Chombi

Just having returned to biking after a long "retirement" from it, I noticed that performance folding clincher tires seems to have changed in design. I noticed that most now come in 23mm and wider widths while back in college, I was riding 19mm Specialized Turbos (advertised as being 195 grams light) and 20mm Michelin Bib Sports TS that were pretty much the same width as my very narrow rims. I was shocked when I replaced the old dried up Turbos on my bike a couple of months ago with 23mm Vittoria Diamante Pros and they looked like "touring" width tires to me. So wide and kinda fugly too IMO, with it's all black color. Most of the new tires have nylon casing construction too instead of the what I thought was preferred cotton casings that the Specialized Turbos had in the 80's. I also got so used to the hard, but responsive ride of the Turbos and Bib Sports back then that the Diamante Pros feel kinda mushy to me now.
Finding latex tubes is also harder now, so I ended up using butyl Michelin Airstops instead, for my tires today. I used to have Specialized latex tubing on the bike that helped to keep the reciprocating weight of the wheels low and there seems to be a nicer livelier feel to them.

What happened?? Was there a big shift away from lighter narrower tires while I was "gone"??
I also noticed the proliferation of deep section aero rims that could result in heavier than it should wheelsets. Is the aero advantage offsetting the weight gains enough to make sense?

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV

dit

Interesting thoughts. I am looking forward to the replys.

delicious

interesting that you mention those Turbos. i bought 4 of them a few months back from a local guy - 700x19's. the sidewalls of two of them blew out due to their age, but the other two are still going strong and i love the ride. were they high-end in their day?

Kommisar89

Yes, interesting comments. I too await the discussion. Alas when I was a youngster and before I went into my first cycling retirement, there were no performance clinchers. Any bike that I could afford had 27 x 1 1/4 inch clinchers that weighed like 5-lbs each and only held 75-psi or they blew off the rims. If there is anything like a modern standard for road tires today it does seem like 700x23. I've run a variety of tires on my modern bike, most recently the Vittoria Rubino Pros and the Vredstein Fortezzas and I've been very happy with them but I have nothing from the past to compare them to. There are some modern high-performance folding clinchers with tan sidewalls for that vintage look but I don't know how they compare to the all out race oriented blackwall tires.

SoreFeet

I believe that Veloflex and Challenge are the only two companies making a supple fabric like some of the vintage clincher designs.

The standard width is now 23MM because it works well for most people. I prefer a 28 or even 35MM for riding bad roads.

kendall

I think the move to aero rims come from a need to strengthen the rims for a lower spoke count, they are essentially an 'A' frame in section, which being fully triangulated is the lightest construction for the strength. Being able to advertise them as aerodynamic is an added bonus for the manufacturers.
I don't feel the rims themselves reduce drag, but the ability to go down on the spoke count does (marginally), so the rim's only contribution to aerodynamics is indirect.
My personal opinion is that you can spend thousands of hours in a wind tunnel designing a bike, but as soon as you throw a rider on it you have tossed all those hours right out the window.

Three more or less modern trends I dislike are the move to fatter tires, everything going to blackwall, and the whole 'aero' movement

Ken.

Chombi

Yes, Specialized Turbos were considered some of, if not the best folding clincher tires of the 80's. they had the S, R and VS models. the "S" their first model, the next "R" their slick treadless (radical for that time) model with the "VS" being an improvement of the S. I think there was also a "VR" too. I would consider them along with Michelin with their Bibsport line, to be the real pioneers of high performance foldable clincher tires. Specialized Turbos were better than the Michelins though, because the Bibsports usually developed sidewall degeneration (tearing) after a short time.
Be careful with those NOS turbos you bought. If they were not properly stored, the gum sidewalls would have dried up on them and can present a blowout danger. When I pulled my bike out and overhauled it after many years of storage (about 20 years, in fact) I was surprised the the Turbo VS tires and Specialized latex tubes still held 100PSI and I foolishly took them for a test spin around the neighborhood. Parked it in the garage overnight after that and discovered this in the morning: YIKES!!

the sidewall blew out sometime in the night. It would have most likely resulted in a crash if it happened when I was testing the bike. When I inspected the tire, I noticed that the thin gum covering on the sidewalls were totally gone, leaving the exposed cotton threads on the entire two sides of the tire. The gum covering must have crumbled and turned to dust as I was riding the bike around the neighborhood the day before.

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV

mudboy

Personally, I prefer wider folding tires because the roads in SE PA are really bad.

I do seem to remember there being some testing a while back that showed wider tires offering lower rolling resistance.

Pete

Chombi

Interesting.... Logic seems to say that wider tires are harder to roll, but in the scale of narrow bicycle performance tires, is there some sort of deformation/squirm resistance with the wider clincher tires that might lead them to be less roll resistant??

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV

longbeachgary

You opened a can of worms. Today's logic is that narrower tires have more rolling resistance because -------- sorry, I forgot why... Oh wait, I remember - contact patch is wider on the narrower tires.?.?

