When I switched from Challenge Strada-Bianca to Barlows on one bike, I definitely noticed they were just not quite as fast, but fast enough, and with the ride they give, who cares. Also love the sound they make going over tar strips.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...160001%202.jpg

I run Challenge Strada Bianca's on my Wabi. They are 30's that run as fast as my Vittoria 25's on my Pinarello and are smooth as silk on the road and corner like glue. I am 6' 2" and weigh about 205. I run them between 95 - 100. Love the softer livelier ride.

Even in their hay-day, I never liked the harsh ride of 23's and chose to run 25's instead. Truth be told, the old 27 x 1 1/4" gumwalls on my old Supercourse sure were smooth to!

I've been running the same pressure on the Vitesse SLs in 38.

Changes the character of my Merckx and adds versatility.

Rode it on our group ride last night. Some of the riders were giving me the business about the "cruiser" tires on the bike.

Mind you, they were on 23s and 25s at the most.

I held my own for 32 miles and I think the tires really added some fun/performance on our cruddy St. Paul streets.

What I have to say about this has already been said by others here but I'll say it again.

This is exactly backwards. I don't care doodleysquat about hard performance data. None. Zippo. Zilch. I couldn't care less about hard performance data. I don't race. I can easily ride as far and as fast as I wish, limited only by my free time.

But I do care very very much about how the bike feels. How the bike feels is exactly what I want to make a judgment on.

[RANT]What I don't understand (which is to say, what burns me) is why other people feel compelled to tell me what I should like and how I should judge it and what I should consider important. I don't tell other people what tire pressure they should run or how they should make up their minds about it. Why would anyone feel compelled to convince me?? I know what has been published. I've been riding lightweight bikes for about 45 years. I have enough technical background and enough kinesthetic (Windows doesn't know the word but dictionary.com does) sense to understand what is and what seems important. So I can make up my own mind, and even be skeptical if I wish.[/RANT]

I've been running front/rear distinct psi for about 2 years now, and sometimes, I think I can tell the difference. 85-90 in front and 125-130 in rear. I tend to want to believe that I was running too much in front above "useful" and too little in the rear. Whatever the reason, even if psychological, I do like the staggered setup.

there you go

I was running Strada Biancas on two bikes, 65/45 on one, and 65/55 on another, at least 15,000 mi together - and they were great - amazingly quiet, which to me tells their rolling efficiency. We're pretty close, I have an inch and just a few of pounds on you.
I've decided that Stampede Pass EL is just as fast, though.
Since they're vulcanized, they have to stretch a bit to come into their own, though. Compass are actually the first vulcanized tires I've ridden in 6 years (except for a little overlap with 27" rims and Paselas).

Damn, Jim, did Jan ride across your lawn?

:lol:

Initial sprint? Probably, but the secondary sprint really kicks butt.

:lol:

[MENTION=61571]Spoonrobot[/MENTION] and [MENTION=417491]Bikerider007[/MENTION], I think you're right. When you are racing and otherwise going as fast as you can, weight matters more to you than to other riders, which is why narrow tires work better. They are lighter. When you're not going quite that fast, rolling resistance has an increasing importance. It adds up over the miles and reduces fatigue. Reducing fatigue can get you there faster if you're putting on a lot of miles, though not necessarily. Reducing fatigue can keep up your willingness to stay on the bike and finish a long ride.

All things being equal, the wider tire is faster, but all things never are equal. There have been breakthroughs in weight-to-width ratio, but wider is still heavier. Just not as much as before.

I'm not all that fast, and most of my riding is commuting, so I generally prefer tires between 28 and 35 mm. It's right for me but not for everyone.

:) Noop. I have nothing against him, nothing at all.

So why the [RANT] section? ("Because why?") Because this tends to be an emotional subject here in BF. Every few months we get another tire pressure thread into which people post strong opinions. (Most posts seem to be by low-pressure advocates explaining why lower is better as if we really really really needed to be convinced, but that may just be how it feels and not backed up by hard performance data. :D)

So I asked myself why the strong emotional responses, including my own. I realized that it has nothing to do with tire pressure or performance data. It has to do with people trying to tell others what they should do. And implicit in that telling is the assumption that the same criteria for person X or racer Y apply to everyone else.

At least it feels like that's the underlying issue but maybe it's not backed up by hard performance data.

As for tire pressure and Jan and all that stuff, I have reasons to be skeptical. Seeing published data is a good thing. Accepting applicability to one's own riding isn't necessarily appropriate. For example, my commute and my typical recreational rides are on roads which do not especially batter me to pieces with bumps. So I don't mind higher pressure. On the other hand I do occasionally hit a hole pretty hard. I've had one snake bite flat in about five years of commuting and I realized I hadn't been routinely topping off those tires. But one time I hit a hole so hard that it dented the rim without flatting the tire. I had to rebuild the wheel but at least I didn't have to swap the tube on the side of the road to get home. I am not racing long distances every day for three weeks straight, so I am not concerned about wearing myself out. Only one of my bikes hits bumps noticeably harder than the others. So the same criteria which make other BF members prefer soft tires do not apply to me. Which means they doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.

Maybe, Grady held his own for 32 miles but didn't say how long the ride was. :D jk guys

:D ok Mark let me clarify, the initial part of the sprint. Taking off, alot of pressure goes on/over the front tire and it's no longer 60/40 or whatever, was just food for thought.

I am not going to add air to my tires today like I usually do, I will ride them on a natural regression. Although one could argue as JIm did and add, letting the air out of the tires is not C&V therefore you are modernizing your C&V ride if you do so. :lol::lol::lol:

Rob

I ride all of my off road bikes at fairly low tire pressures, but I still run Veloflex Masters and the new Vittoria Corsas + at fairly traditional higher pressure levels.

