced it can be more work riding 23s @ 120+psi than 25s @ 90-100psi. The pavement is so bumpy, that the rock hard skinny tires are constantly bouncing, whereas a fatter contact patch seems to keep moving forward. Maybe that's my perception, but I'm sticking with it until proven otherwise :)

Thanks for the feedback.
-Sean

I've been playing with tires as well. My general thoughts are (for me):

Commuting, 26 miles one way: I can tolerate almost anything. I did recent switch from at a 28 @ 90# to a 23 @ #115 on the same bike. The difference is notable in riding feel and I do get more road feedback through the 23s which is not necessarily a good thing. The 23s aren't as harsh I remembered though. I firmly believe that there is no objective measure that matters that would tell me running a tire high pressure is better than a lower pressure on this commute. My average speed remains the same.

Rando bike, at this point 12 hours in the saddle once per week: I insist on 28s at 90 - 100#. I ran a set of 23 @ 130# (rough roads dictated the pressure) for 60 miles a few weeks ago and was ready to sell the bike and take up armchair quarterbacking. Once again I challenge anyone who is not in the top .1% of cyclists in the world to show me objective evidence that running skinny high pressure tires is better than larger tire at low pressure.

Later,
HB

I should consider when shopping for tires intended for long distance.I don't know what a "long distance" tire would be. I do try and consider what kind of route and roads I am going and then choose the wheels, cassette ratios, and tires according to whether or not pace or durability is the bigger factor.

At my age, I've pretty much settled into the 25mm crowd. I often run super heavy cheap tires, mostly because they lasts longer and costs less. Vittoria Zafiro, Conti -Ultrasport etc.....

maybe i'm not paying real close attention to the ride?? i buy tires that are on sale, ride them until the cuts are accumulating, or the flats are an issue. almost always i will have some concerning cuts before the flats are a problem. i do know that i could milk them for more miles, but when on a brevet, the last thing i want is to spend more time with a pump in my hand.

i used to ride only conti's, but they are sooo soft, and cut so easily. i've ridden generics with good luck, and now have bontragers on the bike, and find them to be more durable than any other tire i've rolled on in the past several thousand miles.

bottom line for me is that i can feel little or difference between 23's, as much as i can in pressures or the difference between 23's and 25's.

There have been a couple of times when a bigger tire would probably have been nice. One 200k ended with a ride through Phillipsburg NJ, and the roads were jarring for a few too many miles. New chip seal is less than inviting on smaller tires. I'm currently running 25mm in the back, and 23 in the front. Maybe I should up-size the front. I seem to have less rolling resistance than a lot of the people I ride with that seem to be running 23mm.

USAZorro alluded to the tests of Jan Heine/Bicycle Quarterly. Those tests certainly seem to provide better real-world results than the typical testing done by the tire manufacturers, and I personally hold them to be the best word, so far.

In a nutshell, the findings indicate that all things being equal, a fatter tire has lower rolling resistance than a skinnier one. As an illustration they tested three identical tires with the only variable being width, and found that the widest had lowest rolling resistance and the narrowest had the highest rolling resistance. This is not necessarily showing which tire is fastest, however, as wider usually means heavier, as well. At a steady pace on a flat road, the wider tire will most likely be faster -- but if you're in a criterium, maybe it won't.

It's also worth noting that tire construction seems to play a very large part, and sometimes it's impossible to "intuit" which is which. I used the Rivendell "Rolly-Polly" tires for a while and definitely felt very slow on them. This was later borne out by the BQ testing, which found them to be among the worst for rolling resistance. But to look at them you'd see no reason to believe they'd be worse than any other tire.

Ultimately I do not know of any solid way to compare the speed of various tires other than A) reading valid test results, and B) trying them yourself under at least somewhat controlled conditions; ie. coasting down various hills in the company of other cyclists of known speed. Just making the blanket statement of "Narrower/higher pressure is faster" -- or vice-versa -- is a mistake.

USAZorro alluded to the tests of Jan Heine/Bicycle Quarterly. Those tests certainly seem to provide better real-world results than the typical testing done by the tire manufacturers, and I personally hold them to be the best word, so far.

In a nutshell, the findings indicate that all things being equal, a fatter tire has lower rolling resistance than a skinnier one. As an illustration they tested three identical tires with the only variable being width, and found that the widest had lowest rolling resistance and the narrowest had the highest rolling resistance. This is not necessarily showing which tire is fastest, however, as wider usually means heavier, as well. At a steady pace on a flat road, the wider tire will most likely be faster -- but if you're in a criterium, maybe it won't.

