Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    What are faster, wide slicks or narrow slicks?

    I have heard people say both. People that advocate for narrow say that less rubber = less road resistance. People that advocate for wider say more rubber = less heat = less road resistance.

    Does anyone know of any real research on the subject?

  2. #2
    Soma Lover
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Logan, UT
    My Bikes
    one bike for every day of the week
    Posts
    765
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bicycling Science, 3rd Edition.

    Assuming that you could fine a wider and a narrower tire with the EXACT same weight, the EXACT same suppleness, and then pumped them up to the EXACT same pressure, the wider tire would offer less rolling resistance. Unfortunately, this is never the case. Reality is a *****. The best compromise generally runs between 700x23c and 700x28c depending on the aerodynamics demanded by the application.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    My Bikes
    2009 Chris Boedeker custom, 1988 Tommasini Prestige, 2007 Bill Davidson custom, 1985 Univega Gran Turismo; 1988 Specialized Stumpjumper
    Posts
    6,920
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by somebikerider View Post
    Does anyone know of any real research on the subject?
    Bicycle Quarterly has been doing lots of controlled tests on tires.

    The editor is an advocate of wide-ish tires (28 to 32c) for fast, long distance riding...but they have found wide differences between various models.

    Back issues available here:

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

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,055
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wouldn't the main concern with tires be the moment of inertia?
    And wider ones would have more mass, thus a higher moment of inertia for a given diameter?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12,269
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All else being constant, fat slicks have lower rolling resistance and narrow slicks have lower air resistance. At some speed, AR becomes more significant than RR. Below this threshold, fat slicks are more efficient, above it, thin slicks rule.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    My Bikes
    Trek SU100, Surly Cross Check
    Posts
    392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bigger tires = more weight which increases the moment of inertia.

    They also mean an increased cross sectional area; air drag is exponential, so this can get pretty noticeable.

    Moment of inertia affects acceleration, and air drag affects speed.

    I'm not so sure about how fatter slicks get less rolling resistance, but basically the comparison will be a balance between the different phenomena.

  7. #7
    Team Water Andy_K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR
    My Bikes
    2013 Kona Jake, 2008 Kona Major Jake, 2013 Kona Jake the Snake, 1999 Kona Muni Mula, 2012 Ridley Excalibur, 2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker
    Posts
    6,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm hearing many pieces of information that need to be pieced together. Somebody correct anything I've misunderstood.

    Moment of intertia, and hence weight, only really matters when you're accelerating. When maintaining a constant speed, the weight actually helps, right? But because of the decelerating force of rolling resistence and air resistence, you're applying force to maintain that steady speed and in practice, you are going to be constantly declerating and accelerating by small measures even when you are attempting to maintain a steady speed, right? So I'd have to conclude that weight matters a lot.

    In the real world, unless you're talking about the differences between a 700x25 and a 700x28 of the same make, weight is going to be a big factor.

    Would I be stating the obvious to say that a wide (let's say, 35) 500g slick that takes 75 psi is going to be much slower than a narrow (let's say, 25) 200g slick that takes 120 psi?

  8. #8
    Senior Member miamijim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    11,840
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    There are so many variable involved that make it almost impossible to say which is better.

    A 180lb rider needs X amount of air to supoport his/her weight. A 700X23 @120psi and a 700X35 @80psi may have the same amount of air. Which has less rolling resitence? Who knows....

    Factors that come into play sre:

    1. size of contact patch (amt of rubber on the road)
    2. Tire construction (more t.p.i. the better)
    3. Type of material
    4. Type of inner tube
    5. cross sectional area (any speeds less than 25mph or so and aero isnt much of a factor)

    I can easily find a 700 X 32 tire/tube combo that will have lower rolling resistence than a 700/23 combo.
    WWW.CYCLESPEUGEOT.COM 2005 Pinarello Dogma; 1991 Paramount PDG 70 Mtb; 1976? AD Vent Noir; 1989 LeMond Maillot Juane F&F; 1993? Basso GAP F&F; 1989 Terry Symmetry; 2003 Trek 4700 Mtb; 1983 Vitus 979

