https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...f-wheel-energy

What we know about tires may be wrong.

so a 29r with 25mm tires and 60tpi with latex tubes are the best way to go!

what a nice photo of the differences

Very interesting stuff, definitely good food for thought, if a little counter to conventional wisdom. I just wonder how all of the physics of these laboratory analyses would translate into actual human riding; what I would like to see are some experiments involving human riders randomly assigned into groups according to different tires (with controls for such confounding variables as type of bicycle, riding styles, etc.) and see which tire translates into actual faster speeds by actual riders while riding over actual roads.

Road racing bikes went with 27" wheels for a long time because they were "faster". Then wheelmakers got everyone switched to 700c because of the lower weight. Tri bikes went with 650c for less aerodynamic drag.

With pro racers routinely adding heavier saddles and/or powertaps to get the weight of their bikes up to the UCI limit, maybe a return to 27" wheels isn't a bad idea.

I won't believe any of that article, because there's no data or even good explanations to go along with their claims.

Did they use the same pressure in each tire? If so the test is flawed because either the wider tire is over-inflated or the narrow tire is under-inflated. Even if this is true, what's the limit? Is a 2.0" wide tire "faster" than a 23mm tire? (Because the 2.0" tire will be much heavier and less aerodynamic.)

I think this is pretty irrelevant to real life. Sure, on a certain stretch of pavement a certain tread pattern might offer more grip. In all other circumstances it's just going to create noise and rolling resistance. Unless they want you to change your tires every time you enter a different type of pavement

What a useless article. Why bother talking about which tires "roll fast" if the meaning of what "rolls fast" is never explained? Could they at least have couched the results in terms of % efficiency in transferring the rider's power to forward acceleration, versus the frictional deceleration caused by tire meeting road and aerodynamic friction?

What a perfect example of sacrificing journalistic precision for page hits.

<insert snarky comment about 700c vs. 29r wheel size>

Hasn't Rivendell been saying something along these lines for a while now? I doubt there will be much convincing anyway though because the pros are still using skinnies.
https://www.rivbike.com/article/components/tires

whats the gist of this? It seems very ccontroversial

I wouldn't go out to buy new tires because of this article, but it might be worth thinking about if you're due for replacement.

and i'm not sure what they're measuring by rolling resistance. but even if they say that 5% is the limit of perception, it also means that if you coast for 100ft you'll just go ~5ft farther with the lower resistance tire than the higher one.

a 1mph breeze probably had more effect.

I think the fact that I run 140psi in my 23mm rear tire, and most 25mm tires don't go above 100psi should counter any contact patch and bulge resistance mumbo jumbo.
If somebody started to make wider tires that ran higher psi I'd be a lot more interested.

I very well might switch tubes though if I can find a decent price. My wallet still speaks louder than rolling resistance unfortunately.

I once filled a tube till it whistled at a seem.

Just for lols.

I filled a 25cc tire up to 150 and the tire wall started cracking.

It was a cheapo duro tire anyways.

My Thickslicks are wider then 25 and i fill them to around 130