It's also worth noting that tire construction seems to play a very large part, and sometimes it's impossible to "intuit" which is which. I used the Rivendell "Rolly-Polly" tires for a while and definitely felt very slow on them. This was later borne out by the BQ testing, which found them to be among the worst for rolling resistance. But to look at them you'd see no reason to believe they'd be worse than any other tire.

Ultimately I do not know of any solid way to compare the speed of various tires other than A) reading valid test results, and B) trying them yourself under at least somewhat controlled conditions; ie. coasting down various hills in the company of other cyclists of known speed. Just making the blanket statement of "Narrower/higher pressure is faster" -- or vice-versa -- is a mistake.

and there is much to be said for 'feel'.
i've been running the same brand and width of tires for 3 years.
when i have them over inflated, i know it (and usually live with it for awhile).
when i have them dialed in, i feel it.
i also 'feel' fast on them when their pressure calibrates in my mind (and to my weight, the terrain, etc.) - way faster than when they are over inflated or i run a narrow width or brand.

i'm curious to try some GBs - 2 of my fleche teammates ran them on our 60 mile gravel / dirt ride today, they love them so much they keep them on for all sorts of terrain / conditions. they 'feel' like nothing else they've ridden.


composition and construction definitely plays a role. prior to really paying attention to tires i went from some conti 23mm go fast tires to some schwalbe marathon 28s on my rando rig. those 28s were hard, puncture resistant lined, and felt all wrong. i gave them a good while so that i could get used to them - but understanding how they were made and what they were made for better informed my next purchase choice. i sold those tires with a touring rig, where they belong in my mind... and moved to a softer, far more supple road tire. what a difference! and i've had about the same performance in flat protection...

i think the best way to figure this stuff out is to listen to other riders who do similar distance / races / tours / etc. in the terrain and region you are riding. narrow down the choices to what seems to be popular, throw in some internet research and try 2-3 different sets over a season or two. at one time i was running 2 sets of wheels with different tires... they both felt different, but were for different applications...

i think the best way to figure this stuff out is to listen to other riders who do similar distance / races / tours / etc. in the terrain and region you are riding. narrow down the choices to what seems to be popular, throw in some internet research and try 2-3 different sets over a season or two. at one time i was running 2 sets of wheels with different tires... they both felt different, but were for different applications... One interesting note to come from Jan Heine's research is the claim that tire "feel" can be misleading. He believes that many tires "feel" fast primarily because they pass along high frequency vibrations. Tires that don't were/are often subjectively rated as "slow" even though the test results say otherwise. I think he might have something there, m'self.

At any rate, I definitely understand the enthusiasm for some of the Grand Bois tires. The 700x30 "Cypres" I had were really, really nice tires, coming close to the feel of the perfect old 27mm Clement Campione del Mondo tubulars I used to love so much. It's just too bad they (the GBs) were so puncture prone. I do note that they are now available in 26mm diameter, however. I might have to try some if I ever get around to building the single speed...

Have any of you tried Bontrager Race Lite Hardcases? I've got the 23mm model on the road bike I'm starting to use for brevets. No flats in recent memory, and they feel nice to me, but I've never had high-end racing tires to compare them to.

Have any of you tried Bontrager Race Lite Hardcases? I've got the 23mm model on the road bike I'm starting to use for brevets. No flats in recent memory, and they feel nice to me, but I've never had high-end racing tires to compare them to.

I've ridden on 25's, 28's and now 32's. They are a bit harsher than the competition but they are super reliable and I have to try to get a flat (I tried the other day, it wasn't easy). I'm a big fan, espcially since the LBS always has some on sale ;).

I've used the hardcases.

My major beef with them is that they just don't have enough gription to suit me, especially under wet or sketchy conditions.

They generally wear well, but; I've also had a couple self destruct, plies separating, massive debris damage.. not sure if it's QC or just bad luck.

You can do better for the price IMO.

One interesting note to come from Jan Heine's research is the claim that tire "feel" can be misleading. He believes that many tires "feel" fast primarily because they pass along high frequency vibrations. Tires that don't were/are often subjectively rated as "slow" even though the test results say otherwise. I think he might have something there, m'self.


I agree. Something that buzzes my ass and hands all day long never felt fast for me, even before I started to drink the wider is better kool aid. What feels right to me is supple, smooth, and buzz free rolling on various surfaces.

I wish they'd do another test - powermeter on the bike, closed course, relatively flat, no wind day. Same rider, same bike, same wheels (which I don't think they kept with in the original article). Rider puts out consistent power after a rolling start (say in the range of 100 - 150 watts over 6 miles?) and they analyze the speed over the course... or rider puts out consistent speed and they analyze the power output over the course. Either option would have to blind out part of the data from the rider... but the power output information over the course would be enlightening.