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy_K View Post
    Moment of intertia, and hence weight, only really matters when you're accelerating. When maintaining a constant speed, the weight actually helps, right? But because of the decelerating force of rolling resistence and air resistence, you're applying force to maintain that steady speed and in practice, you are going to be constantly declerating and accelerating by small measures even when you are attempting to maintain a steady speed, right? So I'd have to conclude that weight matters a lot.
    I don't know what you consider a lot, but the people who study this (by experiment and analysis) find that total wheel inertial effects make less than 0.01% difference and weight makes less than 0.1% difference. Just listing a bunch of competing effects without an estimate of their magnitude is no basis for conclusions. http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm

  10. #10
    Eurotrash viplala's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is a reason why road racing is done on very narrow tyres, pumped up to high pressure.
    Whether you want that on your daily ride, where comfort and ability to have a reasonably good ride on various surfaces come to play, is another matter.

  11. #11
    Bottecchia fan
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    My Bikes
    1959 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1966 Bottecchia Professional (in progress...), 1971 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1973 Bottecchia Gran Turismo, 1974 Bottecchia Special (in progress...), 1977 Bottecchia Special (frame), 1974 Peugeot UO-8
    Posts
    3,419
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    I don't know what you consider a lot, but the people who study this (by experiment and analysis) find that total wheel inertial effects make less than 0.01% difference and weight makes less than 0.1% difference. Just listing a bunch of competing effects without an estimate of their magnitude is no basis for conclusions. http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm
    You know I've read a number of these scientific analyses that basically make the same claims and they seem very convincing. Unfortunately they do not at all match what I feel in the seat of my pants so I'm left wondering just why that is. When I changed my MTB from light weight 2.1-in kevlar bead cross country tires to heavy 2.5-in steel bead tires I got dramatically improved traction, especially on soft surfaces like sand or gravel but I also found that guys who I use to beat to the top of any hill could now drop me at will on any climb. Since aerodynamics would play little roll on a MTB I would have to assume the weight of the tires was the primary cause of this. I noticed a similar if less dramatic effect on my vintage road bike when I changed from light weight tubulars to clinchers. Suddenly the bike seemed sluggish to accelerate or turn. I weighed the wheel sets and tires and found the clincher setup to be about 420-gr heavier per wheel than the tubulars. The clincher were slightly wider but both were running about 100-psi pressure. I'm not yet convinced that all the appropriate factors are being included in the formulas those guys are using.
    1959 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1966 Bottecchia Professional, 1971 Bottecchia Professional (frame),
    1973 Bottecchia Gran Turismo, 1974 Bottecchia Special, 1977 Bottecchia Special (frame),
    1974 Peugeot UO-8, 1988 Panasonic PT-3500, 2002 Bianchi Veloce, 2004 Bianchi Pista

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kommisar89 View Post
    Unfortunately they do not at all match what I feel in the seat of my pants so I'm left wondering just why that is.
    How well calibrated is the seat of your pants? I know for a fact that my red bike feels faster than my blue one. I also know that my blue bike is just as fast as the red one. There is no contradiction there.

  13. #13
    Zan
    Zan is offline
    Senior Member Zan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waterloo, ONT
    My Bikes
    Road: Trek 1.5 (2007). Mountain: Santa Cruz Chameleon (2008). Beater: Peugeot Recorde du Monde (1850)
    Posts
    1,417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    wait wait wait...

    i thought skinny tires were faster 'cause they have a smaller contact patch on the road. as well, they're more aero (or should be). why is a fatter tire faster, in that case, then?

    when i went from a POS 1.25" tire to a POS 1.125" tire on my road bike, my speed increased!

    on my POS FS mountain bike which weighed 40lbs and rode on 2.1" tires, i could average 25km/h on the road. now, on my 28lb fancy pants HT mountain bike with 2.35" tires, i can average about 19km/h on the road. i'm a stronger rider now than i was when i rode the POS FS mtb, too.
    -- Zan

    "Every dog needs a squeak toy."

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    2,953
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan View Post
    i thought skinny tires were faster 'cause they have a smaller contact patch on the road.
    You might want to think about that a little more. Contact area is just weight divided by tire pressure. Also, there are a lot more factors at play in rolling resistance for lugged tires compared to smooth or siped ones.

