Fifty Plus (50+) - Tires... wider maybe faster than narrow

Some interesting test on wide tires vs narrow

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/bicycle-tires-puncturing-the-myths-29245

This subject was discussed - again - on BROL, ad nauseum. Not that you'd have any reason to go there. None of this is new and there were no new converts in either direction. Fat tires have lower losses from casing deflection, but have more frontal area and higher weight. Also, the results are somewhat skewed, because these comparisons always compare tires at equal pressures, which means one of the ones being compared is at the wrong inflation.

It's a no-brainer that fat can absorb more road shock, too. So Fat is better at low speeds and flat/rough ground, while skinny is better at higher speeds and hills. The trade-off that's best for you depends on how you ride.

If you're having problems getting passed by people on Puggsleys and Large Marge tires, this could explain it, though.

Yes this has been around for a while and the posts at the end of the article are interesting as to putting the percentages in perspective.

There's no data in the article, just opinions and pictures.

The data that I'm aware of does show much lower energy required to pedal a wider tire at 31 km/hour on a rough surface than a narrow tire. The energy generated by the rough surface and absorbed by the rider is not available for forward motion.

On a smooth surface, they are all about the same at that speed . That's for all losses including air drag.

Years ago I found a calculator on the web that showed that a 40 mm tire had a square foot of frontal area more than a 23 mm. However, in still air the frontal area of the bike does not change IMO as the down-tube and seat tube cover the same frontal area of the tires. The bikes drag coefficient may change due to different tire sizes causing different turbulence characteristics, but not it's frontal area.

Some representative data from a trial reported in Bicycle Quarterly, August 2009 issue:

Tires evaluated: Pasela 35mm (P35) @ 50 psi; Grand Boise 25mm (GB25) @ 75psi; GB25 @ 95 psi; Bontrager 27mm (B27) @95 psi.

They were tested on a bike with 4 forks ranging from stiff to one that had suspension. The tests were on a smooth road along side a road side rumble strip and over the rumble strip. The r. strip grooves were 8 to 10 mm deep.

The power to propel the bike at 31 km (19.4 mph) :

Road: P35 @ 50 = 198 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 209, GB25 @ 95 = 237 and B27 = 232.

R strip: P35 @ 50 = 313 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 386, GB25 @ 95 = 468 and B27 = 479.

There's no real statistical difference for either the smooth road or the between the 4 forks used.

Bicycle Quarterly (http://www.bikequarterly.com/vbqindex.html ) is a classic bike and Randonneur focused publication. They preach and demonstrate as well that wider tires are faster, corner better and are a heck of a lot more comfortable. They just aren't as cool.

They do a lot of tire testing.

They have some articles on the site. I've been buying back issues as I really enjoy their tech articles, bike reviews and articles on bike history.

An article on tire inflation: http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/TireDrop.pdf

Al

All I know is I got into some off-road mud yesterday afternoon, and I wished I still had my big, fat Continental 2.5" wide knobbies on, instead of my 1.5" Schwalbe Marathon road tires.

Problem with thin tires in mud = they cut deep down, fast.

Problem with thin tires in mud = they cut deep down, fast.

One of the effects of a good mud tyre. Cuts through the mud to the good surface below instead of skating around on top of the gloop.

I use the Panaracer Mud tyre in 1.8 in mud and snow. Another good one is the conti cross countryt in 1.5.

The power to propel the bike at 31 km (19.4 mph) :

Road: P35 @ 50 = 198 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 209, GB25 @ 95 = 237 and B27 = 232.

R strip: P35 @ 50 = 313 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 386, GB25 @ 95 = 468 and B27 = 479.

There's no real statistical difference for either the smooth road or the between the 4 forks used.


Al

Those are all low pressures that will have a lot of deflection. Any test where the tires are pumped up to where roadies actually use them? 120-130 psi on 23s or 25s? I'll try to find the tests I read with higher pressures. It showed lower rolling resistance if you reduce the deflection.

