Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

I've done my research and looking for feedback on a new touring bike

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

I've done my research and looking for feedback on a new touring bike

Old 12-06-22, 09:01 PM
  #51  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked 854 Times in 421 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
That article is published by a company that sells gravel tires. Be careful with their conclusions because they have a financial interest in spinning a certain narrative. For example, they dismiss the scientific testing done by www.bicyclerollingresistance.com because "testing in the lab doesn't reflect real world conditions." Why exactly doesn't it reflect?? They don't elaborate. Translation: we ignore any evidence that doesn't support our sales pitch.

Amongst other factors, wider tires are simply heavier, everything else being equal. Every time you try to accelerate you're losing a bunch of energy. That's all there is to it.

If wider tires were just as fast as thin tires, then all the guys in the Tour de France would be riding fat tires. Get comfortable on those cobblestone sections. Why not?

As always, when evaluating truths vs lies, seek answers in places where the truth matters.
Here we go again. First off, read the article and follow up pieces, slowly in your case. It clearly explains why the drum test is flawed. Second Rene Herse makes a full spectrum of tires and sizes not just gravel tires. Lastly it is a wives tale at best that the marginal difference between skinny and wider tires would make a difference accelerating, is a silly argument especially in a touring context.

You mention truths and lies however you didn’t even take the time to read the article the numerous other examples where it clearly shows tire width differences are negligible. But if you want to run 20mm tires at 120 psi and play Speed Racer have fun but you won’t be any faster just have a sore butt when you are done.

One more article published this week. https://www.renehersecycles.com/tire...-vs-real-road/

Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 12-06-22 at 09:05 PM.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
Old 12-06-22, 09:31 PM
  #52  
Yan 
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1064 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 187 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
Here we go again. First off, read the article and follow up pieces, slowly in your case. It clearly explains why the drum test is flawed. Second Rene Herse makes a full spectrum of tires and sizes not just gravel tires. Lastly it is a wives tale at best that the marginal difference between skinny and wider tires would make a difference accelerating, is a silly argument especially in a touring context.

You mention truths and lies however you didnít even take the time to read the article the numerous other examples where it clearly shows tire width differences are negligible. But if you want to run 20mm tires at 120 psi and play Speed Racer have fun but you wonít be any faster just have a sore butt when you are done.

One more article published this week. https://www.renehersecycles.com/tire...-vs-real-road/
They sell 22 models of clincher tires, of which 18 out of the 22 are wider than 35mm. Of their 4 token narrow models, only 2 are thinner than 30mm. The thinnest of them is 26mm. So no, they definitely do not sell "a full range of tires".

Their tires are also all around the $90 price range. They're a boutique maker of overpriced gravel tires.

What else do you need to know? They are financially interested in pushing a certain narrative. They sell the wide tire over-marketed BS mystique.

Their "test" is coasting a bike down a 15 second long downhill and measuring the speed. Yes you read that right. Coasting a bike down a fifteen second downhill.

I'm sorry but no.
​​​​
I say again: figure out what kind of riding you do and then buy the bike/tire you need. A 25mm road tire is 250g. A 45mm ultra endurance touring tire is 1100g. Big difference. Credit card tour? Off road expedition tour? Big difference. Go with the width and features you actually need. Do not go with the width and features you only need in your imagination. If you ride 95% paved roads, a 45mm tire is some slow heavy sh*t you do not want. What's hard to understand about this simple concept?

Last edited by Yan; 12-06-22 at 09:53 PM.
Yan is offline  
Likes For Yan:
Old 12-06-22, 10:44 PM
  #53  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 15,299

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9638 Post(s)
Liked 6,024 Times in 3,466 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
I have to agree with the other guy on this one. Sloping top tube bikes are terrible. A bit of slope is ok, and is actually necessary on the smaller frame sizes, but the trend has been getting ridiculous lately.

The stiffness argument isn't a big deal for tourists who are not focused on performance. The main problem for me is that a loaded bike is extremely heavy and when I'm stopped I need to use my legs to control the bike's top tube. On a sloping top tube frame the top tube is too low and the bike flops all over the place. I also cannot rest by sitting on the top tube.

Also it looks ugly. Looks matter. Maybe I'm superficial but I don't want my expensive touring bike to look like a BMX.
Gord, the other poster, complained that a sloping top tube of more than 2" is ugly and limits use.
A 2.5" sloping top tube on my bike would be a 5.8 degree angle. That's it. That's hardly a BMX look. The picture below is a bike from one of the brands the OP is considering and it has a 7 degree sloping top tube, so even more than what Gord(and you apparently) find objectionable.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to anesthetics. If the bike below actually looks like a BMX to you, OK then. I think that's nuts, but oh well.