Anyway, rolling down a hill on mixed sets of wheels doesn't seem like the most scientific way to do the test... but it does start to point in interesting directions.

All this talk of tire selection reminds me of a thread from a while back where a guy was asking about why he couldn't keep up with roadies on his mountain bike with its big tires. I posted this explanation in response... (I've clipped some of the thread specific stuff to make this more coherent without reading the entire thread that led up to this post. Pardon me if it seems a little schizophrenic.) I hope that this information gives you a little more insight into how to choose your tires to match your goals.


Ahhhhh... As an engineer, I love these threads! There are many factors that impact your speed, but you have to make concessions to get there.



For decades aircraft designers have known that a tire's contact patch size is a function of effective load and tire pressure. Lighter loads or higher pressures yield a smaller contact patch... Tire width has NOTHING to do with contact patch size. Width determines shape of the contact patch, but not size.



The rotational weight of the tire won't impact top speed once the rider has overcome the tire's inertia and gotten it rolling at speed. That's why a heavier tire makes it difficult to accelerate quickly to grab the tail of that group... inertia puts the brakes on you. But that extra tire weight is far from irrelevant. More weight enlarges that contact patch and makes it harder to maintain speed, even on a flat stretch. Why?



We know that tire width has nothing to do with the SIZE of the contact patch... so where is the difference? It's in the SHAPE that the difference lies. A wide tire will have a short but wide contact area, and a skinny tire will use a thin but loooong patch. And both tires will deflect and squish down to put that rubber on the road lengthwise. In other words, the sidewall has to deflect and bend enough to let that tread patch touch enough of its length to complete the contact patch. The thinner the tire, the more the sidewall has to deflect along its length. So a thin tire with heavy loads (more weight) or low pressures will be very inefficient because that sidewall deflection eats up energy like crazy. That's why most thin tires run high pressures... to minimize contact area and consequently minimize energy wasted overcoming tire deflection.

This sounds counterintuitive, but: A wide tire will be more efficient than a thin tire running AT THE SAME PRESSURE.

This works because the wide contact patch of a wide tire requires less sidewall deflection along its length in order to create a given size patch. Less energy wasted. The problem is that wide tires normally run at much lower pressures... and what do low pressures give us? Bigger contact patches... and more sidewall deflection. As a matter of fact, most heavier riders will be able to ride faster and longer on 25's or 27's than on those 20 or 23C's that the high zoot racing bikes come equipped with.

If we could find 2 inch wide tires running at 140PSI we'd be in business. They wouldn't accelerate for crap, but you could push those babies at speed all day long!

So to sum it all up:

It's all about the weight and tires on your bike. The rotating weight prevents you from accelerating to catch onto the group... and then those fat low pressure tires suck your tanks dry trying to keep up at speed. And that heavy mountain bike frame creates big contact patches to suck away even more energy.

So physics shows us how tire width should impact your performance, but that doesn't take the actual construction of the tire into account. Despite that shortcoming, the concepts in this analysis generally hold true.

They generally wear well, but; I've also had a couple self destruct, plies separating, massive debris damage.. not sure if it's QC or just bad luck.

You just jogged my memory. I had the plies separate on one a few years ago.

Hydrated, do you have any idea at what weight (body and bike) does the 25 or 28 make sense over the 20 or 23?

Thanks.


I hope that this information gives you a little more insight into how to choose your tires to match your goals.

Hydrated, don't you think that this talk of acceleration, rolling resistance, and sidewall flex is mostly tilting at windmills within the normal bounds of our performance and machinery? Certainly there is a calculable effect on acceleration as tires get heavier, however, given the glacial accelerations of bicycles what's the difference anyway? I think in your example the effect of using the wrong machine for the job, a mountain bike with huge tires trying to keep up with roadies, becomes an overriding factor. Wind is the #1 enemy.



This sounds counterintuitive, but: A wide tire will be more efficient than a thin tire running AT THE SAME PRESSURE.
I think this is quite intuitive and slightly misleading. This is another boundary condition. Could I run a 23 at 85#/in^2 just like I do a 28? No, not for long anyway. The soon to be formed snake bite puncture would wreck the rolling resistance of that 23. ;)




So physics shows us how tire width should impact your performance, but that doesn't take the actual construction of the tire into account. Despite that shortcoming, the concepts in this analysis generally hold true.