How would we escape the idea that is "no one" that races road bikes for a living uses wide or fat tires? We could debate it all we want but from experience we know what is harder to push past 25 MPH on the flat and we know what wins races. But this topic comes up anyway. Comfort is a different issue.

from a personal observation I have had a Masi Cafe Solo that came with 700X28s and I rode it for a few weeks with that tire set up. Switched to 700x23s and picked up 3 MPH cruising speed. Nothing that can be posted would convince me the 28s were faster.

INTERESTING[/B] article on tire inflation: http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/TireDrop.pdf....


Ok, referring to the article above, let me see if I got this.

Lets assume:
"Racing" Bike so load distribution is 60/40 (R/F)
23 mm tires
200 lb load (combined weight of rider, bike, etc)

Then:
Wheel loads are Rear = 120 lbs, Front = 80 lbs.

Referring to the chart on the 23 mm inflation line, the rear tire should be about 127 psi
and the front about 83 psi if I'm reading it right. That seems a bit low, exp compaired to Shedon' Brown's rule of thumb which is approx Rear - 10% = Front.

The rear at 127 compares favorably with Shedon's recommended 125 for my total load, but the front by his formula would be about 113.

If I can remember, I'm going to try the 80 lbs in the front on my next ride and see if I can tell any difference. There are some washboard roads on my typical route that can provide a good test of comfort. With out a power meter I don't think I'll be able to give an unbiased assessment of the effort difference, if any.

Please review my assumptions and let me know if I made any errors. That 80 psi for the front really seems low!

......

The data that I'm aware of does show much lower energy required to pedal a wider tire at 31 km/hour on a rough surface than a narrow tire. The energy generated by the rough surface and absorbed by the rider is not available for forward motion. ................................

The power to propel the bike at 31 km (19.4 mph) :

Road: P35 @ 50 = 198 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 209, GB25 @ 95 = 237 and B27 = 232.

R strip: P35 @ 50 = 313 watts, GB25 @ 75 = 386, GB25 @ 95 = 468 and B27 = 479.

......

Wow, that really explains why riding out on the levee with the gravel (R strip) is so much harder and slower than a paved road! No wonder I only averaged 12 mph!

[QUOTE=Robert Foster;12251984]How would we escape the idea that is "no one" that races road bikes for a living uses wide or fat tires? We could debate it all we want but from experience we know what is harder to push past 25 MPH on the flat and we know what wins races. But this topic comes up anyway. Comfort is a different issue.

QUOTE]

I think it's easy to explain. They ride faster/longer where both aerodynamics and weight play a big role in winning. Those bigger tires are heavy and the weight is at a long lever-arm which really eats up energy in acceleration. Then at higher speed, bigger tires/rims (and more spokes) likely cause more air drag especially from off-angle wind.

I've never averaged more than about 15 mph on a 70 mile ride. That's far lower than even the 2200 mile TDF. Air resistance is not a big factor for me except in a wind.

Another interesting tidbit about bike technology and racing from Bicycle Quarterly Summer 210: regression analysis shows that the average speed increase of the TDF (Tour de France) matches the increase in Average speed trend of runners from 1950 through 2010. In other words it's not the bike, but the riders. Training/nutrition drives the improvements.

There was a big improvement in cycling in the '30s as they paved those roads in the mountains and the more modern frame geometry was locked in to about what's used today. They checked the data against one classic, Milan-San Remo and saw the same trend for that one day race.

Al

Another aspect of wider tires is safety. I think we can all agree that the condition of roads these days is terrible. There are areas of cracks and broken pavement. The wider larger tires will span cracks, and roll over sharp edged bumps without give you snakebite flats. The Primo Comets on my Rans bent roll extremely easy with their 100psi rating. Bottom line you are not very fast laying in bed with a broken collar bone due to being dumped due to bad pavement.

Those are all low pressures that will have a lot of deflection. Any test where the tires are pumped up to where roadies actually use them? 120-130 psi on 23s or 25s? I'll try to find the tests I read with higher pressures. It showed lower rolling resistance if you reduce the deflection.

Yes but, the culture here is one of the Rondenneur. They ride like 1200 km in less than 80, 84, or 90 hours and most don't ride like it's a race. They likely prefer not to vibrate down the road as fatigue is a big issue and there's a premium on comfort. They use lights, bags and many use fenders as well: like my road bike.

