Register All Albums Elite Membership Forum Rules Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling Do you enjoy centuries, double centuries, brevets, randonnees, and 24-hour time trials? Share ride reports, and exchange training, equipment, and nutrition information specific to long distance cycling. This isn't for tours, this is for endurance events cycling

03-30-13, 05:52 AM   #51
Steamer
Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: high ground
Bikes:
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
People who think differences in rolling resistance coefficient between different, outwardly similar tires doesn't matter much mainly think that (IMO) because they have no good way to perceive the difference moment by moment. Extra rolling resistance kills you by a thousand cuts. The extra work it makes you do is present on every foot traveled.

Quoting a friend of mine:

Quote:
 One handy way to "envision" the cost of rolling resistance is to compare it to slope. If you go back and look at the power equation, the amount of power needed to overcome rolling resistance is Crr*mass*gravity*speed while the amount of power needed to overcome a change in altitude is mass*gravity*height/time. But height/time is approximately slope*speed. So rolling resistance is Crr*m*g*v and climbing is slope*m*g*v. So Crr scales exactly like slope in terms of power demand. So a Crr of .005 is exactly equivalent to a slope of .005, or .5%. Suppose you had a choice of two tires, Crr(A) = .005 and Crr(B) = .004. That's a difference of .001, or equivalent to a change in slope of 0.1%. Over the course of a 1200k randonnee, that's like climbing a 1200m hill.
The difference between a pretty good and sorta-bad tire can be about .002 in Crr. Which is 2x the example given. That's like adding 1,950 feet of climbing to a 300K just due to a poor choice in tires.﻿ No thanks. This stuff is hard enough without handicapping myself with crappy tires.

 03-30-13, 09:40 AM #52 Six jours Senior Member Thread Starter   Join Date: Mar 2007 Bikes: Posts: 6,401 Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) I think I see (and largely agree with) both points. I have ridden (still ride, in fact) bikes with tires which have tested poorly for rolling resistance. I have even done very long rides with them, and enjoyed it tremendously. The fact that I know I was slower on those tires had no effect on my enjoyment. But I also understand (and occasionally still am one of) the folks for whom part of the enjoyment is in going as fast as possible. For those people, knowingly using a slower tire would significantly detract from their enjoyment. Sometimes it's hard for those two categories of cyclist to understand one another. Or even to accept their sanity.
 03-30-13, 10:07 AM #53 Hairy Hands Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Magnolia, Texas Bikes: Colnago C50, Specialized TriCross Carbon Posts: 300 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 1 Post(s) Not to hijack this thread, but has anyone figured out the best 700c x 35cm on up tire for rando? I just started riding my new rando bike and have been using the Vittoria Rando Hypers in 35cm. I have about 1500 miles on them so far and no flats, but the bike in general is definitely slower (overall average speed) than my Colnago C50 with 24cm tubular tires. My rando bike is almost double the weight of my colnago however.
 03-30-13, 10:33 AM #54 Steamer Senior Member     Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: high ground Bikes: Posts: 888 Mentioned: 1 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 57 Post(s) I am not fast. I don't even really minding not being fast - finishing near the back of the pack doesn't bother me. That doesn't mean, however, that I can necessarily afford to waste energy on an inefficient set of tires - because I find just completing randonees challenging as it is - and I DO want to complete them in reasonable style if I can. My opinion is that relatively weak riders shouldn't use inefficient equipment just because they are destined to be slow no matter what tires they use. Because rando is not racing - fast tires aren't wasted on me - because they can still increase my chances of success (i.e. finishing). On the contrary, it's only the stronger riders, with watts to waste, that can afford to use slow tires. But if strong riders who go fast want to use fast tires to help them ride even faster, then that's ok too. Fast is fun. Not suffering to barely finish certainly helps make a ride more fun. That's what it's all about, isn't it?
03-30-13, 11:01 AM   #55
Bekologist
totally louche

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hairy Hands Not to hijack this thread, but has anyone figured out the best 700c x 35cm on up tire for rando? I just started riding my new rando bike and have been using the Vittoria Rando Hypers in 35cm. I have about 1500 miles on them so far and no flats, but the bike in general is definitely slower (overall average speed) than my Colnago C50 with 24cm tubular tires. My rando bike is almost double the weight of my colnago however.
In 700x35 like panaracer T-Servs, slightly under pressure. and not too expensive. A proletariat mid 60s thread count to match. I'm sure there's some super silky big volume tires out there, but the T-Serv has consistently served me well over thousands of miles.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-31-13 at 05:04 AM.