As for your comment about stiffness not being important...touring frames are historically built with thicker tubing in order to make them stiffer for handling more weight. I'm just not sure what to say to that.
If you want to be in God's corner, have at it. There is ample room over there.

mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-06-22, 11:06 PM
  #54  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 15,299

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9638 Post(s)
Liked 6,024 Times in 3,466 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
That article is published by a company that sells gravel tires. Be careful with their conclusions because they have a financial interest in spinning a certain narrative. For example, they dismiss the scientific testing done by www.bicyclerollingresistance.com because "testing in the lab doesn't reflect real world conditions." Why exactly doesn't it reflect?? They don't elaborate. Translation: we ignore any evidence that doesn't support our sales pitch.

Amongst other factors, wider tires are simply heavier, everything else being equal. Every time you try to accelerate you're losing a bunch of energy. That's all there is to it.

For example, the company that published the article above sells a smooth 55mm "road tire" that conforms to their "fat tires better" philosophy. It weighs over 500g which is over double the weight of a normal road tire. Yikes. Try racing that around and then claim it doesn't gimp your performance.

If wider tires were just as fast as thin tires, then all the guys in the Tour de France would be riding fat tires. Get comfortable on those cobblestone sections. Why not?

As always, when evaluating truths vs lies, seek answers in places where the truth matters.
I don't own RH tires. I don't plan to own RH tires. Their self beneficial testing is confirmation bias at its best, in my view.

With that said, this is a touring forum. What someone does when racing is of 0 consequence so why even bring it up?
A quality fast rolling 35mm tire just isn't significantly slower when touring than a 25mm tire and it will be infinitely more comfortable.

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
As an easy example, compare a 23mm to a 32mm here.
196g vs 278g
8.7 watts at 110psi for the 23mm tire vs 9.6 watts at 70psi for the 32mm tire.
Those psi numbers are based on what I would ride each tire at based on the Silva calculator- the 23mm unloaded on a road bike and the 32mm on a loaded touring bike.

It's just not that big of a difference. 1 watt difference between those tire sizes. 85g between those tire sizes.

You chose a 55mm tire because it is so clearly an outlier. That's a road tire in that it's smooth and has a high performance casing, so it'll roll faster than similarly sized tires. If someone can squeeze that into a frame, it will perform well on pavement compared to other similarly sized tires.

There is clearly a point at which tire size becomes too large/heavy for the pros. This is touring though and none of us are MVDP.
If we are going to focus on the pro Pelton for some dumb reason, let's address that Yes- tires have increased in width over the last 25 years and even the last 4 years. They have not expanded to the absurd level you took things to, but yes tires have in fact increased by almost 20% more air volume.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 12:15 AM
  #55  
elcruxio
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Posts: 2,240

Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 188 Times in 134 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
They sell 22 models of clincher tires, of which 18 out of the 22 are wider than 35mm. Of their 4 token narrow models, only 2 are thinner than 30mm. The thinnest of them is 26mm. So no, they definitely do not sell "a full range of tires".

Their tires are also all around the $90 price range. They're a boutique maker of overpriced gravel tires.

What else do you need to know? They are financially interested in pushing a certain narrative. They sell the wide tire over-marketed BS mystique.

Their "test" is coasting a bike down a 15 second long downhill and measuring the speed. Yes you read that right. Coasting a bike down a fifteen second downhill.

I'm sorry but no.
​​​​
I say again: figure out what kind of riding you do and then buy the bike/tire you need. A 25mm road tire is 250g. A 45mm ultra endurance touring tire is 1100g. Big difference. Credit card tour? Off road expedition tour? Big difference. Go with the width and features you actually need. Do not go with the width and features you only need in your imagination. If you ride 95% paved roads, a 45mm tire is some slow heavy sh*t you do not want. What's hard to understand about this simple concept?
Funnily enough if you check out that bicycle rolling resistance website you'll notice that the difference between then fastest road tire and the fastest gravel tire is under 5 watts. Hardly anything I'd notice.

the reason pro's don't use 45mm tires is
1) frames and tolerances
2) weight (for them a 100g difference per tire actually matters)
3) aerodynamics. At their speeds tire aerodynamics start to matter
4) retro grouchiness. We like to think the pro tour teams using only the bestest of the bestest honed with exact sciences, but the reality is disappointing. For example the amount of pro teams getting comprehensive bike fits for their riders is shockingly low.