A friend of mine has done Paris-Brest 3 times. He often trained by riding his bike to work (about 30 miles), then after work on a Friday he would ride until 8-hours before he needed to go to work on Monday. Probably a factor in the divorce.

It was interesting to hear how he and his co-riders often hallucinate.

Al

All I know that the tires on the bikes ahead of me in a pack are all 23's.............except for maybe a tandem.

[QUOTE=Robert Foster;12251984]How would we escape the idea that is "no one" that races road bikes for a living uses wide or fat tires? We could debate it all we want but from experience we know what is harder to push past 25 MPH on the flat and we know what wins races. But this topic comes up anyway. Comfort is a different issue.

QUOTE]

I think it's easy to explain. They ride faster/longer where both aerodynamics and weight play a big role in winning. Those bigger tires are heavy and the weight is at a long lever-arm which really eats up energy in acceleration. Then at higher speed, bigger tires/rims (and more spokes) likely cause more air drag especially from off-angle wind.

I've never averaged more than about 15 mph on a 70 mile ride. That's far lower than even the 2200 mile TDF. Air resistance is not a big factor for me except in a wind.

Another interesting tidbit about bike technology and racing from Bicycle Quarterly Summer 210: regression analysis shows that the average speed increase of the TDF (Tour de France) matches the increase in Average speed trend of runners from 1950 through 2010. In other words it's not the bike, but the riders. Training/nutrition drives the improvements.

There was a big improvement in cycling in the '30s as they paved those roads in the mountains and the more modern frame geometry was locked in to about what's used today. They checked the data against one classic, Milan-San Remo and saw the same trend for that one day race.

Al

True and the Faster longer part ends the debate on what is faster. If there were a speed advantage then even TT bikes would have fat/wide tires. A quick study of what the teams do with computer modeling would convince most of us that they are riding the equipment that gives them as much of an advantage as is legal.

It is hard to accept the contention that fat/wide and heavy will give you a speed advantage when in real life we can't see it. We aren't saying they are not comfortable or safe but faster? Bench racing is always nice but on race day the one finishing first, second and third is proof of a theory. :D

If wider tires are faster why are the new generation of TT tires the exact width of the Aero wheel rims?

I don't see anyone recommending using fat tires on a TT bike,or any racing bike for that matter. I see it as more a "what is the advantage of using skinny racing tires on our non-racing bikes?" Comfort and flat resistance enter into the equation when practicality enters the room. None of the tires referenced in the BQ test are racing tires are they? Striking that balance is not an easy task and I commend them for looking into why the constructeur bikes used the tires they used.

The article really describes the difference between 23mm and 25mm tyres, not 23mm to 28mm. I don't think it's suggesting that 28s are superior to 23s.

However, over the past year or so I've migrated from a 23mm tyre / tube combination to 25mm tubeless - not tubular - running 10psi less than I used to with tubes and have a more comfortable ride and now coast ahead of my colleagues with their 23mm tyres on descents.

When I got my wife a 650b I had to fiddle with it a bit.

I sat on it and rolled down the driveway.

The drive was suddenly paved with silk.

Ok, maybe an exaggeration.

But my wife doesn't watch for bumps anymore. They don't bother her.

Everyone once in a while she finds a pothole and I hear a loud Oooph.

I'll be posting a pic of my new 650b frame soon, hopefully within the week.

It'll be here..

http://ruedatropical.com/

The Keep Riding video is nice, you'll like it.

Oh, I forgot, I think for a lot of people the greater comfort
is a big improvement. Being bounced around is tiring, and
that is an energy loss.

It's like in planing. It prob doesn't make the bike more efficient,
but the end result is the same as if it was.

Already we have reached the same point we always do in this particular discussion. Two diametrically opposed points of view with no possible solution.
The people that get paid to go “faster” seem to think high pressure skinny tires are faster. People that ride for comfort aren’t so sure. No opinions are changed and no one will pick different tires because of it.

There are places where a wider tyre will be faster-but that is not down to Less Friction or rolling resistance.

It is down to comfort. A rough surface and a bit of suspension is wanted to ease the body from slowing down through pain. You can only take so many "Knocks" without the terrain affecting you.

