Wider Tires in the Pro Peleton
04-12-14, 04:34 PM
#26
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,194
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1565 Post(s)
Liked 1,296 Times
in
866 Posts
You are speaking in terms of minutae. Even rolling resistance between 23 and 25.
Even V-shaped carbon wheels are faster than box section.
I've not experienced "twitchy" handling with the old style Zipp 404's, and those were decently deep profile.
They get pushed in strong crosswinds for sure, but meh, so what. All this is personal preference on what you want to ride.
I used Mavic SSC SL's, which are the farthest thing from aero. Super stiff though, and loved them.
Carbon for training and racing <shrug> people can do whatever they want.
I'm not a hater. People can enjoy however they want.
Steel is more expensive than carbon framesets at this point.
If high quality steel racing frames become more popular, sure I would pick one up.
But all the modern features and advantages are built into equally or cheaper priced carbon frames.
Even V-shaped carbon wheels are faster than box section.
I've not experienced "twitchy" handling with the old style Zipp 404's, and those were decently deep profile.
They get pushed in strong crosswinds for sure, but meh, so what. All this is personal preference on what you want to ride.
I used Mavic SSC SL's, which are the farthest thing from aero. Super stiff though, and loved them.
Carbon for training and racing <shrug> people can do whatever they want.
I'm not a hater. People can enjoy however they want.
Steel is more expensive than carbon framesets at this point.
If high quality steel racing frames become more popular, sure I would pick one up.
But all the modern features and advantages are built into equally or cheaper priced carbon frames.
Of course I'm talking "minutae" in discussing the merits of wider rims, or of steel frames for that matter, but who of us even reads a new topic thread about wider rims for racing if not also interested in minutiae?
And as far as carbon frames having "all the modern features and advantages", what about the disadvantages?
What does one do when one of these things develops an intermittent creaking, or the not-uncommon, mysterious "clack" when hitting a bump in the road that leaves the rider questioning their frame's structural integrity?
I agree that carbon frames improve on the stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight of previous frame materials, but to what degree is carbon's touted ride-tuned characteristic even realized when these frame's designers are firstly trying to improve the stiffness/strength at minimum weight/cost by creating such large-section "high-performance"-type structures?
I'm not worrying about being accused of being a "hater", not sure if that's what you implied(?). I do notice the problems however that riders have with fragile tires, with carbon brake surfaces and with long descents on a windy day (I have seen them almost get struck by passing cars), using their contemporary racing wheels on our training rides, and their oft-creaking frames that are to me an annoyance to be next to must be hellish to spend hours on, not that all carbon bikes creak or that none of these bikes are fixable when they do. And I won't even mention the 45-minute pit-stops that more than one user of tubeless tires has needed to repair their flat tire.
Steel may be expensive if purchased new, but any respected name-brand carbon-frame bike or frame is expensive too.
Don't wait until high-quality steel racing frames are popular, that will only raise their price. For all training and early-bird racing, just get a great used steel bike for a few hundred dollars, update components only as needed, and enjoy the ride. Don't you already have a steel bike already? It doesn't have to be weight-competitive with modern products just for training and tune-up races.
Oh, and the Mavic SSC's, I like those too. Great wheel structure that really endures, so I picked up a pair cheaply for the next cyclocross season, since my years-old hand-built wheels are in need of new spokes (front) and a new rim (rear). The Ksyrium wheels can be difficult to find replacement rims for though, if a rim gets dinged badly, and the aluminum spokes of the top (SSC) model Ksyrium wheel provide no "advantages" other than more aero drag, more cross-wind susceptibility and greater cost.
04-12-14, 04:50 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,968
Bikes: '09 Trek 2.1 * '75 Sekine * 2010 Raleigh Talus 8.0 * '90 Giant Mtb * Raleigh M20 * Fuji Nevada mtb
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Racing teams don't use wider tires because they think they might be faster. Wider tires have been shown to have lower rolling resistance, and are demonstrably faster.
FWIW, Michelin Pro4 Endurance tires in 700x25 measure 27mm wide on my Open Pro rims, and I've read that they measure 28mm wide on 23mm rims. I understand that the Pro4 Service Course versions measure about the same.
FWIW, Michelin Pro4 Endurance tires in 700x25 measure 27mm wide on my Open Pro rims, and I've read that they measure 28mm wide on 23mm rims. I understand that the Pro4 Service Course versions measure about the same.
Wooohoo~The tires measured about 26.8 mm inflated to about 90 psi, on Bontrager SSR rims (2008) with (again approximate measured) 14.6 ID. (Side note They look a little bulbous compared to the 27 x 1 1/8 in. tires mounted on rims specd for 1 1/4 in.) My son is running Pro4 Endurnace 23's this year, and I measured them about 22.2 at 100 psi. It's kinda hard to put the calipers on tires correctly and not squeeze them at all, so the measurements might be off a little.
__________________
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.
Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
FB4K - Every October we wrench on donated bikes. Every December, a few thousand kids get bikes for Christmas. For many, it is their first bike, ever. Every bike, new and used, was donated, built, cleaned and repaired. Check us out on FaceBook: FB4K.
Disclaimer: 99% of what I know about cycling I learned on BF. That would make, ummm, 1% experience. And a lot of posts.
04-12-14, 06:08 PM
#28
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,194
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1565 Post(s)
Liked 1,296 Times
in
866 Posts
I am now completely justified by the purchase of Pro4 Service Course 25's. Comfort and speed. Or at least comfort at any speed I can go. Wooohoo~
The tires measured about 26.8 mm inflated to about 90 psi, on Bontrager SSR rims (2008) with (again approximate measured) 14.6 ID. (Side note They look a little bulbous compared to the 27 x 1 1/8 in. tires mounted on rims specd for 1 1/4 in.) My son is running Pro4 Endurnace 23's this year, and I measured them about 22.2 at 100 psi. It's kinda hard to put the calipers on tires correctly and not squeeze them at all, so the measurements might be off a little.
