Originally Posted by
gauvins
I came across this thread as I hesitate between 1.75 and 2.00" tires.
Evidence suggests that wider tires are a better option for touring, because (1) they reduce rolling resistance, and (2) they contribute to a more comfortable ride. So it'll be 2.00" (same as now).
(1) and (2) are in opposition - the reduced RR assumes identical pressure; whereas more comfort would be the result of a lower pressure allowing the tire to absorb road imperfections.
Schwalbe's post explains that competitive cyclists favor relatively narrow tires because they accelerate faster. Not an issue for tourers, but critical for competitors.
I swear that the Schwalbe article, like similar ones, has been a detriment to how people understand rolling resistance and tire width because they say 'at the same PSI' when nobody should pump larger tires up to the same PSI as narrower tires. Its this goofy qualifier that seems to be frequently misunderstood or just missed entirely. Heck, many modern rims actually cant handle high PSI and wide tires- that combination places too much stress on the rim...so Schwalbe's statement cant even be tried on many modern rims.
But even when Schwalbe acknowledges the wider tire isnt run at the same PSI they cite data that shows a 60mm Big Apple at 30psi rolls as well as a 'standard 37mm tire' at 60psi...and the rolling resistance of both is like 28 watts. 28 watts?!!
My tubeless 45mm gravel tires with small knobs, Continental TerraSpeed 45, have 14 watts of rolling resistance at 40psi. They are reliable and durable.
My tubed 37mm commute/tour slick tires, Vittoria Voyager Hyper, have 16.5 watts of rolling resistance at 68psi. They are reliable, durable, and long lasting.
The tubed Continental Contact Urban tire, in 39mm width, has 18.4 watts of rolling resistance at 60psi. These are well reviewed and are a tank of a touring tire that is not expensive.
^ None of the above tires are lightweight, fragile, or overly expensive. They all save 10-14 watts compared to the 'standard 37mm tire' that Schwalbe uses in the graph comparison.
To get down to the rolling resistance numbers of the tires I listed(that have PSI I actually use), the Big Apple would need to be pumped up to 72psi. Nobody rides a 2.4" tire at 72psi. Many modern rims arent even designed for that. So the whole claim of 'lower rolling resistance at same PSI', with regard to the example they provide, is quite worthless.
gauvins - my rant isnt directed at you, to be clear. You clearly cite the conflict between faster rolling and more comfort, and that wider tires would have less PSI. As for your situation, I would consider the specific tire as much as the width. Are the 1.75" and 2.00" tires the same model? If not, I would look at which has lower rolling resistance along with flat protection, tread pattern, durability, etc. Personally, I would likely opt for the 1.75". A tire that is nearly 45mm wide is plenty wide for me on any paved or unpaved roads.