Surprised they haven't come up with a Tyre called "Roubaix" by now. (Paris Roubaix where many of the riders will run 25 tyres to ease the pain over the cobblesas well as modified frames and forks)

Surprised they haven't come up with a Tyre called "Roubaix" by now. (Paris Roubaix where many of the riders will run 25 tyres to ease the pain over the cobblesas well as modified frames and forks)

http://andyjordans.com/images/library/large/spec_0001_2110_11_m.jpg (http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=50249&menuItemId=0&eid=0)

You were saying?

Already we have reached the same point we always do in this particular discussion. Two diametrically opposed points of view with no possible solution.
The people that get paid to go “faster” seem to think high pressure skinny tires are faster. People that ride for comfort aren’t so sure. No opinions are changed and no one will pick different tires because of it.

Yep...seen that coming.

Yep...seen that coming.

One thing I have observed and will testify to is the thinner and narrower “you” get the faster you are. :lol:

The thinner and narrower comment reminds me of another though subjective data point on tires.

I was spending a month in the beautiful Charlottesville area in a training program. Some of the instructors led a ride every weekend. There would be 15 to 20 of us. I had a brand new pre-suspension mountain bike with about 1.8" multi-purpose (road & dirt) tires. For some reason I always out-coasted everyone by a wide margin on the down hills. It caused a lot of discussion every week. Speeds were typically 30 to 35 mph peak.

Some of the folks were built like and were bikers. I biked only occasionally and definitely do not have a bike physique. The bikes ranged from touring bikes to general road bike, but I have no recollection of the range of tire widths.

I'm convinced that from a practical point of view, for those of us who ride in the speed range of the tire tests I posted and from other information in Bicycle Quarterly, that wider tires are better. If you ride fast and saving a few minutes and/or a few hundred watt-minutes is important, then narrower is better.

I'm switching to 30-32 mm from 25. They'll work on 15 mm rims. That'll not only make my ride more enjoyable as the roads are rough, but will give me the option of some gravel roads which will open up some loop rides with some paved roads. I'll at least waste less energy vibrating up and down.

Last year I was loading my bike into the truck after a mountain bike ride in the Cohutta mountains just NE of Ellijay, GA. when a guy pulls up on a cyclocross bike. He wanted to know directions for the dirt roads since we were at the end of the pavement.

He had already done about 60 miles on pavement and was going to close the loop on the dirt/gravel forest service roads. I figured had about 25 miles of the dirt roads to do. He said it was no big deal as he did rides like that. I also figured he had something like two or three thousand feet of elevation gain. I did not note his tire width, but you can bet it wasn't 23 mm.

Tire losses do make a difference. Bicycle Quarterly comments in the article below that a difference in tires can make a 2 hour difference in Paris-Brest according to their computer model. They don't mention whether its a width thing or just a difference between tires of the same width. They have several tire losses tests in the back issues which I have yet to order.

Of course, computer models have to be taken with a big grain of salt. I used to work with them and even built some.

Al

http://www.bikequarterly.com/BQPBPEquipsurvey.pdf

I don't see anyone recommending using fat tires on a TT bike,or any racing bike for that matter. I see it as more a "what is the advantage of using skinny racing tires on our non-racing bikes?"

...or, more specificaly, "for us non-racers?" This whole "if wider tires were truly faster than professional racers would use wiide tires" is a ludicrous stance because none of us are riding remotely like professional bike racers. Not even close. In your wildest dreams...but not on your wildest Tuesday Night Hammerfest. Sorry. Apples to Oranges.

For the many performance riders in this forum, here is a link to some excellent information on equipment performance including rolling resistance and aerodynamics of wheels and tires. http://www.biketechreview.com/ They use the San Diego Wind Tunnel for their testing and publish pay per view reports. One can take ones bike to SD and get tested for position in the tunnel. The cost for one hour of tunnel time is $1000. I would like to do this sometime in the future.

However, simple observation of elite 1/2 amateur racing will get one pretty close to optimized equipment and body position for peak performance.