Physics, yes, it is real. Real world importance? I say no.
A direct data example:
I ride 26 miles one way on my commute. I spend between seven and nine minutes waiting at stoplights over that commute. Would a tire change reduce my commute time enough to show up with that level of variability? :innocent:

Another:
Last night I rode home. My average speed dropped to 15.1 mph from 16.0. Was it my tires as I'm playing with some 23s to torture test some wheels I just built? No, it was the first really hot day since sometime last year. The temperature was in the 90s after riding for months in the 50s and 60s. I was getting my butt kicked by the weather. :)

What's my point here? I think these discussions are interesting but almost always lack a real world result. If we were all one hour record contenders operating at the limits of human power output maybe the little bitty differences in tires and pressures would add up. For most of us, just putting in more seat time would make a bigger difference in our speed than all the tires in the world.

Later,
HB

You must be a PNW rider. Good few of those on here. So it's 1-day STP and then RAMROD. STP has some bad pavement near the start and in the 100-105 mile section, but mostly it's very nice. Pavement on RR is mostly nice except for the descent of Cayuse, but you won't be sitting kerplunk on your saddle for the worst of that anyway. Watch the tricky left hander on the descent of Mud Mountain Dam.

Folks I ride with talk tires a good bit. I'd say the #1 thing they like is good road feel. It used to be that you had to ride sew-ups to get it, but modern high pressure clinchers can be very good. #2 would be how easily they cut, which is usually the opposite of #1. #3 would be speed, mostly because if you've got #1 you probably also have #3.

I run Vredestein Tricomps, 23c, at 140 lbs. They very good at #1 and #3, and good at #2 when new. They are fast, and don't beat me up at all, even on a 400. I notice nothing, except on really bad, broken chipseal. Of course the pain in one's legs is always a distraction. So if you always ride really bad, broken chipseal, go with those 28s at a lower pressure. For decent roads, nothing beats a narrow, well built high pressure tire. That's the reason that's all you'll ever see at the races. I ride one heavy aluminum frame, and one light carbon frame. Good results on both bikes. Caveat: I ride saddles which have some padding. If your saddle has no padding, you might notice the small stuff more.

I most commonly see 23c Conti 4000 (completely different tire than the old crappy 3000) and Michelin Pro2 Race, and a few Vredesteins on early brevet finishers here in the PNW. A very knowledgeable friend insists that the Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX is the fastest tire with the best feel, though a bit delicate. Probably wonderful when new. On sale right now at Nashbar!

Hydrated, do you have any idea at what weight (body and bike) does the 25 or 28 make sense over the 20 or 23?

I don't really know... and I'd think that it would be difficult to quantify because of all the other factors that come into play. As a matter of fact, things like frame geometry, frame material, tire construction, road surface, and rider fitness would have a far greater effect on your efficiency than tire width.


Hydrated, don't you think that this talk of acceleration, rolling resistance, and sidewall flex is mostly tilting at windmills within the normal bounds of our performance and machinery? Certainly there is a calculable effect on acceleration as tires get heavier, however, given the glacial accelerations of bicycles what's the difference anyway?

I agree that the discussion is largely theoretical, but not inconsequential. Many people complain that a given tire or tire size has terrible "road feel" or it doesn't accelerate well. You can feel the acceleration with a lightweight wheelset and tires... physics. We can't easily quantify the effects, but you can feel it. Don't tell me you can't!


I think this is quite intuitive and slightly misleading. This is another boundary condition. Could I run a 23 at 85#/in^2 just like I do a 28? No, not for long anyway. The soon to be formed snake bite puncture would wreck the rolling resistance of that 23. ;)

You kind of missed my point here... I was simply trying to get people to stop thinking that wider tires are slower because they are wide. They tend to be slower because they are heavier and run at lower pressure. That is why I made the statement about trying to find 2" tires that run at 140PSI...


Physics, yes, it is real. Real world importance? I say no.
A direct data example:
I ride 26 miles one way on my commute. I spend between seven and nine minutes waiting at stoplights over that commute. Would a tire change reduce my commute time enough to show up with that level of variability? :innocent:

I disagree with you on the physics thing being of no importance. Sure, you may not feel an Earth-shattering change in your bike's feel... but add up those little things. When I've been riding my heavy beast of a commuter all week, and my weekend aluminum ride feels like an anti-gravity bike... that's the compiled result of all those small differences. That's physics at work.

As for your commute example... you missed the point again. We were talking about choosing tires for long distance rides, not commutes. I'd doubt that many of us ride brevets where we end up spending very much time waiting for lights. But physics can make your ride more fun anyways... how many riders have you seen brag about how fast their new light weight wheels feel when they're spooling up from a stop? That is the physics at work, Bro. Inertia kills! :cry:


What's my point here? I think these discussions are interesting but almost always lack a real world result. If we were all one hour record contenders operating at the limits of human power output maybe the little bitty differences in tires and pressures would add up. For most of us, just putting in more seat time would make a bigger difference in our speed than all the tires in the world.