So weight then. It matters on the uphills, but is a difference of 200-300 grams total really make that big of a difference on a loaded bike? In terms of rotational energy, you get that back so that's a non factor.

Tire aerodynamics matters very little in bicycle touring.

Comfort however matters a great deal. There's apparently some pretty decent science behind the idea that vibrations are tiring and the less vibrations you experience the more fresh you'll feel. In the context of touring I'd rate that pretty high.

Wider tires aren't good just for gravel. They're also good for roads in bad condition. They also float better on loose gravel wasting less energy. And as stated above, they're not really noticeably worse on super smooth roads either.

If you really cared about speed or rolling resistance you'd swap out those heavy expedition tires for marathon almotions in tubeless. They are on a different planet in terms of rolling resistance and the tubeless combined with dynaplugs will cover anything short of catastrophic damage. Add to that a sealant that can be extended with water and you have a pretty secure system. You mentioned somewhere that one needs CO2 cartridges to mount the tire but that's just not the case anymore. All of my schwalbe tires start holding air the second the last stretch of bead crosses over the rim and all of them can be mounted with a hand pump. Sure that takes a bit of luck with the rim compatability but you can make your own luck by adding an extra layer of rim tape in the rim well.
elcruxio is offline  
Likes For elcruxio:
Old 12-07-22, 07:06 AM
  #56  
Germany_chris
Iím a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 2,198

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked 1,092 Times in 559 Posts



Since my bike got brought up, here it was on my Amsterdam to Brussels trip this summer.

I donít love frame bags but theyíre great for commuting.

Keep in mind that the Karate Monkey is a mountain bike itís going to show more seat post. Those bottles are 750ml but my 1.5L bottles fit fine.

Last edited by Germany_chris; 12-07-22 at 07:15 AM.
Germany_chris is offline  
Likes For Germany_chris:
Old 12-07-22, 07:18 AM
  #57  
Germany_chris
Iím a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 2,198

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked 1,092 Times in 559 Posts



Hereís my Cross Check from my Berlin trip in the early spring, if you travel light the CC is enough just load the heavy stuff in the front.

Last edited by Germany_chris; 12-07-22 at 04:54 PM.
Germany_chris is offline  
Likes For Germany_chris:
Old 12-07-22, 07:23 AM
  #58  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 12,665
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2525 Post(s)
Liked 797 Times in 665 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
Funnily enough if you check out that bicycle rolling resistance website you'll notice that the difference between then fastest road tire and the fastest gravel tire is under 5 watts. Hardly anything I'd notice.

the reason pro's don't use 45mm tires is
1) frames and tolerances
2) weight (for them a 100g difference per tire actually matters)
3) aerodynamics. At their speeds tire aerodynamics start to matter
4) retro grouchiness. We like to think the pro tour teams using only the bestest of the bestest honed with exact sciences, but the reality is disappointing. For example the amount of pro teams getting comprehensive bike fits for their riders is shockingly low.

So weight then. It matters on the uphills, but is a difference of 200-300 grams total really make that big of a difference on a loaded bike? In terms of rotational energy, you get that back so that's a non factor.

Tire aerodynamics matters very little in bicycle touring.

Comfort however matters a great deal. There's apparently some pretty decent science behind the idea that vibrations are tiring and the less vibrations you experience the more fresh you'll feel. In the context of touring I'd rate that pretty high.

Wider tires aren't good just for gravel. They're also good for roads in bad condition. They also float better on loose gravel wasting less energy. And as stated above, they're not really noticeably worse on super smooth roads either.

If you really cared about speed or rolling resistance you'd swap out those heavy expedition tires for marathon almotions in tubeless. They are on a different planet in terms of rolling resistance and the tubeless combined with dynaplugs will cover anything short of catastrophic damage. Add to that a sealant that can be extended with water and you have a pretty secure system. You mentioned somewhere that one needs CO2 cartridges to mount the tire but that's just not the case anymore. All of my schwalbe tires start holding air the second the last stretch of bead crosses over the rim and all of them can be mounted with a hand pump. Sure that takes a bit of luck with the rim compatability but you can make your own luck by adding an extra layer of rim tape in the rim well.
Lots of really good points here, the underlined ones certainly reflect my personal experience with comfort and rough and softer surfaces.