On the biketechreview site, there is a file on rolling resistance on tires and it is free. If you want to check out your favorite tire, most are on the list. Scroll down for the latest update. Also, check out the free video on the negative drag for an HED trispoke at certain yaw angles - very cool. There is a pay per view file comparing wider tire aerodynamics versus narrow performance.

I race on the Vittoria EVO CX tubies and use the Vittoria Chrono 20 mm on my HED Trispoke for time trials and the track. Both are very smooth riding fast tires.

I believe that Fabian Cancellara used 25 mm or wider special tubies that were made special for him in Paris Roubaix. My Cervelo R3, which was designed for Paris Roubaix will accomodate some special wider tires. Last year in the Top Sport Stage Race, we had some sections of very bad road. Many times during the race, we rode in the dirt gutter. On one climb, I was in the middle of the pack producing 300 watts and the ride was like a jack hammer. Another racer went off the road into the dirt berm. I followed and we flew up to the front the pack. The rough road was probably consuming 50 watts of power so the dirt was so much faster. Wider tires in that situation would be an asset but my 23 mm worked perfectly. YMMV

For the many performance riders in this forum, here is a link to some excellent information on equipment performance including rolling resistance and aerodynamics of wheels and tires. http://www.biketechreview.com/ They use the San Diego Wind Tunnel for their testing and publish pay per view reports. One can take ones bike to SD and get tested for position in the tunnel. The cost for one hour of tunnel time is $1000. I would like to do this sometime in the future.

However, simple observation of elite 1/2 amateur racing will get one pretty close to optimized equipment and body position for peak performance.

On the biketechreview site, there is a file on rolling resistance on tires and it is free. If you want to check out your favorite tire, most are on the list. Scroll down for the latest update. Also, check out the free video on the negative drag for an HED trispoke at certain yaw angles - very cool. There is a pay per view file comparing wider tire aerodynamics versus narrow performance.

I race on the Vittoria EVO CX tubies and use the Vittoria Chrono 20 mm on my HED Trispoke for time trials and the track. Both are very smooth riding fast tires.

I believe that Fabian Cancellara used 25 mm or wider special tubies that were made special for him in Paris Roubaix. My Cervelo R3, which was designed for Paris Roubaix will accomodate some special wider tires. Last year in the Top Sport Stage Race, we had some sections of very bad road. Many times during the race, we rode in the dirt gutter. On one climb, I was in the middle of the pack producing 300 watts and the ride was like a jack hammer. Another racer went off the road into the dirt berm. I followed and we flew up to the front the pack. The rough road was probably consuming 50 watts of power so the dirt was so much faster. Wider tires in that situation would be an asset but my 23 mm worked perfectly. YMMV

Hermes, Thanks! Really appreciate the link.

from a personal observation I have had a Masi Cafe Solo that came with 700X28s and I rode it for a few weeks with that tire set up. Switched to 700x23s and picked up 3 MPH cruising speed. Nothing that can be posted would convince me the 28s were faster.

This is really interesting to me, Bob. I run 28's because they are really versatile and stable on all kinds of surfaces and because they are generally sturdier, suffer way less flats. I tend to run them around 100psi. But whoa - another 3 mph is quite significant. Are we talking pretty much equal tire pressures?

This is really interesting to me, Bob. I run 28's because they are really versatile and stable on all kinds of surfaces and because they are generally sturdier, suffer way less flats. I tend to run them around 100psi. But whoa - another 3 mph is quite significant. Are we talking pretty much equal tire pressures?

No the 23s will take 120 to 140 psi. I also didn’t notice the difference till I exceeded 15 MPH or if I had to jump on the back of a pace line.
The difference in a group ride was between being in the middle of the B group with the 28s or the back of the A group with the 23s.
Like I have said I have no complaint with the comfort of 28s or even bigger. It is the contention that all other things being equal a fatter heavier tire will be faster. At least not on the roads I ride on. And not putting out the same watts as I do.

If wider tires are faster why are the new generation of TT tires the exact width of the Aero wheel rims?

A world in which aerodynamics overpowers energy lost through the tire deflection. The article is probably aimed at the sport rider who may get more benefit from gains in tire deflection than aerodynamics..............that about covers me.......and maybe a few others.

