Originally Posted by
drmweaver2
To quote one of them: "In general terms, the total drag of a cyclist will consist of 80% tire rolling resistance and 20% wind resistance at 10 km/h or 6 mph. At 40 km/h or 25 mph the numbers will reverse, with total drag consisting of 80% wind resistance and 20% tire rolling resistance."
Originally Posted by
bluefoxicy
this tells me that low rolling resistance tires are important for accelerating and leisure riding, but not as important for distance riding (aerodynamics become more significant).
No. That's not the point at all. What it means is that lowering drag is of most benefit at higher speeds. What this particular quote doesn't address is wind speed. The higher the wind speed, the more an aero position helps you. Even if you're only pushing 12mph into a 25mph headwind, that aero benefit is going to save you some suffering.
It's not as though rolling resistance doesn't matter at high speeds. It does. Nobody is going to maintain 25mph+ speeds on big tires for very long. Higher rolling resistance means more work. That's an especially important consideration in long distance riding.
Long distance riders often opt for larger, heavier tires not because rolling resistance doesn't matter over long distance, but because they have added layers of puncture resistance, and a more plush ride. It's a trade off that many think are worth it, but it's a matter of personal preference.