I guess it just depends, doesn't it.

BTW I read this stuff on Jan's site/BQ and still do what I darn well please. Been riding way to long to just knee jerk this.....

I don't care about other people's opinion's or understand their emotions on a subject such as tire pressure. It's not like we're discussing politics or religion. I like seeing studies and data, and I like counter arguements so I can consider pros and cons based on the evidence.

What's of interest to me is that there is a "conventional wisdom" that high pressure, skinny tires are faster. I think most everyone would agree that fatter, lower pressure tires are more comfortable. A lot of people stay away from them because they feel they are slower - those that care about speed as a priority. I don't ride very fast, but I do like to ride longer distances, getting to the end with less energy expended, and a comfortable ride is important to me. Seeing studies that say it won't slow me down removes a reason not to run fatter and lower pressure tires.

When I see people claim that skinnier and/or higher pressure is faster, I'm always looking for data, not opinions or feelings. No one's under any obligation to do so, but at the end of the day, I try to make my choices based on information, and, yes, my personal preferences which are intertwined with data and my own personal opinions and feelings. And I'm still waiting for that data...

So I posted the podcast because it involved a few other people besides Jan who are looking at data, mentions changes in tires and pressure in the pro peloton, and more evidence to support the theory. We seem to be getting newbies from time to time that are very interested in the C&V aspect of cycling, they come here for information, and I think it's appropriate to post things like this.

I really don't care what tires you ride, and I would never try to personally convince you to change. This forum is about an exchange of ideas, information, and, of course, a box of crap. I think the box of crap does remind us that we take ourselves, our sport, our hobby a bit lightly.

If anybody asks, it's a slow leak...

:innocent:

Jan Heine alludes to tire construction being a big factor in tire performance, and I think that may be an unappreciated factor in the "skinny tires are faster" mindset. My understanding is that for decades, only skinny 700C tires were made with decently-flexible casings and efficient treads. Anything over 28mm was for touring or "large people" and so had tougher casings and thicker tread. 26" MTB tires? There again, you might find options like the Tom Slick, but in most cases, they weren't built for lightness and efficiency. And while 650B never completely died in France, what you'd see on the streets were mostly the "utility" type of tire with the heavy tread and rubbery gumwalls we'd associate with cheaper tires.

So if one wanted an efficient ride, it would be understandable that they'd gravitate toward their best options: tubulars, or 700C tires under 25mm or 28mm or so.

Jan says that it's harder/more expensive to make the larger volume tires that are still fast, so I've had sort of a theory that 650B waned back in the 1950s or whatever because the average person found it harder to afford the tires needed to go fast on those bikes, while decent 700C tires were easier to make and as we all know, they felt faster anyhow. I don't have a lot of evidence to back up that theory, but I like it.

Now that high-performance large tires are (back) on the market, we're pretty spoiled for options. One can get really nice-rolling tires in any size from small to large. Life is good. :)

I've never believed any of Jan's tests, except when they corroborate with my real world experience. I was so sold on Challenge tires, it took me forever to try Compass.
In case you didn't know, a rando bag functions as a faring, breaking up the parachute between your knees and chest.
I already knew that before I read Jan's wind tunnel test.
But again, a tire that comforms to the road surface rolls faster than a tire that bounces and chatters - every time it recontacts the road, it loses rotational momentum. But to most people, the feeling of bounce and chatter defines fast.

Call me simple but I found this nutty little device pretty useful for defining fast. :)

https://drms3v40st3o6.cloudfront.net...trada-slim.jpg

27 klicks does not define fast. :D

Your wrong.;)

This would have been a more aptly named thread if it were just called "Letting the Air Out".


Double entendre. ;)

I will let some of my air out!

Rightly or wrongly, mostly rightly for me, I ride a 91 Pinarello Monetello as my commuter bike. The frame barely accepts 25's. I have to use the adjustment barrels to open the calipers enough to pull a wheel off. Going bigger isn't an option with 700c rims. After 7 flats or so in the last 3 weeks, I am about to load up a new pair of 23's.

Anyway, the tires are labels 115-160 PSI. I have been running them at 100 +- 5 psi. I decided to try the 115 -120 range after the last flat. It does feel faster and the Cateye validates the difference. Given the 320 Thread count, the ride is not bad.

My question is, for you experts out there, if the manufacturer states a range, would you still go below?

WOW, I don't know why you were compelled to quote me, I don't have a dog in the fight I was just relaying information from the podcast which this thread was about.

I pretty much ride all my tires below the recommended range.
Is it the chainstays or seat tube that limits your fit?
If it's the seat tube, try Challenge Strada - they're as short as a 23 and as wide as a 27

It also varies with the tires, the rims, your weight, front/rear weight distribution, all that. At 320tpi, I'm guessing they're Vittorias.
I run my Open Paves at 80/90 f/r. Vittoria recommends 100-130. I have run them at 100-105 r, but like them a lot better where I run them now, and haven't tried them lower (they chatter my teeth at 105).
Some times don't run well below rated pressure. The Open Paves do for me. I replaced one tire due to a cut, and a couple due to tread wear, but have never flatted these tires in several thousand mi. Planning to ride the bike into downtown this weekend - knock on wood.

Not one set point is going to work for everybody on every bike on every road.

There really shouldn't be a fight here, but a discussion of what works for people compared to the OP information.

I guess sometimes it gets to the point of "You do what I tell you to do!" but mostly, it seems like, "Hey, guys, look what I just discovered. I hope you try it, too."