Wooohoo~The tires measured about 26.8 mm inflated to about 90 psi, on Bontrager SSR rims (2008) with (again approximate measured) 14.6 ID. (Side note They look a little bulbous compared to the 27 x 1 1/8 in. tires mounted on rims specd for 1 1/4 in.) My son is running Pro4 Endurnace 23's this year, and I measured them about 22.2 at 100 psi. It's kinda hard to put the calipers on tires correctly and not squeeze them at all, so the measurements might be off a little.
Last edited by dddd; 04-12-14 at 06:16 PM.
04-12-14, 08:10 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,990
Bikes: ‘87 Marinoni SLX Sports Tourer, ‘79 Miyata 912 by Gugificazione
Mentioned: 166 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 502 Post(s)
Liked 466 Times
in
256 Posts
Compass Bicycles: 700C Tires
04-12-14, 08:26 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NW Burbs, Chicago
Posts: 12,056
Mentioned: 201 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3015 Post(s)
Liked 3,805 Times
in
1,409 Posts
Have you looked at the tires from Compass? The Grand Bois Cypres 700x32 is a great riding and decently low weight tire.
Compass Bicycles: 700C Tires
Compass Bicycles: 700C Tires
04-12-14, 09:39 PM
#31
Senior Member
LOL if perpetuating myths and outdated info is not being a hater than whatever. Enjoy and be happy for others, even if they make choices you don't agree with.
Of course I'm talking "minutae" in discussing the merits of wider rims, or of steel frames for that matter, but who of us even reads a new topic thread about wider rims for racing if not also interested in minutiae?
And as far as carbon frames having "all the modern features and advantages", what about the disadvantages?
What does one do when one of these things develops an intermittent creaking, or the not-uncommon, mysterious "clack" when hitting a bump in the road that leaves the rider questioning their frame's structural integrity?
I agree that carbon frames improve on the stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight of previous frame materials, but to what degree is carbon's touted ride-tuned characteristic even realized when these frame's designers are firstly trying to improve the stiffness/strength at minimum weight/cost by creating such large-section "high-performance"-type structures?
I'm not worrying about being accused of being a "hater", not sure if that's what you implied(?). I do notice the problems however that riders have with fragile tires, with carbon brake surfaces and with long descents on a windy day (I have seen them almost get struck by passing cars), using their contemporary racing wheels on our training rides, and their oft-creaking frames that are to me an annoyance to be next to must be hellish to spend hours on, not that all carbon bikes creak or that none of these bikes are fixable when they do. And I won't even mention the 45-minute pit-stops that more than one user of tubeless tires has needed to repair their flat tire.
Steel may be expensive if purchased new, but any respected name-brand carbon-frame bike or frame is expensive too.
Don't wait until high-quality steel racing frames are popular, that will only raise their price. For all training and early-bird racing, just get a great used steel bike for a few hundred dollars, update components only as needed, and enjoy the ride. Don't you already have a steel bike already? It doesn't have to be weight-competitive with modern products just for training and tune-up races.
Oh, and the Mavic SSC's, I like those too. Great wheel structure that really endures, so I picked up a pair cheaply for the next cyclocross season, since my years-old hand-built wheels are in need of new spokes (front) and a new rim (rear). The Ksyrium wheels can be difficult to find replacement rims for though, if a rim gets dinged badly, and the aluminum spokes of the top (SSC) model Ksyrium wheel provide no "advantages" other than more aero drag, more cross-wind susceptibility and greater cost.
And as far as carbon frames having "all the modern features and advantages", what about the disadvantages?
What does one do when one of these things develops an intermittent creaking, or the not-uncommon, mysterious "clack" when hitting a bump in the road that leaves the rider questioning their frame's structural integrity?
I agree that carbon frames improve on the stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight of previous frame materials, but to what degree is carbon's touted ride-tuned characteristic even realized when these frame's designers are firstly trying to improve the stiffness/strength at minimum weight/cost by creating such large-section "high-performance"-type structures?
I'm not worrying about being accused of being a "hater", not sure if that's what you implied(?). I do notice the problems however that riders have with fragile tires, with carbon brake surfaces and with long descents on a windy day (I have seen them almost get struck by passing cars), using their contemporary racing wheels on our training rides, and their oft-creaking frames that are to me an annoyance to be next to must be hellish to spend hours on, not that all carbon bikes creak or that none of these bikes are fixable when they do. And I won't even mention the 45-minute pit-stops that more than one user of tubeless tires has needed to repair their flat tire.
Steel may be expensive if purchased new, but any respected name-brand carbon-frame bike or frame is expensive too.
Don't wait until high-quality steel racing frames are popular, that will only raise their price. For all training and early-bird racing, just get a great used steel bike for a few hundred dollars, update components only as needed, and enjoy the ride. Don't you already have a steel bike already? It doesn't have to be weight-competitive with modern products just for training and tune-up races.
Oh, and the Mavic SSC's, I like those too. Great wheel structure that really endures, so I picked up a pair cheaply for the next cyclocross season, since my years-old hand-built wheels are in need of new spokes (front) and a new rim (rear). The Ksyrium wheels can be difficult to find replacement rims for though, if a rim gets dinged badly, and the aluminum spokes of the top (SSC) model Ksyrium wheel provide no "advantages" other than more aero drag, more cross-wind susceptibility and greater cost.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
allen254
Road Cycling
6
08-09-15 04:43 AM
jonathanb715
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
3
05-17-11 09:50 AM