I agree and disagree here... I agree that there are soooo many things that we should worry about before tire width will have a meaningful effect on your ride times. Training, nutrition, and hydration will be far more important than whether you run a 23mm or 32mm tire.

But I disagree on your discounting these effects because we aren't world class racers. Don't you think that the effects that I talked about will add up over the course of a 40 hour ride? That sidewall flex that bled off that tiny bit of energy with every rotation of that wheel adds up over 400K or 600K.

The real purpose of my post was to get people thinking about why tires work the way that they do... most people don't think about the underlying science of why they choose a tire. If you know why the tires act like they do, then you can choose the right tire for your goals...

USAZorro alluded to the tests of Jan Heine/Bicycle Quarterly. Those tests certainly seem to provide better real-world results than the typical testing done by the tire manufacturers, and I personally hold them to be the best word, so far.

in addition to this, i can attest that many of our fastest randos (including Jan) ride something bigger than a 32, with PSI around 50-60..

i can attest that it isn't slowing anyone down around here.

i use 25's or 28's sometimes, and i think the difference is noticeable in terms of a softer ride even going from 23's to 25's. it isn't so much the increased contact surface, it's the fact that you can run them at lower PSIs. i run my 25's at about 90 psi, but i could probably roll just as fast (and more comfortably) at 80 or so.

Grand Bois tires have a reputation for not lasting long, but I like hte one's i'ved used. fwiw BQ sells some GB's in size 26, might be worth trying out.

in the end, STP & Ramrod aren't really all that rough, but (i think) the distance is enough that extra comfort is worth more than perceived (or real) speed.

then again, 99% of riders on those rides will be on 23's (and a good portion of PBP finishers were as well).

in the end, STP & Ramrod aren't really all that rough, but (i think) the distance is enough that extra comfort is worth more than perceived (or real) speed.

then again, 99% of riders on those rides will be on 23's (and a good portion of PBP finishers were as well).

I volunteered at RAMROD last year to earn my bypass. One of the guys I was working with told me he was riding on 23mm sew-up tubulars. He claimed they were more puncture resistant that other "race" tires". That struck me as rather impractical, but this dude has into high-end stuff. Not just bikes, but boats, sports cars, watches, etc.

Aside from messing with my bars/STI lever positions, I've got my bike dialed in comfortably. I've got a smooth steel frame, a couple saddles to choose between, including a B-17 special - but I've learned comfort is relative. I've had gloves feel good for 50 miles, shoes for 80, and my neck only start hurting after 120 miles.

I do agree that you can feel, somehow, the changes in pressure, size, and tire type. I would not argue against that and it's part of the fun of ridding a bike. You can feel everything! That is the reason I don't like Forte' tires (the Performance house brand) for example. I just don't like the way that they "feel." I will not agree that the physics of rolling resistance are of any consequence to objectively quantifiable end results. The reason I say this is, there are other factors whose influence is far greater than the tires you ride.

You know, the commute is the point though. I only get to steady state for shot periods of time unlike many of my long rides where I may have the chance to ride for miles and miles at a more or less steady state. You know what the acceleration is at steady state... So the wheels and the weight should matter on the commute, right? Turns out they get completely overshadowed by a dozen more significant effects just like they would on a brevet.

I do think the effect on the rider of vibration and pounding from running too much pressure add up over the course of even a 200k. That is one of the boundaries. Another boundary is too little tire pressure where you get snake bites or the tires start to feel squirmy in corners. Stay between those boundaries and you'll have a tough time showing a compelling end result argument.

It comes down to a choice of preference, not science. People ride what they like ultimately. My bottom line is couching the discussion in engineering terms only tends to elevate the perception of importance of something that really doesn't matter.

Now if we could just sort out bladed versus carbon tube spokes we'd have something here....:thumb:

Cheers,
HB

Hydrated, don't you think that this talk of acceleration, rolling resistance, and sidewall flex is mostly tilting at windmills within the normal bounds of our performance and machinery? Certainly there is a calculable effect on acceleration as tires get heavier, however, given the glacial accelerations of bicycles what's the difference anyway? I think in your example the effect of using the wrong machine for the job, a mountain bike with huge tires trying to keep up with roadies, becomes an overriding factor. Wind is the #1 enemy.