It's like those helmet tests that mention wind noise..............and I ask, what wind noise. :p

How would we escape the idea that is "no one" that races road bikes for a living uses wide or fat tires? We could debate it all we want but from experience we know what is harder to push past 25 MPH on the flat and we know what wins races. But this topic comes up anyway. Comfort is a different issue.

from a personal observation I have had a Masi Cafe Solo that came with 700X28s and I rode it for a few weeks with that tire set up. Switched to 700x23s and picked up 3 MPH cruising speed. Nothing that can be posted would convince me the 28s were faster.

I'm sure 23s are faster. But 3 mph is huge.
On this bike speed calculator (http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html), taking the defaults, 150lbs/22lb bike,etc, at 150 watts, the speed is 17.6 mph. It takes 225 watts to get to 20.6. The tires can't soak up 75 more watts. Also, 100 watts vs 160 watts goes from 15 mph to 18 mph.

Of course, sitting in on A group peleton saves watts over soloing at the same speed. So I can see how tires could help be the difference, compared to riding in the B group.


I run 23c Continental GP4000 tires at 95 front, 105 rear. It's a smooth ride, and I don't notice any more effort or slower speed. I'm between 165 and 170 lbs.

They preach and demonstrate as well that wider tires are faster, corner better and are a heck of a lot more comfortable. They just aren't as cool.

um depends on your opinion of cool. (smiles). I like fat so they look way cool.
If you are in the Peleton or not in the peleton is the divider.
I'm too old for the peleton so my preference is for something north of 30MM wide

Fat and Safe are certainly together here. I ride 38MM Soma-B Lines over ice and packed snow and always feel safe.

If I want cool I'll ride the Harley or Aprilia. Hmmmmm...............maybe there is something to that cool thing. Both of them have fat tires.

Pumped the 38mm Soma 650B tires on my Rawland up to 60 pounds for El Tour de Tucson. Got a lot of stares at the finish from the guys I had joined when they looked my bike over.
The bike rolls and rolls and rolls beautifully. I seems to want to go and go. My carbon fiber Roubax hangs in the garage because I love to ride the Rawland.

Pumped the 38mm Soma 650B tires on my Rawland up to 60 pounds for El Tour de Tucson. Got a lot of stares at the finish from the guys I had joined when they looked my bike over.
The bike rolls and rolls and rolls beautifully. I seems to want to go and go. My carbon fiber Roubax hangs in the garage because I love to ride the Rawland.

Sweet tires, ain't they? I normally run 50psi front and 60 rear, which works well for my "greater than average" weight.

And getting back to the whole "wide vs narrow" debate, it seems that an awful lot of folks automatically assume that equipment optimized for racing is the best for them, even though they don't race, never have and never will, and can't even come close to riding at that level. But hey, they read about it in Buycycling, so it must be the best (as is everything that mag has ever reviewed). It's easier than thinking, I guess...

SP
Bend, OR

True and the Faster longer part ends the debate on what is faster. If there were a speed advantage then even TT bikes would have fat/wide tires. A quick study of what the teams do with computer modeling would convince most of us that they are riding the equipment that gives them as much of an advantage as is legal.

It is hard to accept the contention that fat/wide and heavy will give you a speed advantage when in real life we can't see it. We aren't saying they are not comfortable or safe but faster? Bench racing is always nice but on race day the one finishing first, second and third is proof of a theory. :D

It only ends the debate for pro riders which is not real life as claimed.

Pro riders and (some others) do a phenomenal amount of training as they are pro riders - something like 25,000 miles per year. They have the time and need. They therefore can operate at speeds over distances the rest of us can't approach. So the fact that pro riders use narrower tires is not really relevant to the vast majority of cyclist ---- or to real life.

When I motorcycle, I didn't use a racing motorcycle or racing tires. My cars are not racing cars, nor do I use tires speed rating in excess of my cars abilities.

For the speed ranges most of the non-pros operate over, wider tires are better. Most use narrow tires due to peer pressure/group-think and the desire to emulate the pros. Look at the resurgence of race-bike sales when Armstrong was winning. All of a sudden people needed Madonnas?

