Tires... wider maybe faster than narrow
04-14-11, 12:30 PM
#77
Have bike, will travel
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lake Geneva, WI
Posts: 12,284
Bikes: Ridley Helium SLX, Canyon Endurance SL, De Rosa Professional, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Schwinn Paramount (1 painted, 1 chrome), Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Raleigh Roker, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 910 Post(s)
Liked 288 Times
in
158 Posts
04-14-11, 01:34 PM
#78
I need speed
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,550
Bikes: Giant Propel, Cervelo P2
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
HED was one of the first racing wheel manufacturers to go with wider rims for performanmce reasons, but it is a definite trend at this point, even when using 23's. Reading the specs on the bikes used in Paris-Roubaix this year, there were a lot of wider rims in the race. Of course part of that is to accommodate the wider tires needed for the cobbles; the last thing you want on that race is a tire profile that looks like a light bulb. The wider rims are supposed to provide greater cushioning, better cornering (less change when you lean over), and also better aero. If all true, then what's not to like?
04-14-11, 06:06 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Depends on the width. I have 15 mm rims (inside width) and they are good for 23 to 32mm according to this table https://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html . You have to scroll down near the bottom of the page.
Al
Al
04-14-11, 06:39 PM
#80
Have bike, will travel
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lake Geneva, WI
Posts: 12,284
Bikes: Ridley Helium SLX, Canyon Endurance SL, De Rosa Professional, Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra, Schwinn Paramount (1 painted, 1 chrome), Peugeot PX10, Serotta Nova X, Simoncini Cyclocross Special, Raleigh Roker, Pedal Force CG2 and CX2
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 910 Post(s)
Liked 288 Times
in
158 Posts
Mavic recommends 19 to 28mm wide tires on it's 19mm wide (outside width) rims.
Last edited by Barrettscv; 04-14-11 at 06:42 PM.
04-14-11, 07:49 PM
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,863
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1853 Post(s)
Liked 659 Times
in
502 Posts
I worked as an engineer/scientists for some 35 years doing R &D to develop Navy systems. We never made major decisions based on lab tests. We tested in the field. To do so with Lab tests assumes you fully understand all the parameters involved which is rarely the case. If it is the case, then you don't need to do R & D/testing.
Lab tests are often used to gain sufficient knowledge to test in the field.
While this particular test was a small sample, it bears out results of other small sample tests. The logic is also sound. Smaller, higher pressure tires suffer more suspension/rider losses by the energy wasted accelerating the bike/rider in the vertical. Which tire is less lossy is a function of speed and road surface roughness.
Which tire will be faster also depends on the weight of the tire as many situations like racing require involve a lot of acceleration which also eats up energy and tires the rider particularly in long races. A heavier/wider tire could in fact have less energy loss due to the road, but kill average speed due to it's weight and would be a poor choice.
Other tests by the same publiction show the tire wind loss differences are trivial. But, that could be at the lower speeds where I ride.
Again, I could care less if any one is convinced or not. The issue is interesting technically and also for the defensiveness it incites in many who are apparently threatened by new information. To question one's integrity/intelligence/etc as has occurred in this thread over a stupid test is facinating on it's own.
Some of us ride for enjoyment and health. I would argue one can do both with wider tires. To achiece the highest average speed as well, then it depends.
For mountain biking, I want to ride as fast as possible as I have the most fun that way. I use medium width tires at ultra low pressures (24-26F/26-28r) because the trails are really rough. You pick up speed not to mention control.
I don't use tubelss tires as they are too heavy. I convert tube-type tires to tubless for that acceleration effect.
When I know I'm going to ride a smooth trail (rarely), I'll up the pressures as I know I'll pick up speed.
Al
Lab tests are often used to gain sufficient knowledge to test in the field.
While this particular test was a small sample, it bears out results of other small sample tests. The logic is also sound. Smaller, higher pressure tires suffer more suspension/rider losses by the energy wasted accelerating the bike/rider in the vertical. Which tire is less lossy is a function of speed and road surface roughness.