I think this is quite intuitive and slightly misleading. This is another boundary condition. Could I run a 23 at 85#/in^2 just like I do a 28? No, not for long anyway. The soon to be formed snake bite puncture would wreck the rolling resistance of that 23. ;)




Physics, yes, it is real. Real world importance? I say no.
A direct data example:
I ride 26 miles one way on my commute. I spend between seven and nine minutes waiting at stoplights over that commute. Would a tire change reduce my commute time enough to show up with that level of variability? :innocent:

Another:
Last night I rode home. My average speed dropped to 15.1 mph from 16.0. Was it my tires as I'm playing with some 23s to torture test some wheels I just built? No, it was the first really hot day since sometime last year. The temperature was in the 90s after riding for months in the 50s and 60s. I was getting my butt kicked by the weather. :)

What's my point here? I think these discussions are interesting but almost always lack a real world result. If we were all one hour record contenders operating at the limits of human power output maybe the little bitty differences in tires and pressures would add up. For most of us, just putting in more seat time would make a bigger difference in our speed than all the tires in the world.

Later,
HB

Some tires offer more than 'itty bitty' differences.
And while your commute time is relevant to you - stretch that out to a 400k, 600k, or 1200k. Minutes might become hours.

If a tire saves .5% to 1% of my potential power output, as a slower rider - this is a huge over long distances. (its worth it even if it is .05%) 1% if 125 watts average is a much greater gain than 1% of 200 or 250 watts. Combine tire choice with smart gear selection (minimizing necessary weight of gear for safety / comfort) - and things start to add up. True, I could ride a 400k on hardcase touring expedition tires and carry everything I might need if I were to get stranded... but that would be a waste of energy.

And yes, more focused time in the saddle is what would create the largest benefits for most sport / rec cyclists. But small changes in tires, position, gearing, gear choice, nutrition - it all fits into the puzzle, and it all adds up.

I had a relevant experience a few years back when I had been just able to keep up with the lead group on my local ride. I switched from some standard Panaracers to the Rivendell Rolly-Pollys and was no longer able to hang with the same group. I switched to the Grand Bois "Cypres" and was again able to just barely hang with the group.

There may be another explanation to this, but I am convinced it was the tires, especially after my results were borne out by Bicycle Quarterly. Tires are generally not night and day, IMO, but it's not fair to say they are irrelevant, either.

I run Panaracer Pasela (non-Tourguard) 700x32 for "regular" brevets/permanents, but for the longer (400+K) will run Grand Bois Cypres 700x30. The latter definitely feel a bit nicer and maybe they're a bit faster, but at triple the price they'd better be! The Pasela's don't seem significantly slower. I've had a couple flats on each brand in the last ten thousand miles of randonneuring.

For commuting, I run 700x28 Conti GP4's, because those are the biggest tire that will fit on my old Trek 400 with fenders. They are much, much harsher than either the Pasela's or GB's, but that's just because at the pressures that I have to run to avoid pinch flats, they just can't absorb as much road shock.

You get used to the plusher feel of the bigger tires and forget how nice they are. Day 3 of Paris-Brest-Paris we were riding along and the person who I was riding with complained about how uncomfortable the road surface was. I hadn't even noticed because my tires absorbed it all, while he was on 700x2? tires and was really feeling it.

Nick

Great discussion. A follow up question I have is, what tubes to use?

I just purchased and installed a set of 700x30 Cypres for upcoming 600/1200ks and was curious what size/brand tubes riders are using.

--
SharpT

Relating to tubes, some people have strongly advised against using a size smaller tube.
e.g. using a 23/25mm tube inside a 28mm tire. I own road tires ranging from 23-32mm, and generally use the same 25mm tubes in all of them.

The rationale against this, is a smaller tube will over inflate, resulting in thinner thickness of tube material - which increases the chance of puncture. I personally have not found this to be the case, but my 32mm tires are schwalbe marathon pluses, which are about as close to puncture proof as you might find.

I'm most picky about the presta valve - I like them long and preferably threaded.

All I can say is I have been a fan of the Specialized Armadillo tires for a while. I like the 23 MM tread and the 25 MM case and the Kevlar protection they provide. But then long distance to me is 100 to 200 miles a day. My normal daily ride is between 30 and 60 miles. But I got the armadillo tires for centuries and have had good results for the last 2500 miles.

I personally don't care much about tubes. BQ says the ultra-light latex tubes might actually increase rolling resistance, IIRC, but I doubt it matters either way. And my experience with the super heavy "thorn proof" tubes is that they are indeed puncture resistant, but weigh an absolute ton, feel like crap, and send rolling resistance through the roof.

I use whatever standard butyl tubes are on sale -- although with the Grand Bois Hetre I have had one flat in the last year, which means that I don't buy too many tubes any more...

