View Single Post
Old 10-14-17 | 10:11 PM
  #25  
3alarmer's Avatar
3alarmer
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,995
Likes: 10,496
From: Sacramento, CA

Bikes: old ones

Originally Posted by palincss
First off, the "premise that weight is speed" is wrong. A difference in rolling resistance is going to be a lot more significant than a tiny difference in weight. Second, if you could use a 28mm tire, why would you settle for a 25mm tire? And if you could fit a 32, why would you go with a 28? The narrower you go, the slower you are going. (Tests have shown that, and tire companies have confirmed it.)
...you seem to have joined the forum recently. While we can probably use all the members we can get, the ones with very strong and definite opinions, such as the one you have expressed here, generally don't seem to go the distance.

You can take that for what it's worth.

If you have any numbers that demonstrate more rolling resistance in Panaracer Pasela tyres, I'd very much like to see them. Otherwise, this is more of the wider is better Kool Aid that seems to be making the rounds these days. It makes no more sense than all those years everyone was certain that sub 1" tyres were going to put them on the podium in Cat racing. Tyre width and speed in relation to road surface is a complex model that you have done no justice. Good luck in here, because I sense you might need some.

I can assure you that based both on numbers and on personal experience, tyre weight is, indeed, a significant factor in both acceleration and overall feel of a bicycle. If you don't "get" that, maybe it's the sort of riding that you have done that would explain it. Or maybe it's something that you read somewhere. Rotational weight is dreadfully important on a wheel for something like a bicycle. I'm no weight weenie, but I know what works, sir.
3alarmer is offline  
Reply