Yan, referencing under 300g tires for touring imo really isn't relevant, just as the speeds we do touring.
I've ridden a lot on all kinds of widths of tires touring on lots of different surfaces. Lately I found my 38mm slicks to be quite a good compromise for speed, comfort and going on rough roads etc sometimes. Compared to narrower stuff, I like the comfort thing, which is probably a result of a combination of both being a bit wiser with age and appreciating how increased comfort leaves me with more energy at end of day, but also just plain getting older and appreciating the comfort for comforts sake.

When I tour lightly on a lighter, faster bike, the nice 32 slicks I use are also great for comfort and speed, but again these are nice rolling, supple 32's, not clunkers. The speed difference between these 32mm and slightly stiffer 28mm s that I've used on this bike for years seems to me exactly the same, but I have more energy due to less vibrations.
djb is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 07:31 AM
  #59  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 10,083

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2987 Post(s)
Liked 1,089 Times in 878 Posts
Originally Posted by tcs View Post
Q: In the old days when horizontal top tubes were the only paradigm in town, how did tourists get the bars high enough that they saw the scenery and not just the road in front of the front wheel?

A: Mostly we rode crotch-stuffing frames. Note how little seatpost is showing:

...
Back then there was a philosophy that you wanted a fist full of seapost. If you had more seatpost than that, your frame was too small.

That said, I am perfectly happy with my horizontal top tube rando bike, that has more than a fist full of seatpost. But I have an uncut steerer tube, so have adequate handlebar height.

Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 07:57 AM
  #60  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 10,083

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2987 Post(s)
Liked 1,089 Times in 878 Posts
This sloping top tube argument, I just can't get excited about it. Quite happy with my sloping top tube heavy touring bike. The frame is strong enough that the frame won't crack at the top tube. But I really hope that my seatpost never cracks. The seat tube is long enough that I can carry a one liter bottle in that cage, I have three liters of bottle capacity on the frame.




If that bike had a horizontal top tube, it would probably be big enough that I could never get it packed into the case. It is a tight fit. Rear rack and fenders do not fit, the rack goes in my other checked bag and the fenders stay home.

Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 08:32 AM
  #61  
Chuck Naill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: US
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 356 Post(s)
Liked 97 Times in 70 Posts
Good resource for equipment. Here Are The 13 BEST Touring Bikes You Can Buy In 2022 - CyclingAbout.
Chuck Naill is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 10:50 AM
  #62  
Yan 
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1064 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 187 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
So weight then. It matters on the uphills, but is a difference of 200-300 grams total really make that big of a difference on a loaded bike? In terms of rotational energy, you get that back so that's a non factor.
It's not about the bike weight. It's about the higher moment of inertia of the wheel when changing speed. You do not get this energy back. Colloquially you often hear people say weight on the wheels is worth 4x the same weight on the frame. Here is a calculation someone did on physics.stackexchange.com that came to the conclusion that extra weight at the rims slows the bike down 2x as much as the same weight on the frame.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...n-acceleration

So when you go for a very fat tire, along with presumably you'd be using wider rims to fit the fat tires, you're looking at the equivalent of up to several extra pounds of bike weight, depending on whether you use a speed focused tire or a durability focused tire. Whether that amount of difference matters is a personal decision. For me it matters. If I'm road touring then I am not doing off road riding, so why would I unnecessarily use heavier wider tires?

There is the additional factor that instead of using slick tires, people invariably use tires with at least some tread because "gravel = can't use slick tires". Same goes for manufacturers. For example this is the tire that Trek specs from the factory on their gravel bikes:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...-tire/p/23611/

Last edited by Yan; 12-07-22 at 11:11 AM.
Yan is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 11:24 AM
  #63  
garryg
Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Campbell River BC
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times in 121 Posts

Touring this summer on Rat Trap Pass fatties. Loved them.
garryg is offline  
Likes For garryg:
Old 12-07-22, 11:52 AM
  #64  
elcruxio
Senior Member
 
elcruxio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Turku, Finland, Europe
Posts: 2,240

Bikes: 2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked 188 Times in 134 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
It's not about the bike weight. It's about the higher moment of inertia of the wheel when changing speed. You do not get this energy back. Colloquially you often hear people say weight on the wheels is worth 4x the same weight on the frame. Here is a calculation someone did on physics.stackexchange.com that came to the conclusion that extra weight at the rims slows the bike down 2x as much as the same weight on the frame.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...n-acceleration


So when you go for a very fat tire, along with presumably you'd be using wider rims to fit the fat tires, you're looking at the equivalent of up to several extra pounds of bike weight, depending on whether you use a speed focused tire or a durability focused tire. Whether that amount of difference matters is a personal decision. For me it matters. If I'm road touring then I am not doing off road riding, so why would I unnecessarily use heavier wider tires?