You can hardly find a tire narrower than 23's. The 21's are gone and the 18 Continentals are in the history books. People here seem to like 25's and 32's.

Chombi

Can of worms indeed..... "contact patch wider on narrow tires??".....I can't help but hear conflict within that statement. ;^))
Someone bring in a bicycle tire engineer to clear this all up for us! X8^O

BTW, Geeze.......25-32mm sounds almost truck tire wide to an 80's cyclist like me my mind can't cope with the thought of riding those sizes...........yet!

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV

roccobike

Interesting. I wasn't into road biking 20 to 30 years ago. However, I've purchased over a dozen road bikes with 700C clinchers from that era. Most still have the original tires. None of them have 19 or 20 width. Two or three had 23C, with 25 being the most common width followed by 28. I always thought the trend was getting more narrow width tires as 23s seem to be the standard width today. I certainly have no problem finding 20s, but I'm a tad too heavy for those.

RobbieTunes

I don't know about the worms....My tires are in varying widths, to some degree, and not consistent:

My 700x18 Vittoria Pro Team Open Chrono II are wonderful and smooth; thanks, txvintage.
My 700x23 Vittoria Rubino Race tires are great.

My 700x18 Panaracer Technova II's were horribly hard and not at all fun.

My 700x23 Vredestein Ricorso's were, as cudak888 warned me, hard as rocks.

My 700x18 Hutchinson Fusion II is hard as a rock, looks fast, but not all fun.
My 700x23 Hutchiinson Fusion II is great.
My 700x23 Hutchinson Equinox are good for the price.
My 700x23 Hutcinson Profil-U HP25's are the best relaxed tire I've ever had.

My 700x20 Pro Race 2's are fine, but not as smooth as they could be and not for bumps.
My 700x23 Pro Race 2's are great, and I'll buy more when they wear out.

I think you can still get 700x20's in Pro Race 3's, I believe. There will always be a market for skinnies.

I read somewhere that Michelin tested rolling resistance and the 23's roll as easy as the 18's used to. I don't know. I can corner with more confidence on my Vittorias than anything, regardless of size. I've tried several of the tires on the same wheelsets, and my preference is Vittoria, overall.

Some of the tires look a lot bigger than others, and I'd be willing to bet actually are, regardless of size rating.

As for wheels, well, I don't know about them, either. My nicest set are old and heavy, but aero and 16 spoke count (Ventos) but the best set I ever rode on were older school Wolber SC Alpines with 36 spokes.

My racing friends are all about aero. One of them had me run my Kestrel up to 20 mph and then coast, to try and show me the aero difference. With an aero set of wheels and 700x19's, the bike "held speed" about 15seconds longer than with my training wheelset. When I added the disc cover on the back wheel, it held speed 40 seconds longer over 3 runs. We did this over and over, and I admit a difference. Then we had beer.

JohnDThompson 

Yes, tires have gotten wider again in the past few years. Several studies have suggested that there is no rolling resistance penalty using wider tires, and they are often more comfortable than the narrow ones.

But I'm with you in still preferring the look of the narrow tires. I run Michein 700C x 18mm tires on one bike and Continental 700C x 20mm tires on several others.

luker

wider tires (23 mm isn't really very wide) give you more cushion, and conform to the road surface better. Tire chatter over loose or variable seal coat is reduced, thus (sometimes) increasing velocity for the same given effort. I use either Schwalbe Ultremos or Michelin Pro Race 3s. Either tire is under 200 grams for a 23 mm cross section, the rubber provides much more traction (especially in lean) and they wear better than the old 19mm tires. I have some 19mm turbos mounted on a vintage bike, and I have some 19mm panasonic tubulars mounted on another.

I ride 'em sometimes, to remind me how good I got it today.

Is that popcorn I smell?

kendall

Most studies I've read comparing the rolling resistence of narrow tires to wide tires have the phrase "at the same pressure" (or similar) embedded somewhere. So if you take a few different sized tires and run them all at the same pressure with the same load on them, the fatter tire WILL have lower resistance simply because of the sidewall flex.
However, It's a physical law that the load and the pressure WILL reach equalibrium. With a 100lb load the contact patch WILL expand untill the area times the pressure equals the load. A tire with a 100lb load on it at 50psi WILL have a 2sq inch contact patch, with 100psi it will have a 1 square inch contact patch, with 125psi, it will be about 3/4sq inch. Since a narrower tire normally requires higher pressure the contact patch is smaller so you have less rolling resistance. In all the years I've been riding bikes I've NEVER seen a fat tire that uses the same pressure as a thin tire. (overinflate a fat tire and you should be able to make the same resistance)

Ken.

cyclotoine

You just explained quite beautifully why we all use 23s today. At the same pressure there is no more rolling resistance and you have a larger air volume between you and the road. The beauty of a larger tire is that you can run 100psi and be more comfortable with no rolling resistance penalty and as (was it luker?) explained it smooths out the bumps often increasing speed.

KtotheF

have to admit, I'm a younger rider, and am sorta baffled by the idea of riding, let alone racing, on 20s.