The vast majority of us don't do pace lines. In the 80 some thousand that live in my county, may be 20 ride that way if that many. Pace lines drive-up the speeds to levels the majority can't and wouldn't attain for long. Nothing wrong with pace lines, it's just not real life for the huge majority of just as dedicated cyclists.

Al

Wow... so we roadies that like to go fast can only think, or ride, as a group? Really?

Talk about micro-splitting a group (those that ride bikes) and then pointing fingers at other people in it (those who want to go fast), these last couple of comments really put a negative spin on things. Do you really think that you spend more thought on such things as tire sizes and pressure than those of us trying to get every last bit of speed out of our bikes? I'd bet you are way off base on that one. And Alcanoe, if you have 80,000 people riding in your area, I'll bet a lot more of them ride pacelines than you have counted.

These last couple of posts crossed over into the hysterically absurd. Get real, guys.

One thing I have observed and will testify to is the thinner and narrower “you” get the faster you are. :lol:

Along the same line I've made an observation regarding bike frame sizes and rider frame sizes. Ever notice the size of the average Harley rider these days? lol.

It only ends the debate for pro riders which is not real life as claimed.

Pro riders and (some others) do a phenomenal amount of training as they are pro riders - something like 25,000 miles per year. They have the time and need. They therefore can operate at speeds over distances the rest of us can't approach. So the fact that pro riders use narrower tires is not really relevant to the vast majority of cyclist ---- or to real life.

When I motorcycle, I didn't use a racing motorcycle or racing tires. My cars are not racing cars, nor do I use tires speed rating in excess of my cars abilities.

For the speed ranges most of the non-pros operate over, wider tires are better. Most use narrow tires due to peer pressure/group-think and the desire to emulate the pros. Look at the resurgence of race-bike sales when Armstrong was winning. All of a sudden people needed Madonnas?

The vast majority of us don't do pace lines. In the 80 some thousand that live in my county, may be 20 ride that way if that many. Pace lines drive-up the speeds to levels the majority can't and wouldn't attain for long. Nothing wrong with pace lines, it's just not real life for the huge majority of just as dedicated cyclists.

Al

While everything you just posted may be true it doesn’t go anywhere near convincing me that 28s are faster than 23s on the same road bike. Till I see someone standing on the podium after sporting 32s in a Cat 1,2, 3 or 4 or pro race I think I will stick to the common idea that the average ride will be “faster” on a lighter, thinner tire with less rolling resistance. Why one might ask do we keep pointing out racers as our example? It might be because we consider these guys fast compared to ourselves or the average dedicated rider.:innocent: Remember the OP posted the word, “faster” not comfortable or better or even fast enough for the average rider.;)

By the way, just how many miles a year should one need to ride to be considered a dedicated rider? :D

While everything you just posted may be true it doesn’t go anywhere near convincing me that 28s are faster than 23s on the same road bike. Till I see someone standing on the podium after sporting 32s in a Cat 1,2, 3 or 4 or pro race I think I will stick to the common idea that the average ride will be “faster” on a lighter, thinner tire with less rolling resistance. Why one might ask do we keep pointing out racers as our example? It might be because we consider these guys fast compared to ourselves or the average dedicated rider.:innocent: Remember the OP posted the word, “faster” not comfortable or better or even fast enough for the average rider.;)

By the way, just how many miles a year should one need to ride to be considered a dedicated rider? :D

I've said it before, I'll say it again: when racers start doing the kind of riding I do, I'll start paying attention to what equipment they use. 'Til then I'll base my choices on experience.

SP
Bend, OR

ps - yes, I DO believe the tests that show wider tires to be faster, even at racing speeds.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I believe I'll have a beer.

QUOTE=AzTallRider;12274115]Wow... so we roadies that like to go fast can only think, or ride, as a group? Really?

Talk about micro-splitting a group (those that ride bikes) and then pointing fingers at other people in it (those who want to go fast), these last couple of comments really put a negative spin on things. Do you really think that you spend more thought on such things as tire sizes and pressure than those of us trying to get every last bit of speed out of our bikes? I'd bet you are way off base on that one. And Alcanoe, if you have 80,000 people riding in your area, I'll bet a lot more of them ride pacelines than you have counted.