Well I did my lunchtime 17.4 mile 2500 ft route, with my newly installed 700x30mm Grand Bois Cypres tires. Wow. :)

I ride this route once or twice a week for the past couple years, and my previous best time was 1:08:45, with typical good times around 1:10:00. I just clocked 1:05:45. I'll admit there were beneficial winds, but nothing unusual, and I am in top form for a 600k this weekend. But still, 3 minutes? I hit 47mph on my screamer decent. Nice and smooth and fast.

I can at least conclusively state that these 30mm tires surely don't slow one down. :thumb:

Unfortunately I don't quite have clearance for full fenders, as they are truly a bit more than 30mm wide.

--
SharpT

Nice ride, eh? Don't forget the patch kit. In point of fact, I took to carrying a spare tire with me, and used it twice in the year or so that I rode the Cypres.

Jan says the oddly named Challenge "Parigi-Roubaix" has an even nicer ride and may be a bit more puncture resistant. It's also just a touch narrower, so may allow fenders on your bike. If you try them, make sure to report back!

For commuting, I run 700x28 Conti GP4's, because those are the biggest tire that will fit on my old Trek 400 with fenders. They are much, much harsher than either the Pasela's or GB's, but that's just because at the pressures that I have to run to avoid pinch flats, they just can't absorb as much road shock.

I've got an '88 Trek 400 and I'm running Vittoria Rando-Cross 28mm tires on it. Just swapped them over from a pair of 25mm Gatorskins and the difference in comfort is amazing. The Vittorias only take 85psi at the top end, so they're a might 'squishy' feeling if you take a tight corner at speed, but for commuting they're amazing. (My Trek is converted singlespeed and I use it for a commuter, but next weekend I'm riding the Tour de Cure century on it.)
I've given these tires the torture test: 250 pound Sasquatch hitting construction gravel, uneven manhole covers and utility caps, even jumping off curbs and using the speed bumps in my parking lot like jump ramps. No flats; and for only 85psi, they don't feel squishy in standing long climbs.

http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/tireoffer.html


Great article on tires. They seem to think that it's not the width of the tire that matters. The real resistance generated by the tires is the loss to friction as the tire deforms when the leading edge hits the road. The deformation itself isn't an issue since when the back edge of the tire leaves the road it returns the energy.

I'm kinda crushing on my new Armadillos. Gonna but another set for one of my other bikes. 120 psi but not harsh. Gotta love that!

I tried Conti 28cm on my Cervelo RS. I was told they would fit and they did. I ran them for about 50 miles with no problem other than slowing me down. I would say they are a good 2 mph slower than the 23cm Contis. I think I will soon try the 25cm.

Dr. Haynes

+1 for the Bontrager Hardcases, Race Light. I use Conti GPs & UltraGators, Panaracers, Schwalbes, Victorias on a few bikes, local, but for distance rides 60m+ the Hardcases 25 seems to have the best balance of toughness and ride quality while holding their shape...and I'm a heavier rider. On a loaded bike I've found the Conti's noodle unless you run them close to max psi, and then they get harsh. So, I'm saying your anticipated load makes a big difference in your tire selection, beyond just distance.

With tubes, most definitely don't run tubes sized smaller for your tire, but as far as other attributes go they are all made in the same factory and just packaged and branded different. Butyl rubber is butyl rubber. Except for the slime ones and stuff they really are all pretty much the same. Buy specialized if you want to pay an extra buck for tubes. Most pro racers I know just buy performance forte brand cause they are cheap and you never patch them anyway.

Slightly off topic, but does anybody know of a shop in the Seattle area that stocks Grand Bois Cypres tires? Elliot Bay has a few in the 650B size, but I'm looking for 700C X 30c. I know I can order them from Bicycle Quarterly, but I was hoping to pick up a pair locally this weekend if possible.

Thanks.

I agree. Something that buzzes my ass and hands all day long never felt fast for me, even before I started to drink the wider is better kool aid. What feels right to me is supple, smooth, and buzz free rolling on various surfaces.

I wish they'd do another test - powermeter on the bike, closed course, relatively flat, no wind day. Same rider, same bike, same wheels (which I don't think they kept with in the original article). Rider puts out consistent power after a rolling start (say in the range of 100 - 150 watts over 6 miles?) and they analyze the speed over the course... or rider puts out consistent speed and they analyze the power output over the course. Either option would have to blind out part of the data from the rider... but the power output information over the course would be enlightening.

Anyway, rolling down a hill on mixed sets of wheels doesn't seem like the most scientific way to do the test... but it does start to point in interesting directions.