03-30-13, 11:03 AM   #56
Commodus
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by krobinson103 Nope I'm saying I couldn't care less if its harder... I'll just cycle a little harder. Anyway its not my goal here to justify which tire is best, but to state that it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Its always been my feeling that a ride is 90% rider and 10% bike. I could be riding the best cf roadie in the world and a pro racer could wipe me off the map on a \$100 walmart mtb. If you like your tires good for you. If you are saying that they are a deal breaker for a longer rider... sorry can't agree. The difference between knobblies and slicks? Obvously. But slicks vs slicks? Don't think so.
It seems like you've invented your own argument here, just so you can post about it. I've done 300s on Marathons...I don't recommend it, but I finished inside the limit with no problems. Does this mean the Marathons are good tires? If your goal is speed, buy the best tires available for your conditions. Saying 'just ride a little harder' is stupid. If you could ride harder, just do it on the nicer tires.

I'm surprised people still ride on 23s. Even the pros have finally given those up.

03-30-13, 11:25 AM   #57
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hairy Hands Not to hijack this thread, but has anyone figured out the best 700c x 35cm on up tire for rando? I just started riding my new rando bike and have been using the Vittoria Rando Hypers in 35cm. I have about 1500 miles on them so far and no flats, but the bike in general is definitely slower (overall average speed) than my Colnago C50 with 24cm tubular tires. My rando bike is almost double the weight of my colnago however.
What wheels are you using on your Colnago? I know I can't run 25's on my C-50 but I do run Topolino wheels and a hand made set of Mavic OP Ceramic wheels which make a huge difference in ride comfort. I'm of the opinion that you can do the same thing with compliant wheels that you can do with tires for ride comfort. It's just more expensive (maybe not in the long run at over \$100 for a set of good tires).
I did some calculations on wattage calculator (so take it for what it is) the bigger tires and extra weight of your bike costs about 10watts in the flats which is about 5% if you're going 17.7mph @ 200watts. I think that is pretty close to what Six Jours observed. On a 5% climb thats the differnce between 6.7mph and 7.1mph On long rides that can add up to a lot of time, if you're happy with that slightly slower pace and you have no problem making controls in time you are fine. If you are having trouble with time or want to ride faster then you should be using lighter equipment and skinnier tires.
It comes down to the same thing as everything else. Use the tool that will work best for what you want to do.

 03-30-13, 02:53 PM #58 plodderslusk Senior Member   Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Bikes: Posts: 1,392 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 7 Post(s) I just finished the Round of Flanders on a CX-bike with 35 mm Vittoria Hyper tires. Very good on the pavees and I really had no trouble keeping up on the flats. Slow on the steep hils but I fear thqt has to do more with my shape than the tires;
 03-30-13, 02:59 PM #59 Hairy Hands Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Magnolia, Texas Bikes: Colnago C50, Specialized TriCross Carbon Posts: 300 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 1 Post(s) My tires are better than your tires I'm using CarbonSports Lightweights on my colnago. 24mm tubulars are the widest I can fit but the ride really beats me up compared to the 35mm on my Specialized. I am much happier comfort wise on the TriCross with fat tires and spoked wheels, but if there are faster rolling tires out there in 32-38mm widths then I'm all ears.
 03-30-13, 05:53 PM #60 Homeyba Senior Member     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Central Coast, California Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light Posts: 3,370 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) I don't know anything about the CarbonSports Lightweights, have you tried another wheelset on the C-50? The CarbonSports are high end wheels (and probably quite stiff) but I don't know if I'd use them all the time for randoneurring anyway? That's like me using my Zipp 404's. I will use them occasionally when I want to go fast. Usually I'm on my Mavics for randonee's because they aren't very stiff and provide a plush ride with 23mm Conti GP4000's. I also have a Schmidt laced to the Mavics and I love the ceramic wheels for riding/stopping in the rain. The Topolino's are even smoother riding than the Mavics but they have Carbon/kevlar spokes like your CarbonSports which means if I have an issue with them on the road it could be ride ending. I also have to use different lights due to no generator hub.
03-30-13, 10:16 PM   #61
Carbonfiberboy
just another gosling