Which tire will be faster also depends on the weight of the tire as many situations like racing require involve a lot of acceleration which also eats up energy and tires the rider particularly in long races. A heavier/wider tire could in fact have less energy loss due to the road, but kill average speed due to it's weight and would be a poor choice.
Other tests by the same publiction show the tire wind loss differences are trivial. But, that could be at the lower speeds where I ride.
Again, I could care less if any one is convinced or not. The issue is interesting technically and also for the defensiveness it incites in many who are apparently threatened by new information. To question one's integrity/intelligence/etc as has occurred in this thread over a stupid test is facinating on it's own.
Some of us ride for enjoyment and health. I would argue one can do both with wider tires. To achiece the highest average speed as well, then it depends.
For mountain biking, I want to ride as fast as possible as I have the most fun that way. I use medium width tires at ultra low pressures (24-26F/26-28r) because the trails are really rough. You pick up speed not to mention control.
I don't use tubelss tires as they are too heavy. I convert tube-type tires to tubless for that acceleration effect.
When I know I'm going to ride a smooth trail (rarely), I'll up the pressures as I know I'll pick up speed.
Al
I'm not fast. I like tires that feel good and don't ever feel sluggish on my 13-17 mph rides over mixed road quality and soem mixed terrain. Into this category I like 21 mm tubulars, 28 mm Conti clinchers, and 32 mm Pasela TGs, for a wide range. I have a set of 27 mm Challenge tubulars that will soon see the road. But I'm more interested in feel and durability. All of the above have been pretty durable.
I don't race, so I'm less concerned about acceleration. I do like to roll over hills. For me, rolling resistance would be significant, but I don't see a good cheap way to quantify any road test results.
Usage has a lot to do with what tire characteristics we find important.
Last edited by Road Fan; 04-16-11 at 12:44 PM. Reason: didn't finish it the first time!
04-16-11, 09:15 AM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
We do appear to have the same out look and riding approach. Thanks for the comment.
I'll have to check this tread to find the article you are referencing. I'm only referencing my original post where I paraphrased the results of a Bicycle Quarterly limited/low budget test results which were on rumble strips.
They had done tire loss testing in the past and got the same results, but I have not bought those back issues yet to see the details.
What bothers me about lab testing in this case is that the suspension loss is a function of the tire as you point out, but also of the bike construction, materials, the rider and sitting position. It gets down to the flexibility/stiffness of even the individual sections of the bike. So any lab test would require a full bike with the rider. A tire may be less efficient on one bike than another at least in theory and possibly in practice.
One can argue theory all day as we do here, but all that really counts of course is the numerical difference in real world conditions.
To me, the the best experiment would be a bike mounted power meter with a calibrated recording speed and distance sensor (like a GPS) and ride some typical roads with different tires. That would be the true test. Of course if the bike does significantly affect suspension losses, different bikes could be used.
I can see a group of riders doing this during their recreational rides over a year or two at very little bother/cost. Not likely to happen soon though. No one has an economic stake in settling the issue with real data.
Power meters are now available as rear hubs and are relatively inexpensive. A friend of mine has one on his road bike. He rides pace lines so it's unlikely he'll experiment with wider tires or suffer the derision from his friends. But, I'll mention it to him. he might enjoy getting his name in print in BQ.
It's the real men who use wide tires. In the spring issue of BQ the editor has a piece on their weekend ride from Seattle to the dirt roads around St Hellens. They left Friday at 8 PM and at 3:55 Am they reached the beginning of their ride in the Cascades after 115 miles.
They explored dirt/gravel roads around St Hellens and got a motel room after 24 hrs and 227 miles. They left the motel at 8:15 Sunday AM. They did more riding in the cascades. They got back to Seattle at 9 PM Sunday after 400 miles.
They were using 41mm tires, hub generators, lights and handlebar bags (gasp!)
These kinds of rides/equipments were typical before WW II in France.