There is the additional factor that instead of using slick tires, people invariably use tires with at least some tread because "gravel = can't use slick tires". Same goes for manufacturers. For example this is the tire that Trek specs from the factory on their gravel bikes:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...-tire/p/23611/
Well you're technically correct in the 2x number but that number ONLY applies during accelerations. During steady speed riding or coasting it doesn't make a difference. And you do get that extra energy back because a higher moment of inertia of a heavier wheel also means more inertia whilst moving. That extra energy you put in doesn't magically disappear.

If we decide to compare apples to apples like take different size marathon plusses for example
37mm = 900g
47mm = 1100g
So that's 200g per tire and 400g all together. Not a huge difference but we can do better.

Schwalbe G-one allround
35mm = 480g
45mm = 540g
60g per tire and 120g all together.

I'm going on a limb here, but I don't feel 120g to be that much. Even when that weight is doubled during acceleration that whole 120g would for me mean a 0.16% increase in total system weight in full tour configuration. Just going off by some simple online calculators that would mean that I'd need 0.2W more power to get going. Whoopie fricking doo...
btw. With the 400g of difference in marathon plus tires the difference is still under one watt so... yeah.

The rim can be the same as a rim taking a 35mm tire can take a 45mm tire. The tubes can also be the same if one does not tubeless so no difference there. If going to wider sizes than 45mm one can probably get a lighter rim as the stresses on the wheel are largely reduced due to the pneumatic suspension effect a wide supple tire offers.

So all in all that 2x number is somewhat misleading in how minuscule the effect is in reality.
elcruxio is offline  
Likes For elcruxio:
Old 12-07-22, 12:15 PM
  #65  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 15,299

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9638 Post(s)
Liked 6,024 Times in 3,466 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
It's not about the bike weight. It's about the higher moment of inertia of the wheel when changing speed. You do not get this energy back. Colloquially you often hear people say weight on the wheels is worth 4x the same weight on the frame. Here is a calculation someone did on physics.stackexchange.com that came to the conclusion that extra weight at the rims slows the bike down 2x as much as the same weight on the frame.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...n-acceleration

So when you go for a very fat tire, along with presumably you'd be using wider rims to fit the fat tires, you're looking at the equivalent of up to several extra pounds of bike weight, depending on whether you use a speed focused tire or a durability focused tire. Whether that amount of difference matters is a personal decision. For me it matters. If I'm road touring then I am not doing off road riding, so why would I unnecessarily use heavier wider tires?

There is the additional factor that instead of using slick tires, people invariably use tires with at least some tread because "gravel = can't use slick tires". Same goes for manufacturers. For example this is the tire that Trek specs from the factory on their gravel bikes:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...-tire/p/23611/
https://www.velonews.com/gear/techni...t-matter/There is no question that if a rider climbs at constant speed, it doesnít matter where the weight is located on the bike. Extra mass could be concentrated on the pedals, at the rims, in the frame, or in the hubs, and as long as the bikeís total weight is the same and it has otherwise the same characteristics, it will create the same resistance to the riderís efforts.

That said, there is also no question that it takes more energy to accelerate the same amount of mass if it is located out on the rim as if it is located at the center of the wheel (or on the frame).
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/cyclin...​​
So yes, adding mass to the wheel is worse than adding mass to the frame---but only when accelerating.
This, like so many things with you, is just dumb to argue. Yes a lighter tire will be faster than a heavier tire, all other things equal. No, a 40mm high quality fast rolling compound slick tire will not be detrimentally slower than a similar 25mm tire when used on a loaded touring bike at the typical touring speed range.
So yes there is a difference, no it just isnt important enough for many to care about. When touring, there is not a lot of starting and stopping(as compared to CX or singletrack thru woods riding) so once the wheel is moving, a small difference is just that- small.