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Posts: 12,848
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Quoted: 797 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steamer
People who think differences in rolling resistance coefficient between different, outwardly similar tires doesn't matter much mainly think that (IMO) because they have no good way to perceive the difference moment by moment. Extra rolling resistance kills you by a thousand cuts. The extra work it makes you do is present on every foot traveled.

Quoting a friend of mine:
Quote:
 One handy way to "envision" the cost of rolling resistance is to compare it to slope. If you go back and look at the power equation, the amount of power needed to overcome rolling resistance is Crr*mass*gravity*speed while the amount of power needed to overcome a change in altitude is mass*gravity*height/time. But height/time is approximately slope*speed. So rolling resistance is Crr*m*g*v and climbing is slope*m*g*v. So Crr scales exactly like slope in terms of power demand. So a Crr of .005 is exactly equivalent to a slope of .005, or .5%. Suppose you had a choice of two tires, Crr(A) = .005 and Crr(B) = .004. That's a difference of .001, or equivalent to a change in slope of 0.1%. Over the course of a 1200k randonnee, that's like climbing a 1200m hill.
The difference between a pretty good and sorta-bad tire can be about .002 in Crr. Which is 2x the example given. That's like adding 1,950 feet of climbing to a 300K just due to a poor choice in tires.﻿ No thanks. This stuff is hard enough without handicapping myself with crappy tires.
Nice post. An even bigger deal is aero position. I just put aero bars on our tandem and modded Stoker's position to be much more aero. When we get down, it's like firing JATOs. Incredible, immediate acceleration, same effort. Not to hijack or anything. . . Reply on a new thread of your own if you want. "My position is better than your position."

03-30-13, 11:46 PM   #62
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Commodus ...I'm surprised people still ride on 23s. Even the pros have finally given those up.
Where'd you hear that? I have two frames used in the pro peloton and neither will accept 25's. My friends BMC and Ridley won't either. For races where they're racing on cobblestones like Pari-Roubaix they do run 25's but they're using different frame sets for those races.

03-31-13, 04:58 AM   #63
Bekologist
totally louche

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba Where'd you hear that? I have two frames used in the pro peloton and neither will accept 25's. My friends BMC and Ridley won't either. For races where they're racing on cobblestones like Pari-Roubaix they do run 25's but they're using different frame sets for those races.
yes, frames with greater clearances allow riders to use larger tires.

Sometimes, a rider chooses a larger tire to smooth the pave and the cobbles, and has smartly picked a bike to suit, that allows the choice of a larger tire.

This is a pretty common adaption among randonneuring crowd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think this is likely the single largest change in equipment (other than wearing a reflective sash at night and legbands on both legs ) among rando enthusiasts.

Being restricted to running 700x23 tires because of a person's choice of bike frame is in no way a tangible advantage, to be perfectly honest.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-31-13 at 05:59 AM.

03-31-13, 06:38 AM   #64
Steamer
Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: high ground
Bikes:
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy Nice post. An even bigger deal is aero position. I just put aero bars on our tandem and modded Stoker's position to be much more aero. When we get down, it's like firing JATOs. Incredible, immediate acceleration, same effort. Not to hijack or anything. . . Reply on a new thread of your own if you want. "My position is better than your position."
I couldn't agree more: http://rothrockcyrcle.wordpress.com/...-my-aerolab-2/

Every gear decision I make is done with aerodynamics as an important consideration. It's very useful (and kinda fun) to see what the aero impacts are for various setups, as determined by field tests on my actual bike, so it's 100% relevant - no extrapolation from other types of tests conducted by other people required.