I can weigh in on the question of wheels though, but pointing out that there are still some manufacturers making "traditional" looking, low profile wheels, Williams Wheels 19s: https://williamscycling.com/sys19/sys19.html

however, their more aero clinchers, the 30s, are still extremely light: https://williamscycling.com/sys30/sys30.html

Basically, I think these days due to new materials and whatnot, the aero advantages outweigh the weight disadvantage on so called all-arounder wheels, till a certain point that they only become useful on flatlands and in time trials

embankmentlb

I definitely get less flats on todays tires than i did with the Turbos of 20 years ago.
About a year age I dug out my old 1987 Cannondale. I replaced the Turbo tires with a modern tire only to find that the new tire drags the brake bridge. Those Turbos had very thin tread.

zacster

I also used to ride Spec Turbo R, S and Michelin Hilite Pro (I think that's what they were called) in 19mm widths, and used latex tubes as well. I also rode on Clement Criterium Setas and a lot of other sew ups. I always remember the ride being very harsh on the clinchers compared to the tubulars. The tubs were always a narrow design and the clinchers were trying to mimic that, but with tubs you still had more air underneath you.

When I went to buy my first modern tires I was also shocked to see that 700x23 became the standard, but I also saw that the weight was the same as the 700x19. When I put them onto my new Velomax Tempest semi-aero wheels with 18 spokes fr/24 rear, and went on my usual ride I was totally sold. There just wasn't any comparison. I only went back to my old tubulars once since then and that was to take my all original Italian steel/Campy SR bike out for a spin, with one original tire on it even. The tires I use now are Conti GP4000s.

As for wheel weight, even a heavier wheel from today with a 23 clincher is lighter than the 36 spoke wheels with a 19. My Tempests are the original model and they aren't as light as the latest EA90 aero that's replaced them, but still much lighter than my older tubular Campy hub/GP4 rim wheel.

And I agree with the flats argument above too. I don't get flats until the tire is fairly worn out, and I ride in NYC where the roads aren't the best.

Charles Wahl

When I built my first "serious" bike in the mid-80s, I outfitted it with Specialized Turbo Rs (slick). Later, I bought Avocets, also slick. Maybe it's my nostalgic imagination, but I think that those are the nicest tires, on smooth pavement, that I've every ridden, and I'm really upset that they're no longer in production. I find the modern blackwall and other replacements like Continental Gatorskins to be unattractive, and yearn for nice old no-tread slicks to reappear.

I've ridden narrow tires for many years, but while they look nice, I don't find them that comfortable for long rides. I went from 20 to 25s (the Avocets were sized that way, but actually narrower), and have settled on 28s on my road bike for more riding comfort.

As others have pointed out, I think that the wider tires actually test as having lower rolling resistance. If you believe Jan Heine (Bicycling Quarterly editor and randonneur), widths on the order of 32s may actually have the least rolling resistance. I have a new build that's got 32 mm Panaracers on it (not the most expensive tire), and I don't feel like they're slower than the 25s or 28s. I'm planning to try some more expensive wider-format ones, like the Grand Bois Jack Brown, or Rivendell Rolly-Polys.

Moreover tubulars appear to have more rolling resistance than clinchers. That being said, people generally believe that for the same width, tubulars have a more "floating" ride and surer traction than clinchers do; it may be that narrow clinchers developed to mimic the widths of tubulars, even though the ride is harsher. I can't speak about this, really, since I've never ridden tubulars.

If these propositions are true, the use of narrower clincher tires is just Lance-alike image, like much of road biking equipment. Disclaimer: I'm predisposed to believe them, because I'm finding wider tires more comfortable to ride.

Kommisar89

Yep you must be young - I don't see anything traditional about those sys19 rims. Heck they aren't even made of wood They aren't deep V's but they sure ain't traditional box section rims. They look a lot like the MAVIC CXP23s on on my Bianchi and I think are considered semi-aero not traditional.

Chombi

I was thinking exactly the same. If you are talking about 80's "traditional" wheels.
The wheels in those links look too uhmmm....too "new". Traditional might be 36 or 32 spokes with three cross lacing, hard anodized Mavic MA40 or narrower/lighter rims from Ambrosio and Rigida with the slightest hint of an earo profile from rounded out shoulders on the rims, sealed AND non-sealed bearing low flange hubs, six speed spacing.
The wheels in those links might be closer to Olympic or TDF (time trial) caliber equipment in the late 80's.

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV

bbattle

I wonder how many of those 700 x 19 tires actually measured 19mm wide?

Chombi

The Turbos I rode in the 80's certainly looked like they were. Fully inflated, they had very minimal overhang over the edges of the rim and I think that the extreme narrowness of the Turbos I used was even the cause of my denting my rim once on a pretty small and shallow hole on the road (One big point against narrower tires). Unlike the 23mm Vittoria I have now that looks humungous widthwise in comparison and looks like it will protect the rim better.

Chombi
84 Peugeot PSV