These last couple of posts crossed over into the hysterically absurd. Get real, guys.[/QUOTE]


Micro-splitting?? Pointing fingers? Spin? Hysterically absurd? Other than that, did you like my post?

You seem to have difficulty with differing perspectives even when supported by real on-road data. You also read innuendo into innocuous statements that you disagree with.

Come on now, can't you accept that reality for others is not your reality? 80,000 riders??? You are inventive. I said 80,000 people .

Don't go fast? I go fast, but not fast enough to warrant a racing bike with racing tires. Fast is subjective. How fast should I go to be fast? Your speed of course. I really don't put that much thought into tires. There was this ongoing thread, I had just read the article and I thought some on-road real data would be interesting for a change rather than just another opinion.

Your perspective appears to be the same as the vast majority of roadies I encounter on our local roads. Before you get too insulted again, I said that "I encounter". They can't acknowledge that I'm even on the road because I ride with a luggage rack, trunk, flashing lights, on a cyclocross frame and I'm not color coordinated. They believe there is only one politically correct way to bike.

Mountain bikers are a hell of a lot more friendly. Strangers often stop and chat. Can you imagine a "mighty fast" roadie doing that?

A few years ago, I had two of the "mighty fast" pass me from behind with out any acknowledgement that I was there. No "heads up", no "passing on the left", no 'hi". They just gave me about a foot and a half. I had no clue they were there. Had I swerved out of surprise, we'd all been on the asphalt. They weren't going that much faster either so they had plenty of time for a heads up.

The weakness of the data posted is that it's a very small sample. But it's good enough for me until I see better data. I'm not out to convince anybody to change tires. Just thought that the data was not only interesting, but enforced what a lot of folks have long suspected.

Where's your data?

Al

I have spent lot's of money on tires, all kinds, all sizes. Roads around here are trash (Sonoma County). Tubeless 25's for this +50 bike rider@ 85 lbs., who rides near 10,000 miles a year.
I give a high 5 while passing or being passed, and everyone hears me comming.

Old folks sure do get cranky in the winter when they don't get to ride as much as they want. :popcorn:

By the way, just how many miles a year should one need to ride to be considered a dedicated rider? :D

24,900?

Al

Al, you are putting thoughts into people's heads that may or may not be there - that is called.. let me think a sec... prejudice. You are clearly bigoted against roadies. Lots of roadies are friendly. More roadies say hi to me than mountain bikers do, probably because I'm on a road bike, huh? I don't extrapolate that to say that mountain bikers are less friendly! And guess what, lots of people who ride don't acknowledge anyone. They are either too caught up in what they are doing, or just don't care to communicate. Whatever - it's their decision, right? In MY experience, it is women riders who are less likely to return a wave, at least one by a man. By your criteria, that means all women are unfriendly! You are holding a grudge against roadies because, two years ago, a couple guys passed you too close without giving warning? Get over it!

My data comes from the same source many of ours does: personal experience. That, and the fact that the fastest riders, and by that I mean those doing exactly what I do, ride with skinny, high pressure tires. Any of those folks would happily let go of their "group think" to get an edge over the rest of us. I've tried lowering the pressure in both my 700x32's and my 700x25's. It was clear I had to work harder, for the same speed, on my commute. When I get a chance, I'll do a tire-pressure test using my power meter. That's as scientific as I, personally, can get.

The weakness of the data posted is that it didn't include tires pumped up to the pressures commonly used. They were all 'low' pressure. Where is your data? Have you tried different pressures and tire sizes?

Old folks sure do get cranky in the winter when they don't get to ride as much as they want. :popcorn:

I don't know about the folks I'm getting cranky with, but I'm riding 10-11 hours per week right now, which is a decent training load for me. I just get pissed off when people criticize others, just because they approach riding differently.

I have spent lot's of money on tires, all kinds, all sizes. Roads around here are trash (Sonoma County). Tubeless 25's for this +50 bike rider@ 85 lbs., who rides near 10,000 miles a year.
I give a high 5 while passing or being passed, and everyone hears me coming.

Well, sure, if you weigh less than 100 lbs! ;)