I am not sure if your claim of 'up to several pounds of bike weight' is correct and you are introducing other factors when you make this claim. First, RH tires were mentioned by you and those are neither slow rolling, nor heavy, nor known as a puncture resistant tire. So you suggesting tires with high durability(therefore heavy) be considered when talking about the weight increase is pretty disingenuous. Secondly, a high performing 25mm tire is 220g(conti gp5k) and a high performing 38mm tire is 337g(panaracer gk slick). You dont need a wider rim to run the larger tire. Both of these work perfectly fine on any number of common rims that are 17-21mm internal width. There is no need for a wider rim or different wheel build. The only difference in weight between wheelsets with these tires can realistically be the weight of the tires and tubes(or some extra sealant).
So 300g total is added overall to the wheelset when using the 38mm tires plus tubes compared to the 25mm tires plus tubes I specify above. Again, these are very realistic tires and widths so I did not cherry pick anything.
Thats 10 ounces added, which is anything but close to 'up to several pounds of bike weight'. Sure, we could find some heavy tires and get closer to your claim, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And lets remember- once up to speed(better said, when not accelerating, so therefore any downhill and flat road riding included), weight on the wheels is not the equivalent of weight several times higher than the same weight on a frame.



As for your last point, using tires with tread, that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. What a brand slaps on their bikes is of no consequence here. Further, what a brand slaps on a gravel bike is of no consequence for a discussion about paved road touring. Trek does spec their 520 touring bike with slick tires(minimal tread pattern for show on a smooth rolling center). Its well documented that people think bike tires need tread in order to grip. Just because that wives tale still exists doesnt mean anything for this discussion. And one more point here- what brands spec on a bike is often not what enthusiast consumers use. Its incredibly common for enthusiast cyclists to pull off the new tires and mount whatever brand/model they have a preference for.
Seriously, your comment about what Trek uses for its gravel bike is of no consequence here for multiple reasons.



Ride what you like- its totally cool. But dont push some suspect reasoning on others.
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:
Old 12-07-22, 12:29 PM
  #66  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked 854 Times in 421 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
It's not about the bike weight. It's about the higher moment of inertia of the wheel when changing speed. You do not get this energy back. Colloquially you often hear people say weight on the wheels is worth 4x the same weight on the frame. Here is a calculation someone did on physics.stackexchange.com that came to the conclusion that extra weight at the rims slows the bike down 2x as much as the same weight on the frame.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...n-acceleration

So when you go for a very fat tire, along with presumably you'd be using wider rims to fit the fat tires, you're looking at the equivalent of up to several extra pounds of bike weight, depending on whether you use a speed focused tire or a durability focused tire. Whether that amount of difference matters is a personal decision. For me it matters. If I'm road touring then I am not doing off road riding, so why would I unnecessarily use heavier wider tires?

There is the additional factor that instead of using slick tires, people invariably use tires with at least some tread because "gravel = can't use slick tires". Same goes for manufacturers. For example this is the tire that Trek specs from the factory on their gravel bikes:
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/e...-tire/p/23611/
An interesting google search, however, when you actually do the math and add approximately 400 grams to the wheels. Then accelerate to say 30 km/h the amount of so-called additional energy required is approximately 3 watts. Your constant exaggeration and selective use of facts are silly. But since you like the google defense please review (https://www.renehersecycles.com/tire...-vs-real-road/) and point out the flaws with the logic.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 12:37 PM
  #67  
GamblerGORD53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,171

Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1059 Post(s)
Liked 227 Times in 178 Posts
I have been using 36 mm SMP tires all along with my Dyad rims. I think they were 870 or 880g when I bought them, now they are 900.
But the end of my last tour the tires got buggered by thorns and tiny staples. I then switched the lame back tire to the front. Ended up buying a new one in Calgary. My pumps went lame too. Before that I was riding a sidewalk beside a school in Kennewick. Didn't see the stapler refill and boom, instant death to the old front tire at the end of it's life anyway.

So 2 years ago I was ordering stuff and decided to get 2 Schwalbe E marathons that are 930g. They are supposed to grip and last better. I'll have to do many miles to wear out the ones I have.
I am a big proponent of momentum for the shorter dips along the way. I can definitely feel it. Not a total acceleration loss at all.

The thing about wider tires is they are maybe knobbier and lower pressure so they don't need as heavy a build.
Even my 38 mm tires get by with 5 lbs less air, 66 lbs air is a nice soft ride.

Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 12-07-22 at 01:09 PM.
GamblerGORD53 is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 01:06 PM
  #68  
Germany_chris
Iím a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 2,198

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked 1,092 Times in 559 Posts
In 2022 I can't believe we're arguing RH tires v the rest..
Germany_chris is offline  
Likes For Germany_chris:
Old 12-07-22, 01:29 PM
  #69  
Yan 
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1064 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 187 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
An interesting google search, however, when you actually do the math and add approximately 400 grams to the wheels. Then accelerate to say 30 km/h the amount of so-called additional energy required is approximately 3 watts. Your constant exaggeration and selective use of facts are silly. But since you like the google defense please review (https://www.renehersecycles.com/tire...-vs-real-road/) and point out the flaws with the logic.
Watt is a rate. Amount of energy is not measured in watts. It is measured in joules. Accelerating 0 to 30km/h requires a different amount of watts depending on the rate of acceleration. What you wrote here is utter gibberish.