03-31-13, 08:36 AM   #65
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bekologist yes, frames with greater clearances allow riders to use larger tires. Sometimes, a rider chooses a larger tire to smooth the pave and the cobbles, and has smartly picked a bike to suit, that allows the choice of a larger tire. This is a pretty common adaption among randonneuring crowd. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think this is likely the single largest change in equipment (other than wearing a reflective sash at night and legbands on both legs ) among rando enthusiasts. Being restricted to running 700x23 tires because of a person's choice of bike frame is in no way a tangible advantage, to be perfectly honest.
Yes, no argument there but he was talking specifically about bikes used by professional racers.
Changing to a wider tire is the easiest and cheapest way but not the only way. Frames, components (to a small degree) and wheels especially can make a big difference.
You're right, that it isn't an advantage that they do that but it isn't necessarily a disadvantage either. It just depends on what you are looking for.
Wouldn't bother me if all the manufacturers adjusted their frames so that at least 25's would fit. It wouldn't be that difficult. I think Commodus is right that the trend for all bikes is going that way.

Last edited by Homeyba; 03-31-13 at 08:40 AM.

 03-31-13, 01:44 PM #66 Hairy Hands Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Magnolia, Texas Bikes: Colnago C50, Specialized TriCross Carbon Posts: 300 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 1 Post(s) Homeyba, the Colnago, rando or no rando decision was made long ago. It was a no go for me, that's why I starting building the TriCross.. The Colnago will be my climbing bike, and general fast ride bike. I would still like to know if anyone has found a faster rolling tire in 700c x 32 width and up than the Vittoria Rando Hypers. and Homeyba thanks for all your input, its nice to have someone with all your experience around here!
03-31-13, 06:11 PM   #67
njkayaker
Senior Member

Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 10,311
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by krobinson103 Totally agree. Who really cares about 3 minutes?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by krobinson103 Did a time trial against myself using endomondo on last years 25km route. Knocked 3 minutes off my best time and its not even March. I've noticed that longer rides (0ver 60 miles) are still noticably harder than say last August but I haven't lost all that much condition and my cadence has picked up a little as well. Its boring doing 30-50km of spinning every night before I sleep, but it was worth it.
=========

Quote:
 Originally Posted by krobinson103 If you are saying that they are a deal breaker for a longer rider... sorry can't agree.
Strawman. No one has said this.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by krobinson103 The difference between knobblies and slicks? Obvously. But slicks vs slicks? Don't think so.
At least one expert "thinks so".

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/0...ance-of-tires/

Quote:
 The fastest tire, the Deda Tre, rolled 20% faster than the slowest, the Rivendell Nifty-Swifty. A 20% difference in on-the-road speed is huge!

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-31-13 at 06:16 PM.

03-31-13, 08:58 PM   #68
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba Where'd you hear that? ....
I did a little digging on what shoes the Pro Peleton is currently wearing and there is a trend towards 25mm tires but there isn't a consensus by any means and it doesn't appear to have a lot to do with rolling resistance. It appears that a lot of this has more to do with the fact that a number of the wheel manufacturers are making wider (supposedly more aerodynamic) wheels which work better with the wider tires. "Lampre-ISD and Euskaltel-Euskadi have stuck with 23c, as has Androni, Movistar, and Ag2R." All these teams are sponsored by companies without an ultra-wide wheel." They, of course, are getting their queues from the tire and wheel manufactures as to which tire/wheel combo will be the fastest for them. I think the little extra comfort of the 25mm tire is a bonus and not a criteria for them.
Nothing is ever as clear as we think it is.

Regarding the Bicycle Quarterly tests, I have a hard time believing there is no bias from someone who has both a professional and financial interest in the outcome of the tests.
BQ sells tires and participates in the development of Grand Bois tires.
Take out of it what you will.