  15. #15
    Zan
    Zan is offline
    Senior Member Zan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waterloo, ONT
    My Bikes
    Road: Trek 1.5 (2007). Mountain: Santa Cruz Chameleon (2008). Beater: Peugeot Recorde du Monde (1850)
    Posts
    1,417
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    You might want to think about that a little more. Contact area is just weight divided by tire pressure.
    but don't the skinnier ones allow you to run higher pressures, thus reducing contact area? i've not had too much experience with higher-end rubber, but among cheap stuff, the thinner the tire, the higher the PSI potential.

    my 2.35's max is 50
    my 2.1's max is 60
    my 1.25's were 90
    i saw a set of nicer 1.125's with a 110 max
    -- Zan

    "Every dog needs a squeak toy."

  16. #16
    Senior Member deraltekluge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    My Bikes
    Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
    Posts
    1,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's not just that skinniness inherently allows higher pressure, it's more that skinniness requires higher pressure...and the tires are built to withstand it. The size of the contact patch is mainly determined by the tire pressure, although the stiffness of the tire carcass also plays a role. If you have a skinny tire and a fat tire at the same pressure, the skinny tire's contact patch will be longer and narrower, and that of the fat tire will be shorter and wider, but the areas will be about the same.

    Tread design and tire material and construction play a big role in determining the amount of drag. Two tires of the same size and running at the same pressure can have quite a bit of difference in drag.

  17. #17
    Bottecchia fan
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    My Bikes
    1959 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1966 Bottecchia Professional (in progress...), 1971 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1973 Bottecchia Gran Turismo, 1974 Bottecchia Special (in progress...), 1977 Bottecchia Special (frame), 1974 Peugeot UO-8
    Posts
    3,419
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    How well calibrated is the seat of your pants? I know for a fact that my red bike feels faster than my blue one. I also know that my blue bike is just as fast as the red one. There is no contradiction there.
    Well, when I'm looking at the seat of somebody else's pants who used to be looking at the seat of mine, that's pretty good indication that I'm going slower But of course it is all subjective. That's why I said, the science behind it sounds very convincing but...

    It's also quite possible that the difference is small and for such a brief duration (such as when changing direction or accelerating hard) that it makes no practical difference on the road but is still detectable to the rider, resulting in that "slower" feeling.

    edit: Just to show how subjective these things can be, I remember way back in the day the "fastest" car I ever drove was my buddy's 1965 Ponitac Grand Prix with a 421 tri-power engine. In truth it was at least a second slower than my or my other friend's heavily modified Z28 and Mustang GT but man was it scary. It was as big as a yacht and made a deafening roar when you cracked open the three two barrels. The softly sprung front end seemed like it wanted to come off the ground. You had to steer for all you were worth with the big manhole size steering wheel and all you could do was nudge the thing in the direction you wanted to go as the rear end fish tailed out from under you. And don't even think about stopping as the big 8-lug aluminum finned drum brakes were all show and no go, er stop. It was Mr. Toad's wild ride. You had white knuckles the whole time. IIRC it actually only turned 14.8 in the 1/4 mile but my God it was a beast. The Z and the Mustang turned 13's but were so well behaved by comparison as to seem tame.
    Last edited by Kommisar89; 08-28-08 at 10:23 PM.
    1959 Bottecchia Professional (frame), 1966 Bottecchia Professional, 1971 Bottecchia Professional (frame),
    1973 Bottecchia Gran Turismo, 1974 Bottecchia Special, 1977 Bottecchia Special (frame),
    1974 Peugeot UO-8, 1988 Panasonic PT-3500, 2002 Bianchi Veloce, 2004 Bianchi Pista

  18. #18
    Portland Fred banerjek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    My Bikes
    Custom Winter, Challenge Seiran SL, Fuji Team Pro, Cattrike Road/Velokit, РOS hybrid
    Posts
    10,496
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by viplala View Post
    There is a reason why road racing is done on very narrow tyres, pumped up to high pressure.
    Whether you want that on your daily ride, where comfort and ability to have a reasonably good ride on various surfaces come to play, is another matter.
    Bingo.

    A strong rider can go fast on anything. However, weight and aero are important even if deflection is greater on a smaller tire pumped to the same pressure as a wider tire. If wide tires really were faster, don't you suppose people who got paid to race would want them?

    One way to test the issue yourself is to get different sets of tires and see what happens. I'm not against wide tires (I have 28's on my commuter), but I definitely want 23's on the racer.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ABQ, NM
    My Bikes
    Neuvation F100, Surly Cross Check, Van Dessel Holeshot
    Posts
    1,152
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itsthewoo View Post
    Bigger tires = more weight which increases the moment of inertia.