Al
I'll have to check this tread to find the article you are referencing. I'm only referencing my original post where I paraphrased the results of a Bicycle Quarterly limited/low budget test results which were on rumble strips.
They had done tire loss testing in the past and got the same results, but I have not bought those back issues yet to see the details.
What bothers me about lab testing in this case is that the suspension loss is a function of the tire as you point out, but also of the bike construction, materials, the rider and sitting position. It gets down to the flexibility/stiffness of even the individual sections of the bike. So any lab test would require a full bike with the rider. A tire may be less efficient on one bike than another at least in theory and possibly in practice.
One can argue theory all day as we do here, but all that really counts of course is the numerical difference in real world conditions.
To me, the the best experiment would be a bike mounted power meter with a calibrated recording speed and distance sensor (like a GPS) and ride some typical roads with different tires. That would be the true test. Of course if the bike does significantly affect suspension losses, different bikes could be used.
I can see a group of riders doing this during their recreational rides over a year or two at very little bother/cost. Not likely to happen soon though. No one has an economic stake in settling the issue with real data.
Power meters are now available as rear hubs and are relatively inexpensive. A friend of mine has one on his road bike. He rides pace lines so it's unlikely he'll experiment with wider tires or suffer the derision from his friends. But, I'll mention it to him. he might enjoy getting his name in print in BQ.
It's the real men who use wide tires. In the spring issue of BQ the editor has a piece on their weekend ride from Seattle to the dirt roads around St Hellens. They left Friday at 8 PM and at 3:55 Am they reached the beginning of their ride in the Cascades after 115 miles.
They explored dirt/gravel roads around St Hellens and got a motel room after 24 hrs and 227 miles. They left the motel at 8:15 Sunday AM. They did more riding in the cascades. They got back to Seattle at 9 PM Sunday after 400 miles.
They were using 41mm tires, hub generators, lights and handlebar bags (gasp!)
These kinds of rides/equipments were typical before WW II in France.
Al
Al, I've always respected your posts, and I don't argue with your view. In my engineering work I also understand the difference between exploratory testing where we want to find out how something works, versus tests to validate designs or design changes. But what was done here has some value, for one thing to show that new bike parts outfits are trying to study the lower-loss/wider-tire claim. The reporting and interviewing were very flawed, in how the reporter mis-stated the performance improvement, among other things.
I'm not fast. I like tires that feel good and don't ever feel sluggish on my 13-17 mph rides over mixed road quality and soem mixed terrain. Into this category I like 21 mm tubulars, 28 mm Conti clinchers, and 32 mm Pasela TGs, for a wide range. I have a set of 27 mm Challenge tubulars that will soon see the road. But I'm more interested in feel and durability. All of the above have been pretty durable.
I don't race, so I'm less concerned about acceleration. I do like to roll over hills. For me, rolling resistance would be significant, but I don't see a good cheap way to quantify any road test results.
Usage has a lot to do with what tire characteristics.
I'm not fast. I like tires that feel good and don't ever feel sluggish on my 13-17 mph rides over mixed road quality and soem mixed terrain. Into this category I like 21 mm tubulars, 28 mm Conti clinchers, and 32 mm Pasela TGs, for a wide range. I have a set of 27 mm Challenge tubulars that will soon see the road. But I'm more interested in feel and durability. All of the above have been pretty durable.
I don't race, so I'm less concerned about acceleration. I do like to roll over hills. For me, rolling resistance would be significant, but I don't see a good cheap way to quantify any road test results.
Usage has a lot to do with what tire characteristics.
04-16-11, 12:59 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,863
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1853 Post(s)
Liked 659 Times
in
502 Posts
I see a chronology that sets the scene for the BikeRadar article cited in the first post of this thread.
1. For decades, cyclists believed that narrower, harder tires were less lossy and hence would allow one to go faster or farther on a given amount of sleep and breakfast. We riders all bought skinny tires.