03-31-13, 09:04 PM   #69
Six jours
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba I did a little digging on what shoes the Pro Peleton is currently wearing and there is a trend towards 25mm tires but there isn't a consensus by any means and it doesn't appear to have a lot to do with rolling resistance. It appears that a lot of this has more to do with the fact that a number of the wheel manufacturers are making wider (supposedly more aerodynamic) wheels which work better with the wider tires. "Lampre-ISD and Euskaltel-Euskadi have stuck with 23c, as has Androni, Movistar, and Ag2R." All these teams are sponsored by companies without an ultra-wide wheel." They, of course, are getting their queues from the tire and wheel manufactures as to which tire/wheel combo will be the fastest for them. I think the little extra comfort of the 25mm tire is a bonus and not a criteria for them. Nothing is ever as clear as we think it is.
A few years ago I read an interview with a pro team mechanic who mentioned that rider's resistance to wider tires came from wind tunnel test results. But he also said that in his opinion the problem resulted from fitting wider tires to narrower rims, and that wider rims would improve things all around. So I think you might have it backwards: the wider tires came first - after it became common knowledge that they roll better - and the wider rims came as a result.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba Regarding the Bicycle Quarterly tests, I have a hard time believing there is no bias from someone who has both a professional and financial interest in the outcome of the tests. BQ sells tires and participates in the development of Grand Bois tires. Take out of it what you will.
Yeah, but steel drum tests done by tire manufacturers to "prove" that ultra-narrow, ultra-high pressure clinchers are fastest are still gospel, right?

03-31-13, 09:41 PM   #70
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Six jours A few years ago I read an interview with a pro team mechanic who mentioned that rider's resistance to wider tires came from wind tunnel test results. But he also said that in his opinion the problem resulted from fitting wider tires to narrower rims, and that wider rims would improve things all around. So I think you might have it backwards: the wider tires came first - after it became common knowledge that they roll better - and the wider rims came as a result.
I think that would make more sense if the quote came from a wheel manufaturer. My understanding is that wheel manufacturers found that the wider wheels are more aerodynamic than the skinnier ones. I seriously doubt that they make them wider for the tires. Especially since the tire manufacturers are having to make new special tires for the new rims.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Six jours Yeah, but steel drum tests done by tire manufacturers to "prove" that ultra-narrow, ultra-high pressure clinchers are fastest are still gospel, right?
No "Yeah, but's" here I wasn't talking about the merits of either method. I am talking about how people line their pockets.

Last edited by Homeyba; 03-31-13 at 09:46 PM.

03-31-13, 09:51 PM   #71
Homeyba
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Six jours ...Yeah, but steel drum tests done by tire manufacturers to "prove" that ultra-narrow, ultra-high pressure clinchers are fastest are still gospel, right?
You know with your aged skepticism, I find it hard to believe that you give them a pass on that.

 04-01-13, 02:09 AM #72 Chesha Neko Senior Member     Join Date: Aug 2011 Bikes: Posts: 295 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) Back on the subject of the Hetre Extra Leger tires, I've had to drop my pressures to 35 psi front and 50 rear to finally get the smooth ride I was expecting. Quite a bit below the sidewall rec of 55 to 75 psi.
04-01-13, 02:30 AM   #73
Bekologist
totally louche

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba I did a little digging on what shoes the Pro Peleton is currently wearing and there is a trend towards 25mm tires but there isn't a consensus by any means and it doesn't appear to have a lot to do with rolling resistance. It appears that a lot of this has more to do with the fact that a number of the wheel manufacturers are making wider (supposedly more aerodynamic) wheels which work better with the wider tires. "Lampre-ISD and Euskaltel-Euskadi have stuck with 23c, as has Androni, Movistar, and Ag2R." All these teams are sponsored by companies without an ultra-wide wheel." They, of course, are getting their queues from the tire and wheel manufactures as to which tire/wheel combo will be the fastest for them. I think the little extra comfort of the 25mm tire is a bonus and not a criteria for them. Nothing is ever as clear as we think it is.