Last edited by Yan; 12-07-22 at 01:35 PM.
Yan is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 01:34 PM
  #70  
Yan 
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1064 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 187 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
This, like so many things with you, is just dumb to argue. Yes a lighter tire will be faster than a heavier tire, all other things equal. No, a 40mm high quality fast rolling compound slick tire will not be detrimentally slower than a similar 25mm tire when used on a loaded touring bike at the typical touring speed range.
So yes there is a difference, no it just isnt important enough for many to care about. When touring, there is not a lot of starting and stopping(as compared to CX or singletrack thru woods riding) so once the wheel is moving, a small difference is just that- small.

I am not sure if your claim of 'up to several pounds of bike weight' is correct and you are introducing other factors when you make this claim. First, RH tires were mentioned by you and those are neither slow rolling, nor heavy, nor known as a puncture resistant tire. So you suggesting tires with high durability(therefore heavy) be considered when talking about the weight increase is pretty disingenuous. Secondly, a high performing 25mm tire is 220g(conti gp5k) and a high performing 38mm tire is 337g(panaracer gk slick). You dont need a wider rim to run the larger tire. Both of these work perfectly fine on any number of common rims that are 17-21mm internal width. There is no need for a wider rim or different wheel build. The only difference in weight between wheelsets with these tires can realistically be the weight of the tires and tubes(or some extra sealant).
So 300g total is added overall to the wheelset when using the 38mm tires plus tubes compared to the 25mm tires plus tubes I specify above. Again, these are very realistic tires and widths so I did not cherry pick anything.
Thats 10 ounces added, which is anything but close to 'up to several pounds of bike weight'. Sure, we could find some heavy tires and get closer to your claim, but that isnt what we are talking about.
And lets remember- once up to speed(better said, when not accelerating, so therefore any downhill and flat road riding included), weight on the wheels is not the equivalent of weight several times higher than the same weight on a frame.



As for your last point, using tires with tread, that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. What a brand slaps on their bikes is of no consequence here. Further, what a brand slaps on a gravel bike is of no consequence for a discussion about paved road touring. Trek does spec their 520 touring bike with slick tires(minimal tread pattern for show on a smooth rolling center). Its well documented that people think bike tires need tread in order to grip. Just because that wives tale still exists doesnt mean anything for this discussion. And one more point here- what brands spec on a bike is often not what enthusiast consumers use. Its incredibly common for enthusiast cyclists to pull off the new tires and mount whatever brand/model they have a preference for.
Seriously, your comment about what Trek uses for its gravel bike is of no consequence here for multiple reasons.



Ride what you like- its totally cool. But dont push some suspect reasoning on others
.
You can end your post right there. All the rest is just filler.

If you don't care about faster, good for you. That's your personal choice.

Last edited by Yan; 12-07-22 at 01:37 PM.
Yan is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 01:39 PM
  #71  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 15,299

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9638 Post(s)
Liked 6,024 Times in 3,466 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
You can end your post right there. All the rest is just filler.
Oh, sweetie- reality doesnt work like that. This all started because you made an ignorant comment claiming the OP shouldnt use tires that are wider than 35mm because most riding will be on pavement and justify the comment by claiming the OP will be slow as hell for thousands of miles. You then actually say 32mm tires will work just fine, as if there is some significant difference in speed between a 32mm tire and a 38mm tire(there isnt, when all other things are equal).

17.01mph is faster than 17mph, but that doesnt mean the setup to reach 17.01 is, when taken holistically, the most ideal setup for riding long distances day after day after day. Yet if you had it your way, the conversation would end with the setup which gives you 17.01mph.
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:
Old 12-07-22, 01:54 PM
  #72  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36,130
Mentioned: 205 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16652 Post(s)
Liked 11,750 Times in 5,619 Posts
Touring is the new General.
indyfabz is offline  
Likes For indyfabz:
Old 12-07-22, 01:55 PM
  #73  
Yan 
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1064 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 187 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
Oh, sweetie- reality doesnt work like that. This all started because you made an ignorant comment claiming the OP shouldnt use tires that are wider than 35mm because most riding will be on pavement and justify the comment by claiming the OP will be slow as hell for thousands of miles. You then actually say 32mm tires will work just fine, as if there is some significant difference in speed between a 32mm tire and a 38mm tire(there isnt, when all other things are equal).

