Originally Posted by blovejoyGB53

Well, I am not sure I am proud of it but I have been experimenting with bikes and set-ups for a long while now. I just turned sixty-six so a long while is pretty accurate! I have more bikes than one possibly should (at 9-10 currently) but that number will decrease soon. And those bikes (all steel) range from older (Trek 720, Raleigh Randonneur) to newer, though still old school in design (Rivendell Hilsen, now the Soma, plus a few others, including a 650b conversion). Oh, and a Brompton! There was actually one point in time where I *almost* had a bike with every tire size (16", 20", 26", 650b, 700c, 27"...) though I know there were some types/sizes missing. Actually, the only one of those missing at the moment is the 20". I like Schwalbe tires but also use Compass/Rene Herse tires and Pasela's on the Trek.

I have done some short touring and exploring over the years but never true long distance, or a months-long self-supported trip. I actually went 4 years or so car-free (and by choice!), 2 1/2 of those in Denver, and was quite proud of that. I broke down and bought a car last year (what I term "the ultimate bike accessory") but we'll see if it stays. I am a good rider, and experienced with more than most, but certainly not to the level that others have done. One thing I need to experiment more with is riding a fully loaded bike, making sure I understand how much that will affect handling, gearing, etc.

I will say, I do completely agree with the comments about bigger not necessarily being better. I surprised myself with some almost accidental testing, moving wheels between bikes and being too lazy to change tires. I won't go into details, as it approaches some level of sacrilege and I need to ride them more. But I will say the math (rotational mass, coefficient of friction, and a lot more things that I don't really know enough about), the math is very real(!) and larger volume tires (or just more supple?) should not be assumed to just be automatically better.