In addition to this note and teh one by Six Jours, I think Jan had some caveats about tire pressure. He hypothesized that one key mechanism for energy loss in hard tires was in bouncing the bike/rider combination over the road surface irregularities. Wider tires are usually softer for the same load and hence undergoe more shape distortion, but presumably this is a lower loss situation than bouncing. He had a write up on tire pressure from Frank Berto, an update on Frank's pressure recommendations from the Bicycling days. I think (not completely sure) that the key consideration is to target a 15% sag in tire height from rim edge to ground plane. The pressure that achieves this sag is a decent starting point. It will force wider tires to have larger contact patches and lower pressure.

So what? If one performs the in-brand/model comparison you outline, the effect of tire pressure on loss must be considered as a factor, potentially as a confounding factor.

As I said, I think Jan has already done this.

Hydrated, don't you think that this talk of acceleration, rolling resistance, and sidewall flex is mostly tilting at windmills within the normal bounds of our performance and machinery? Certainly there is a calculable effect on acceleration as tires get heavier, however, given the glacial accelerations of bicycles what's the difference anyway? I think in your example the effect of using the wrong machine for the job, a mountain bike with huge tires trying to keep up with roadies, becomes an overriding factor. Wind is the #1 enemy.


I think this is quite intuitive and slightly misleading. This is another boundary condition. Could I run a 23 at 85#/in^2 just like I do a 28? No, not for long anyway. The soon to be formed snake bite puncture would wreck the rolling resistance of that 23. ;)




Physics, yes, it is real. Real world importance? I say no.
A direct data example:
I ride 26 miles one way on my commute. I spend between seven and nine minutes waiting at stoplights over that commute. Would a tire change reduce my commute time enough to show up with that level of variability? :innocent:

Another:
Last night I rode home. My average speed dropped to 15.1 mph from 16.0. Was it my tires as I'm playing with some 23s to torture test some wheels I just built? No, it was the first really hot day since sometime last year. The temperature was in the 90s after riding for months in the 50s and 60s. I was getting my butt kicked by the weather. :)

What's my point here? I think these discussions are interesting but almost always lack a real world result. If we were all one hour record contenders operating at the limits of human power output maybe the little bitty differences in tires and pressures would add up. For most of us, just putting in more seat time would make a bigger difference in our speed than all the tires in the world.

Later,
HB

The physics that he is invoking is real. The problem is that it's not all the physics that's in play, such as teh effect of tire construction and materials. Without a test you can't usually get a single answer to the question you want answered.

It's still of value to explore the available physics. Some people like to have that added understanding.

And until you attempt to actually explain test results based on the physics that is available, you don't know which explanations do actually describe what's going on.

In addition to this note and teh one by Six Jours, I think Jan had some caveats about tire pressure. He hypothesized that one key mechanism for energy loss in hard tires was in bouncing the bike/rider combination over the road surface irregularities. Wider tires are usually softer for the same load and hence undergoe more shape distortion, but presumably this is a lower loss situation than bouncing. He had a write up on tire pressure from Frank Berto, an update on Frank's pressure recommendations from the Bicycling days. I think (not completely sure) that the key consideration is to target a 15% sag in tire height from rim edge to ground plane. The pressure that achieves this sag is a decent starting point. It will force wider tires to have larger contact patches and lower pressure.

So what? If one performs the in-brand/model comparison you outline, the effect of tire pressure on loss must be considered as a factor, potentially as a confounding factor.

As I said, I think Jan has already done this.

Ummm. What in-brand/model comparison did I make? I simply want to see same rider, same bike, same wheels, closed course, no wind - with powermeter data.

Were you replying to me, or someone else?

Slightly off topic, but does anybody know of a shop in the Seattle area that stocks Grand Bois Cypres tires? Elliot Bay has a few in the 650B size, but I'm looking for 700C X 30c. I know I can order them from Bicycle Quarterly, but I was hoping to pick up a pair locally this weekend if possible.

Thanks.

Try Il Vecchio over in Leschi - that's where BQ is headquartered, and most likely where GB ships their stock anyway.

Anyone try Conti GP4000s (not the same as 4-seasons, or 4000race, etc) on big rides?

I just started riding them (for racing/training), and might use them on an upcoming event. They roll really nicely, and seem to have decent flat protection. (23 tho)

Ummm. What in-brand/model comparison did I make? I simply want to see same rider, same bike, same wheels, closed course, no wind - with powermeter data.

Were you replying to me, or someone else?

I think my apologies are in order; I just discovered your response this morning, and re-read the thread, and cannot find what may have sent my mind in that direction, in the entire thread. For some reason I was thinking that someone wanted to test a given tire brand and model at different sizes.

Please just chalk it up to writing faster than my brain was functioning.

Road Fan