2. VBQ and later BQ challenged this idea, citing the performance of vintage French-style audax, cyclotouring, and randonneuse machines. This preference has been one of Jan Heine's principles seemingly since the early years of VBQ. He eventually did some road testing of tires he expected to do well, and some he did not, and showed his expectations to be pretty much met. One corollary to all of this was widespread negativity about laboratory tire tests (drum tests) and their "obvious" inability to reveal the truth about tires.
3. He endured lengthy debate on the Internet about his testing and results, some due to me on another bike community. Life went on, and many cyclists endorsed his results.
4. Presumably some of this consumer interest got to the research offices of perhaps Schwalbe (who allowed in their technical notes that there are conditions in which wider tires may be more efficient) and Michelin, and some laboratory testing was conceived and performed. The BikeRadar article is a story about such testing and the environment in which it was performed.
5. More debate on the Internet, as we have just seen.
The BikeRadar article is interesting because it showed that laboratory tests can corraborate the BG claim of more efficiency from wider tires. Without public exposure of the data to external scrutiny, I think few will be convinced. But I do think it will show the big tire companies that they can optimize tires in a new direction and make product improvements.
That should lead to new tires that we will want to try and use.
1. For decades, cyclists believed that narrower, harder tires were less lossy and hence would allow one to go faster or farther on a given amount of sleep and breakfast. We riders all bought skinny tires.
2. VBQ and later BQ challenged this idea, citing the performance of vintage French-style audax, cyclotouring, and randonneuse machines. This preference has been one of Jan Heine's principles seemingly since the early years of VBQ. He eventually did some road testing of tires he expected to do well, and some he did not, and showed his expectations to be pretty much met. One corollary to all of this was widespread negativity about laboratory tire tests (drum tests) and their "obvious" inability to reveal the truth about tires.
3. He endured lengthy debate on the Internet about his testing and results, some due to me on another bike community. Life went on, and many cyclists endorsed his results.
4. Presumably some of this consumer interest got to the research offices of perhaps Schwalbe (who allowed in their technical notes that there are conditions in which wider tires may be more efficient) and Michelin, and some laboratory testing was conceived and performed. The BikeRadar article is a story about such testing and the environment in which it was performed.
5. More debate on the Internet, as we have just seen.
The BikeRadar article is interesting because it showed that laboratory tests can corraborate the BG claim of more efficiency from wider tires. Without public exposure of the data to external scrutiny, I think few will be convinced. But I do think it will show the big tire companies that they can optimize tires in a new direction and make product improvements.
That should lead to new tires that we will want to try and use.
04-16-11, 06:15 PM
#84
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,115
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1336 Post(s)
Liked 2,469 Times
in
1,445 Posts
Wheels perform as a system consisting of tires, rims, spokes and bearings. On the Zipp web site, they have a good article on aerodynamics. https://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/tech...nary_speed.pdf Paraphrasing from the article, manufacturers used to test wheels in the wind tunnel using 19 mm tires. Zipp feels that is unrealistic since wider tires offer lower rolling resistance. They have optimized their tubular wheels for 19 - 22 mm for and clinchers for 20 to 23 mm.
In my personal experience and from data supplied by manufactures and wind tunnel testing, only considering rolling resistance or shock absorption may not yield an optimum solution consisting of the best wheel and tire solution for a particular event or local riding conditions. I ride 21 mm tubies on race wheels and 23 mm on training wheels. If I ever do another one of the road races with the miles of rough road, I am going to fit a set of 25 mm tires or the biggest I can fit on my R3. YMMV.
In my personal experience and from data supplied by manufactures and wind tunnel testing, only considering rolling resistance or shock absorption may not yield an optimum solution consisting of the best wheel and tire solution for a particular event or local riding conditions. I ride 21 mm tubies on race wheels and 23 mm on training wheels. If I ever do another one of the road races with the miles of rough road, I am going to fit a set of 25 mm tires or the biggest I can fit on my R3. YMMV.
Last edited by Hermes; 04-16-11 at 06:20 PM.