17.01mph is faster than 17mph, but that doesnt mean the setup to reach 17.01 is, when taken holistically, the most ideal setup for riding long distances day after day after day. Yet if you had it your way, the conversation would end with the setup which gives you 17.01mph.
Don't call me sweetie. Giving me the creeps.

Where did you get the 17.01 number from? Don't make arguments based on numbers you pulled out of your behind.

Yes, a 32mm tire is very similar to a 35mm tire. You're making the classic error of incorrectly interpreting the significance of small increments.

Let me give you an example: one must be age 18 to vote. How many % more mature is a 18 year old than a 17.9 year old? 0.1% maturity difference? Nevertheless the 18 rule exists. If there is no substantial maturity difference, then why not change the 18 rule to 17.9? If 17.9 then why not 17.8? After a chain of these absurd arguments, you'll eventually arrive at infants voting. Logical fallacy.

That's the same logical fallacy you are making with the 35 vs 32 tire size argument. Yes these two are similar. This is your excuse for dismissing the difference? But then 32 and 28 are also very similar. And likewise with 28 and 25. And 35 is very similar to 38, which is very similar to 40. Are all these tiny differences meaningless according to you? Chain these stupid arguments together, next thing you know mstateglfr's logical genius is arguing 21mm tires are not significantly different from 53mm tires. Guess what? 21 is significantly different from 53 (even if you can't comprehend how or why). Logical fallacy.

The 35mm is just a number. It's a popular middle size with a large amount of product choice. It is a middle compromise between not too harsh riding and not too slow.

Last edited by Yan; 12-07-22 at 02:00 PM.
Yan is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 01:59 PM
  #74  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked 854 Times in 421 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
Watt is a rate. Amount of energy is not measured in watts. It is measured in joules. Accelerating 0 to 30km/h requires a different amount of watts depending on the rate of acceleration. What you wrote here is utter gibberish.
Yes, I understand the difference however, if you wanted to accelerate a bicycle to approx 30 km/h and arrive at the same point and time the rider with the heavier wheelset would need to produce approx 3 watts more during the period of acceleration.

You refuse to factually defend your ridiculous position that wider tires, within a reasonable range, are noticeably slower

You also won't defend the flawed logic that within the reasonable ranges we are talking about, that a touring cyclist will accelerate noticeably slower with heavier wheels.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 12-07-22, 02:03 PM
  #75  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 15,299

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9638 Post(s)
Liked 6,024 Times in 3,466 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan View Post
Don't call me sweetie.

Where did you get the 17.01 number from? Don't make arguments based on numbers you pulled out of your behind.

Yes, a 32mm tire is very similar to a 35mm tire. You're making the classic error of incorrectly interpreting the significance of small increments.

Let me give you an example: one must be age 18 to vote. How many % more mature is a 18 year old than a 17.9 year old? 0.1% maturity difference? Nevertheless the 18 rule exists. If there is no substantial maturity difference, then why not change the 18 rule to 17.9? If 17.9 then why not 17.8? After a chain of these absurd arguments, you'll eventually arrive at infants voting. Logical fallacy.

That's the same logical fallacy you are making with the 35 vs 32 tire size argument. Yes these two are similar. So then 32 and 28 must also be similar rigth? And likewise with 28 and 25. Chain these stupid arguments together, next thing you know mstateglfr's logical genius is arguing 21mm tires are not significantly different from 53mm tires. Guess what? 21 is significantly different from 53 (even if you can't comprehend how or why).

The 35mm is just a number. It's a popular middle size with a large amount of product choice. It is a middle compromise between not too harsh riding and not too slow. That's why I suggest it this number. It's not some magical cutoff.
17mph vs 17.01mph was meant to show that while one speed is faster than the other, that doesnt give a full picture as to which is best. If the 'slower' tire is more comfortable then perhaps the .01mph is worth giving up.

Me pushing back is because of the firm insistence that someone shouldnt go above 35mm. It may be a barrier that you want to stay under, but its quite arbitrary since some 38mm tires roll faster than some 35mm tires. And the rest- well its just been pseudo intelligent justifications for you being so rigid.
Your main argument, that aerodynamics and weight is somehow a big issue, is a joke.



Oh, and I have 35mm tires on my commute/tour bike right now.
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.