If wider tires and wheel profiles didn't present an advantage, they wouldn't be catching on in the peloton. if they weren't faster or present a tangible advantage, the "pros" wouldn't be riding them.

But wider tires present an advantage, even among the top tier (tire) elite. Perhaps in conjunction with wider rims that present a wider profile to the wind, or whatever the reason.....

The results of a simple rollout test of commercially available michelin tires by Jan Heine.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jan Heine, BQ Wider tires roll faster. A Michelin Pro2 Race in 25 mm width was faster than the same tire’s 23 mm version, which in turn was faster than the 20 mm version.
Imagine a team dropping in the ranks because they chose 'comfort'

I can see the post race press conferences now

"Well, we haven't been riding as fast as before, but the team reports much greater comfort."

Quote:
 Originally Posted by homeyba Especially since the tire manufacturers are having to make new special tires for the new rims.
tubular and clincher racing tires with 24 and 25c casings? It's just so innovative a concept. I'm curious as to where is the sweetest spot is for reduced rolling resistance meets comfort.
Is it 26c, 28c,24c out of identical casings and tread- would a michelin prorace4 in a 27c roll fsster than a 25c?

who's ridden the wider Vittoria Pave in a 27c? It's a slightly heavier tire than their open corsas, but not by much.

Last edited by Bekologist; 04-01-13 at 05:24 AM.

 04-01-13, 08:00 AM #74 bmike Bye Bye   Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Gone gone gone Bikes: Posts: 3,677 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Tagged: 0 Thread(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s) i've been riding this: pugs on the new bridge by mbeganyi, on Flickr and this: filthy by mbeganyi, on Flickr since last fall. yesterday i rode this: IF gets the call by mbeganyi, on Flickr i can say, that tire choice makes a big difference. and i'd guess weight of bike, fitness of rider, headwinds, terrain, etc. etc. here's a chart that i put together awhile ago: 2013-03-20 by mbeganyi, on Flickr i can't find the original spreadsheet, and if i currently cared as much then as i do now about my tire choice, i'd update this with the latest and greatest information. i currently ride the conti gp 4seasons. have tried the challenge tires, have eyed the GB tires. have a set of the pasela's arpound in 28 and 32. completed many of a brevet on the conti 4 seasons in 25 on my (now sold) lemond carbon / steel bike, then moved to 28s when i built my IF (could fit them in, and so much more). i had some issues with the challenge tires and the type of 'roads' i ride. lots of dirt / gravel. anyway, have another pair of the conti's to shred before i make any new purchases. would love to try the vittoria hypers, have a friend who loves em. and the gbs in a 700 size. maybe the cerf or something. no 650b for me. __________________ So long. Been nice knowing you BF.... to all the friends I've made here and in real life... its been great. But this place needs an enema. Last edited by bmike; 04-01-13 at 08:35 AM.
04-01-13, 08:45 AM   #75
Commodus
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burnaby, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 4,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Homeyba ... Regarding the Bicycle Quarterly tests, I have a hard time believing there is no bias from someone who has both a professional and financial interest in the outcome of the tests. BQ sells tires and participates in the development of Grand Bois tires. Take out of it what you will.
I have chosen to believe that Jan Heine is essentially truthful. Surely not always right (no one is), but based on the fact that he is perfectly willing to put his real name on tests results found using methodology that he is happy to share points to transparency and honesty in my opinion.

Sure it could be some extravagant conspiracy, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that he spends so much time and energy pushing old timey French rando bikes. I could be wrong, I suppose. If anyone has a better source of information, I would like to see it!

As to what the pros use, the evidence seems pretty clear to me at this point. The extra comfort may be a bonus to them, but it is a criteria for me - so long as it's not slowing me down too much. I am of the opinion that comfort is a performance advantage after many hours in the saddle. If my body feels more fresh, I can push harder and use whatever power I still have in me. If I'm feeling beat up and achey, I have no ambition to pedal.