    They also mean an increased cross sectional area; air drag is exponential, so this can get pretty noticeable.

    Moment of inertia affects acceleration, and air drag affects speed.

    I'm not so sure about how fatter slicks get less rolling resistance, but basically the comparison will be a balance between the different phenomena.
    more weight does not necessarily mean a higher moment of inertia, which goes like the mass times distance from the axis of rotation squared. If you put mass at the axis of rotation then there is no increase in the moment of inertia

    Speed goes like your velocity at bike speeds <75mph and it goes like the velocity squared after that.

    As for the 'scientific' article it lacked any isolation of external variables to be of any real use. Was Kraig Willets conditioning the same for each of these trials. This would be an extremely hard thing to control for and I doubt it was. Mixing vectors and scalars and not appropriately signing power losses relative to power gains is also suspect.

    Friction has nothing to do with surface area. It is a material property only.

  20. #20
    Portland Fred banerjek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    My Bikes
    Custom Winter, Challenge Seiran SL, Fuji Team Pro, Cattrike Road/Velokit, РOS hybrid
    Posts
    10,496
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jonestr View Post
    more weight does not necessarily mean a higher moment of inertia, which goes like the mass times distance from the axis of rotation squared. If you put mass at the axis of rotation then there is no increase in the moment of inertia
    So all I need is wide tires that concentrate all mass in the center of my hubs -- I'm on this!

    Quote Originally Posted by jonestr View Post
    Friction has nothing to do with surface area. It is a material property only.
    Handy information. I intend to cut my brake pads to 5% their current size to save weight. This should actually improve braking performance since there will be less mass to stop.

  21. #21
    BeaverTerror Yan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    My Bikes
    2013 True North custom touring; 2009 Unicycle.com Club Uni; 1989 Miele Tivoli; 1979 Colnago Sport
    Posts
    1,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by banerjek View Post
    Handy information. I intend to cut my brake pads to 5% their current size to save weight. This should actually improve braking performance since there will be less mass to stop.
    Ff = μ FN

    Ff = force due to friction (Newtons)
    FN = normal force (Newtons)
    μ = coefficient of friction between two surfaces (no units)

    You don't want to cut down your pads, because they would wear very quickly. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.
    Yan

    2013 True North custom touring; 2010 Novara Randonee; 2009 Unicycle.com Club 24"; 1989 Miele Tivoli; 1979 Colnago Sport

  22. #22
    Senior Member miamijim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    11,840
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Y'all are way over analyzing this....as I sadi earlier there's no way to say becasue ther're so many different variable that come into play.

    In no particular order these all play a roll:

    1. tread compound (how hard ot soft the rubber is)
    2. tread design obviously the more slick the better
    3. casing material....there's a difference between silk and nylon
    4. casing cinstruction....t.p.i. (threads per inch)
    makes a huge difference
    5. contact patch...there's more to it than 'rider weight * psi'
    6. tube type
    7. road surface black top? concrete? dirt?
    8. bead type.. is it a steel bead or kevlar?
    9. tire width
    10. tire width in relation to rim width

    kommisar...you 'seat of the pants' was correct. in genral a kevalr bead tire would climb better but it was porbaly more of tread design thing and weight thing
    WWW.CYCLESPEUGEOT.COM 2005 Pinarello Dogma; 1991 Paramount PDG 70 Mtb; 1976? AD Vent Noir; 1989 LeMond Maillot Juane F&F; 1993? Basso GAP F&F; 1989 Terry Symmetry; 2003 Trek 4700 Mtb; 1983 Vitus 979

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    260
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just kick up the horsepower a bit and you will be fine

  24. #24
    Senior Member deraltekluge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    My Bikes
    Kona Cinder Cone, Sun EZ-3 AX
    Posts
    1,195
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jonestr View Post
    Friction has nothing to do with surface area. It is a material property only.
    That's an approximation taught in beginning physics classes. It kinda, sorta works in many cases, but it's not really true.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Speedball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    My Bikes
    Redline MonoNine
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    After swapping out my Schwable Big Apple tires to regular 700x35 slicks I noticed a difference, easier rolling. May be due to the extra mass of all that rubber?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •