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

Redshift Stem for touring/training around town?

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.

Redshift Stem for touring/training around town?

Old 11-17-23, 07:15 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,007

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: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3377 Post(s)
Liked 1,401 Times in 1,098 Posts
I think the springs on Brooks saddles are very good for rough road vibration, especially rough pavement like chip seal. But the springs are very stiff, do not expect it to give you much give when you hit bumps. I have Brooks Conquest saddles with springs on most of my bikes, that is my experience.

In 2018 I did the ACA Big Bend van supported trip. I brought my folding bike for that, 40 mm wide Marathon tires. First day I had between 55 an 60 psi in my front tire, but had very rough vibration on my hands, my GPS started to act up from the vibration too. Day two, I dropped front tire pressure to between 40 and 45 psi, and that got rid of the rough feel on my hands. Used that lower pressure for the remaining week.

Rear tire, that was not a problem, I kept high pressure in the rear tire. Photo of the bike below.



Yes that is a Brooks Conquest on my folding bike.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 11-18-23, 08:05 AM
  #27  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,139
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2713 Post(s)
Liked 937 Times in 773 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnJ80
Some time ago, I spent a lot of time and money making my ride more plush simply because it was getting hard on me as I got older. I ride around 4000 miles a year and it was just starting to add up in wear and tear on me. When I started this project it was the days of 100psi 23 or 25mm tires. So I did it all - I swapped out forks for more compliant forks (carbon vs steel), I went to carbon seat posts and handlebars and I fiddled with saddles. Nothing seemed to really help at all. I got to hate that particular bike with its stiff frame or so I thought that was the problem.

Then the whole thing with tire inflation started and the move to wider tires. I started riding gravel and started following what Josh Poertner was preaching on tire inflation over at Silca based on world tour results and working with world tour teams. Getting the tire inflation right at much lower pressures and wider tires than I had been riding changed that harsh riding bike into a cadillac ride and it was faster to boot. From there, and Poertner says it all the time now, about 90-95% of the plush ride or overall compliance comes from the tires and tire pressure. Getting tire pressure (and as little as 5psi can matter) is the key to riding on rough roads. Anyhow, that "stiff" bike that I had come to hate became my favorite bike probably because it was the only bike I had at the time (other than an mtb) that would accommodate tires wider than 28mm.

I have actually bought the Red Shift stem. There is a slightly noticeable effect but I don't think it's worth the money and the time experimenting to get the right elastomer. You also get an up to 20mm or so deflection in the handlebars which I find a bit disconcerting. It also can become a problem if you have a handlebar pack as it did for me.

So bottom line, if you want a plush ride, fix the tire problem. Your tires are pretty wide but I'd guess that your tire pressure is way too high. Those Marathons are not at all supple so a switch to tubeless tires and sealant will fix most reliability problems you were concerned about and if you get the tire pressure right, you'll have a smooth and plush ride. Like I said, I had exactly the same problem as you did - a very harsh bike that was exceedingly uncomfortable that was changed into a very plush ride all through tire pressure properly adjusted (after a detour of an embarrassingly amount of money).

Silca has a pressure calculator that will help get you in the right ballpark. Sort there and experiment with progressively less in 3-5psi increments to hone in on the right number for you. This is going to do one heck of a lot more in getting a comfortable ride (and likely make you faster) and it's going to do more than the stem which I feel is largely a gimmick.
just wanted to say how good a post this is. It pretty much mirrors my riding experience and becoming more and more aware of how tire pressures make a huge difference to riding comfort/energy lost/ while not really having a speed loss--even faster over rough stuff.
I'm sure it's good for this fellow or lady to get another view that pretty much confirms what we both of put down and how it has helped us-- my hope that this really starts this rider to experiement more and be more attentive to how ride quality can improve with different changes.
djb is offline  
Likes For djb:
Old 11-18-23, 08:25 AM
  #28  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,139
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2713 Post(s)
Liked 937 Times in 773 Posts
Originally Posted by teachndad
Hello and thanks for the many responses. I hadn't heard of the Marathon Efficiency until the preceding post.

I did a lot of research on tires to the point that my head was swimming with information. As you all know, tires are a topic that generates A LOT of different opinions. In my research I was looking for a consensus on opinion. No easy task. I do know I will be riding mostly paved roads and needed a supple tire. The goal is to eventually do some overnight tours and then a week or more loaded.

My bike has the Marathon Originals (38mm) which continue to feel hard despite lowering the psi to about 30. I found someone who referred to them as wooden wheels - Sure feels like it. Even at 28 psi up front and 32 psi in back riding empty, the bike still feels taught. No wallowing or tire fold over on turns.

I had narrowed the choice down to the Panaracer Pasela PT or the Continental Ride tires. The Conti Ride Tour was unfortunately missing from the Rolling Resistance site https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...?orderby=brand I decided to try the less expensive Continental Ride tires sized 42mm instead of the larger heavier 47mm just to save a little on weight kind of a compromise despite suggestions to go with as big a volume tire as possible. So, I got stuck in that area. I am hoping for an increase in volume despite people saying that the Continental tires width was often overstated. I just wondered if those folks had them mounted on narrower rims. I found them two for @ $50 including shipping. I figured it was worth a tire test, without taking a big hit on the cost.

I did also order the Redshift system of seat post and stem. I will try the tires first to see how the ride changes and then add the stem and seatpost one at a time to see what impact it has on the riding. I will report back what I find. Redshift has that generous return policy.

Cheers,
Rod
I'm not familiar with this Conti ride tour, it looks like a tire that some friends have on their bikes, you will be able to compare it in hand with the marathons you have, and you may see and feel that the sidewall is as stiff as the Marathons. I have had tires that had a very stiff sidewall, as more protection, and these type of tires generally give a more stiff ride.
Overall, a better quality tire that is more flexible will not slow down at lower pressures, where a more stiff, super anti puncture protection tire with stiff sidewalls does slow down as you lower pressures, and rolls less well overall also.

good luck with all of this, it's certainly a start.
One can also always sell used tires that are nearly new if it comes to that, instead of having them sit around in your garage for decades.....
djb is offline  
Old 11-21-23, 05:59 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 4,671

Bikes: N+1=5

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked 243 Times in 180 Posts
Originally Posted by djb
just wanted to say how good a post this is. It pretty much mirrors my riding experience and becoming more and more aware of how tire pressures make a huge difference to riding comfort/energy lost/ while not really having a speed loss--even faster over rough stuff.
I'm sure it's good for this fellow or lady to get another view that pretty much confirms what we both of put down and how it has helped us-- my hope that this really starts this rider to experiement more and be more attentive to how ride quality can improve with different changes.
Thanks. Hope it helped the OP. Inflation is the place to start even with less supple tires. Not only is the most accessible, easiest and probably most successful. It is also the cheapest way too.
JohnJ80 is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 09:15 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Going from 32mm to 40mm tires has a speed penalty. Wider tires would do better offroad, but if one is only concerned with broken pavement, the Redshift stem provides vibration reduction without affecting speed.

I always toured on 35mm tires as a balanced choice, but recently I'm gravitating more toward 32s for road touring.

For a gravel tour, I wouldn't bother with the stem. Large tires are fine, as stated by others.

Last edited by Yan; 11-22-23 at 09:20 AM.
Yan is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 10:08 AM
  #31  
ret'd msgr
 
ignant666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: upstate
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
Going from 32mm to 40mm tires has a speed penalty.
You are living in the past; under most circumstances, the opposite is correct: narrow tires will incur a speed penalty (as well as being much less comfortable, meaning you are able to spend fewer hours each day riding).

Nowadays the argument is more about "wider tires aren't always faster, they are just usually faster":

https://efprocycling.com/tips-recipe...ke-you-faster/

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...-tires-slower/

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buy...-tyres-faster/

Last edited by ignant666; 11-22-23 at 10:11 AM.
ignant666 is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 01:17 PM
  #32  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,412

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

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10802 Post(s)
Liked 7,271 Times in 4,077 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
Going from 32mm to 40mm tires has a speed penalty. Wider tires would do better offroad, but if one is only concerned with broken pavement, the Redshift stem provides vibration reduction without affecting speed.
I always toured on 35mm tires as a balanced choice, but recently I'm gravitating more toward 32s for road touring.
For a gravel tour, I wouldn't bother with the stem. Large tires are fine, as stated by others.
Like most everything you seem to post- your absolutes are easily refuted.
32mm tires can be faster than 40mm tires.
40mm tires can be faster than 32mm tires.
Wider tires can be great for pavement riding too.

All the above can be shown to be true because 'can' means the details actually matter and specifics determine which statement is correct with any given comparison.
- Even within the same tire using just various sizes, like Panaracer Gravel King Slick, a wider tire is not necessarily slower. PSI matters a lot and even at varied PSI to account for tire width, when there is a rolling resistance difference in favor of the smaller tire, the difference is very minimal. Like often less than or up to a single watt.
- Tire compound and tread really do impact rolling resistance. Significant impact. A Gravel King Slick 40mm or even a Conti Terra Speed 45mm at proper PSI roll faster than a Schwalbe Marathon Plus 32mm at proper PSI. Like significantly faster.



Originally Posted by ignant666
You are living in the past; under most circumstances, the opposite is correct: narrow tires will incur a speed penalty (as well as being much less comfortable, meaning you are able to spend fewer hours each day riding).

Nowadays the argument is more about "wider tires aren't always faster, they are just usually faster":

https://efprocycling.com/tips-recipe...ke-you-faster/

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...-tires-slower/

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buy...-tyres-faster/
He isnt living in the past. He is living in a world of absolutes and generalizations.
Your links really dont apply well to this discussion.
- The EF article discussed tires that are 28mm or narrower and largely focus on tire/rim combination because at those narrower widths, there is an aerodynamic consideration at play that simply doesnt exist with tires that are wider than about 30mm. That is good info for racing, but pretty useless for a touring discussion where 32mm or 40mm tires are being talked about.
- The Bicycling article again focuses on 25 vs 28mm and aero. Also, they mention ATE as part of the discussion and this is important since many dont mention it, which is absurd. Nobody runs wider tires with equal pressure to narrower tires because that largely eliminates a major reason for running wider tires- comfort. Yes the contact patch of a wider tire is smaller than a narrower tire when they have the same PSI, but that is an ignorant or disingenuous argument to even make. Doesnt matter which, its a bad argument either way. Further, that isnt the only caveat for 'wider is faster' since tire compound is a huge variable and will make a wider tire roll faster than a narrower tire even when PSI is properly adjsuted.
- I didnt read the BikeRadar article because I saw the title and it also doesnt directly apply to this discussion.

You made a strong argument for a 28 potentially rolling faster than a 25. Kudos.
mstateglfr is offline  
Likes For mstateglfr:
Old 11-22-23, 06:43 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by ignant666
You are living in the past; under most circumstances, the opposite is correct: narrow tires will incur a speed penalty (as well as being much less comfortable, meaning you are able to spend fewer hours each day riding).

Nowadays the argument is more about "wider tires aren't always faster, they are just usually faster":

https://efprocycling.com/tips-recipe...ke-you-faster/

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...-tires-slower/

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buy...-tyres-faster/
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Like most everything you seem to post- your absolutes are easily refuted.
32mm tires can be faster than 40mm tires.
40mm tires can be faster than 32mm tires.
Wider tires can be great for pavement riding too.

All the above can be shown to be true because 'can' means the details actually matter and specifics determine which statement is correct with any given comparison.
- Even within the same tire using just various sizes, like Panaracer Gravel King Slick, a wider tire is not necessarily slower. PSI matters a lot and even at varied PSI to account for tire width, when there is a rolling resistance difference in favor of the smaller tire, the difference is very minimal. Like often less than or up to a single watt.
- Tire compound and tread really do impact rolling resistance. Significant impact. A Gravel King Slick 40mm or even a Conti Terra Speed 45mm at proper PSI roll faster than a Schwalbe Marathon Plus 32mm at proper PSI. Like significantly faster.




He isnt living in the past. He is living in a world of absolutes and generalizations.
Your links really dont apply well to this discussion.
- The EF article discussed tires that are 28mm or narrower and largely focus on tire/rim combination because at those narrower widths, there is an aerodynamic consideration at play that simply doesnt exist with tires that are wider than about 30mm. That is good info for racing, but pretty useless for a touring discussion where 32mm or 40mm tires are being talked about.
- The Bicycling article again focuses on 25 vs 28mm and aero. Also, they mention ATE as part of the discussion and this is important since many dont mention it, which is absurd. Nobody runs wider tires with equal pressure to narrower tires because that largely eliminates a major reason for running wider tires- comfort. Yes the contact patch of a wider tire is smaller than a narrower tire when they have the same PSI, but that is an ignorant or disingenuous argument to even make. Doesnt matter which, its a bad argument either way. Further, that isnt the only caveat for 'wider is faster' since tire compound is a huge variable and will make a wider tire roll faster than a narrower tire even when PSI is properly adjsuted.
- I didnt read the BikeRadar article because I saw the title and it also doesnt directly apply to this discussion.

You made a strong argument for a 28 potentially rolling faster than a 25. Kudos.
It's not about absolutes. It's about averages.

Wider tires could be faster, but only on rough terrain. On smooth pavement, narrow tires are faster. Less weight, less rolling resistance, less air resistance. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is tested data. And indeed narrower tires are used in track cycling which have the smoothest surface around. There's never going to be a day when the guys going for the indoor hour record are using 40mm tires. Wonder why?

On a tour the pavement varies, so we have to compromise on tire choice. If you took a diary of all the roads you pass on a typical tour in America, you're going to realize that those 40mm tires helped you go faster 5% of the time and slowed you down 95% of the time. Roads in first world countries are by and large pretty good.

The story would be different if you were going on a gravel dominated tour, but then you're looking at treaded off road tires which aren't available in the thinnest widths anyway, so the discussion is moot.

FYI the whole theory for why wider tires have lower rolling resistance: that forward energy is wasted when bumps kick your narrow tire upward and the energy is dissipated as heat as your jelly body bounces around, that theory works just as well with suspension seatposts and stems. The unsprung weight is lower so it isn't quite as effective, but the majority of the weight is your body anyway, not the bike and luggage. 170lbs vs 60-70lbs. So even if you completely ignore the previous paragraph about road surface, the idea is still the same.
Yan is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 08:59 PM
  #34  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,139
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2713 Post(s)
Liked 937 Times in 773 Posts
I have to agree with mstat here Yan, roadie stuff isn't the same as joe blow tourers (and certainly not track cyclists) and we never ride fast enough for aero to be a factor anyway, so it really comes down to comfort---which is what this person is specifically interested in--especially with an existing back problem.
Like you Yan, I ride all kinds of bikes, with 28's up to a fatbike, and yes a lighter tire is always nicer, and yes on good roads, a nice 32mm tire is a great compromise for still being sprightly and fast (I love riding my bike with nice 32s) but can give a pretty darn good ride if the tire is a good one (suppley and all that)

I hope that this person can try a whole bunch of different things, including the stem and seatpost, and find a working solution so that they can ride more comfortably, which will help get them to ride more, which is really all anyone wants and in the big picture of life health, is the main thing--to be more regularly active and get more fit.

oh, today I rode my winter bike for the first time, with 1.75 in studded tires , 45mm, Schwalbe ice tires, and they are pretty stiff tires, but hey, at least it reduces the chances of ending up on my arse, but I need to get the pressures right with them also. I always put them a bit too high at the beginning of the winter riding season.
djb is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 10:17 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Mass increases at the cube of the linear dimension, so while pro cyclist have gone from 21-23 to 26-28 in the past few years, there's a limit for how far up that can be extrapolated before things get out of hand. 40mm is really pushing it for general road touring. That excess width and weight is just wasted on most pavement. I'd only consider that if the planned route has significant offroad sections for if I was in some poorer country with absolutely terrible roads.
Yan is offline  
Likes For Yan:
Old 11-22-23, 10:44 PM
  #36  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,139
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2713 Post(s)
Liked 937 Times in 773 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
Mass increases at the cube of the linear dimension, so while pro cyclist have gone from 21-23 to 26-28 in the past few years, there's a limit for how far up that can be extrapolated before things get out of hand. 40mm is really pushing it for general road touring. That excess width and weight is just wasted on most pavement. I'd only consider that if the planned route has significant offroad sections for if I was in some poorer country with absolutely terrible roads.
while overall I see your point, and like I said, I ride diff bikes with diff tires and its fun to see the difference between them.
Here's a supporting point though-- I find that my narrower Supremes (what can I say, they are the only light, really nice slicks I have) the 1.6in ones that measure about 38mm on my 26in wheeled Troll--they roll really really nicely and fast--yes, they are faster than the 2in Supremes Ive had on the same bike, but overall these 38s are great. This 26in Troll with them on is slower than my lighter 700c bike that has 32 or 28s on it, but its really hard to compare because the bikes are so different and I never carry as much stuff on the lighter bike compared to the Troll. Plus the 700 bike, as well as being lighter by about 5lbs, doesnt have fenders, so is just going to be faster cuz of less stuff hanging off the bike too.
Guess all I can say is these 38s are way more comfy than the 28s or 32s, and yes on nice roads its not a big factor--but the speed difference isn't thaaaaat much (it seems to me anyway) but for rider comfort and for this guys back problem, I'm totally in the camp of wider could be better overall for this rider.

but hey, what do I know, this guy is going to have to figure this stuff out on his own--we just blabber on about minutia and details---it is fun though!
djb is offline  
Old 11-22-23, 11:24 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
No arguments from me against those points.

Circling back to the stem in question, it's supposed to have 20mm to travel, but in my experience this is more like 15mm on the elastomers I chose following their instructions. In practice I'm finding the difference to be more than the difference between 28mm and 40mm tires. I think you'd have to go from 28mm to 45mm to get the equivalent effect. That's huge. In the beginning I was constantly looking down at my tires to check that they are not flat. I was skeptical about the stem but it turned out to be very well engineered with no looseness at all. Current eBay prices are only around $90, so in OP's position I'd suggest adding the stem first, and then if that is still not enough, only then adding spinning weight at the tires.
Yan is offline  
Likes For Yan:
Old 11-22-23, 11:28 PM
  #38  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,412

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

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10802 Post(s)
Liked 7,271 Times in 4,077 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
It's not about absolutes. It's about averages.

Wider tires could be faster, but only on rough terrain. On smooth pavement, narrow tires are faster. Less weight, less rolling resistance, less air resistance. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is tested data.
Nope.

Once more- wider tires can be faster than narrower tires. Narrower ties can be faster than wider tires.
It all depends on tire construction, psi, tread pattern, and more.
And a wider tire can be faster than a narrower tire on good quality pavement due to lower rolling resistance. As for air resistance, a 40mm can absolutely be faster overall than a 32, even with wind resistance taken into account.

Again- it depends on the tire construction, psi, and more.
As you claimed, this is tested data.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 01:28 AM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Nope.

Once more- wider tires can be faster than narrower tires. Narrower ties can be faster than wider tires.
It all depends on tire construction, psi, tread pattern, and more.
And a wider tire can be faster than a narrower tire on good quality pavement due to lower rolling resistance. As for air resistance, a 40mm can absolutely be faster overall than a 32, even with wind resistance taken into account.

Again- it depends on the tire construction, psi, and more.
As you claimed, this is tested data.
  • You need to be comparing different widths of the same brand and model. If you start comparing different models of tires, you're not really just considering width anymore.
  • If the pavement is perfectly smooth (you're in a velodrome), and you are comparing between different widths of the same model of tire, the narrower version will always have lower rolling resistance.
  • The narrower version of the tire will also have lower air resistance because it has a lower frontal surface area.

I'd be curious to know which of the above you think is wrong.
Yan is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 08:47 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,007

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: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3377 Post(s)
Liked 1,401 Times in 1,098 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
It's not about absolutes. It's about averages.

Wider tires could be faster, but only on rough terrain. On smooth pavement, narrow tires are faster. Less weight, less rolling resistance, less air resistance. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is tested data. And indeed narrower tires are used in track cycling which have the smoothest surface around. There's never going to be a day when the guys going for the indoor hour record are using 40mm tires. Wonder why?

On a tour the pavement varies, so we have to compromise on tire choice. If you took a diary of all the roads you pass on a typical tour in America, you're going to realize that those 40mm tires helped you go faster 5% of the time and slowed you down 95% of the time. Roads in first world countries are by and large pretty good.

The story would be different if you were going on a gravel dominated tour, but then you're looking at treaded off road tires which aren't available in the thinnest widths anyway, so the discussion is moot.

FYI the whole theory for why wider tires have lower rolling resistance: that forward energy is wasted when bumps kick your narrow tire upward and the energy is dissipated as heat as your jelly body bounces around, that theory works just as well with suspension seatposts and stems. The unsprung weight is lower so it isn't quite as effective, but the majority of the weight is your body anyway, not the bike and luggage. 170lbs vs 60-70lbs. So even if you completely ignore the previous paragraph about road surface, the idea is still the same.
This is the touring board, not racing. When I am on a tour, I am there to enjoy myself, which does not mean being in a race. My light touring bike is fitted with 37mm wide tires, medium touring bike is used with 40mm or 50 mm tires, depending on where I am going. Heavy touring bike which often is a mix of pavement and off-pavement, 57mm tires.

I have never had a pinch flat on any of my touring bikes, even when used with four panniers. Yet I still run front tires at about 65 to 75 percent of the pressure that I use in the rear tires.

Rando bike is fitted with 32mm tires, road bike has 28mm tires. I would consider those bikes for a credit card tour where I have a handlebar bag and a Carradice saddlebag, no panniers.

If you are in a race when on a tour, I can understand your tire choices. There are some former racers on this forum, I think they would agree with you too. If you feel that a wider tire is too non-aerodynamic, you probably cringe when looking at the fenders on my touring bikes and rando bike. But, that is a choice that I made.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Likes For Tourist in MSN:
Old 11-23-23, 09:18 AM
  #41  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,412

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

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10802 Post(s)
Liked 7,271 Times in 4,077 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
  • You need to be comparing different widths of the same brand and model. If you start comparing different models of tires, you're not really just considering width anymore.
  • If the pavement is perfectly smooth (you're in a velodrome), and you are comparing between different widths of the same model of tire, the narrower version will always have lower rolling resistance.
  • The narrower version of the tire will also have lower air resistance because it has a lower frontal surface area.

I'd be curious to know which of the above you think is wrong.
Do you read what I posted earlier? I don't think so, because you are still claiming things that aren't correct.

You don't need to only compare different widths of the same brand and tire. That's an absurd requirement because we are in the real world where people buy all sorts of brands and tires.
- not all tires come in widths that are 32mm and 40mm or close to those widths. Using your reasoning, if a tire doesn't exist in wider or narrower widths, then there is nothing faster than that tire. Again, absurd.
You can obviously compare different brands and models because real difference can happen when you change brands and models. I already gave examples of this. When comparing tires, people look at a bunch of options in their shop or on a website(s) then they buy what they want based on any number of factors. If they value price the most they can then buy the best rolling tire att hat price ort hee best flat protection at that price, etc. Tires from many brands will be compared, and that makes sense.
- I provided an example(and there are more) where tire widths from the same brand and model are compared and the wider tire rolls faster, even when psi is properly set.
- I provided an example where different brands are compared and the wider tire rolls faster even when psi is properly set.
Both are perfectly acceptable because in the real world people change brands and models all the time, so comparing varying brands and models is realistic and smart.


Also, we aren't in a velodrome. That isn't realistic so stop mentioning it.
Even though we aren't in a velodrome, drum testing uses a consistent and smooth rolling surface, and some wider tires of the same brand and model have tested to roll with less resistance. So while that isn't a velodrome surface, it is a pretty smooth surface.

Yes, a narrower tire in general will have less wind resistance on its own when compared to a wider tire. That difference in wind resistance is minimal compared to rolling resistance that can be saved in some situations. Again, the word 'some' is key since actual details matter.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 10:03 AM
  #42  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,139
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2713 Post(s)
Liked 937 Times in 773 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
No arguments from me against those points.

Circling back to the stem in question, it's supposed to have 20mm to travel, but in my experience this is more like 15mm on the elastomers I chose following their instructions. In practice I'm finding the difference to be more than the difference between 28mm and 40mm tires. I think you'd have to go from 28mm to 45mm to get the equivalent effect. That's huge. In the beginning I was constantly looking down at my tires to check that they are not flat. I was skeptical about the stem but it turned out to be very well engineered with no looseness at all. Current eBay prices are only around $90, so in OP's position I'd suggest adding the stem first, and then if that is still not enough, only then adding spinning weight at the tires.
this is very interesting, and I hope the fellow reads this. Everyone has a different opinion on things, but your comment on looking down at your tires to see if they were going soft is a pretty significant point. It will be interesting to hear how he finds this stem.
I have to say that it even intrigues me. When I did some bikepacking this summer, I had too much pressure at times in my front tires for when the surfaces got quite rough, and I could see that as an old guy who wants to do more bikepacking, this stem could be an interesting doo-dad....
thanks
djb is offline  
Likes For djb:
Old 11-23-23, 12:40 PM
  #43  
Senior Member
 
phughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,011
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1005 Post(s)
Liked 1,218 Times in 704 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
I think the springs on Brooks saddles are very good for rough road vibration, especially rough pavement like chip seal. But the springs are very stiff, do not expect it to give you much give when you hit bumps. I have Brooks Conquest saddles with springs on most of my bikes, that is my experience.

In 2018 I did the ACA Big Bend van supported trip. I brought my folding bike for that, 40 mm wide Marathon tires. First day I had between 55 an 60 psi in my front tire, but had very rough vibration on my hands, my GPS started to act up from the vibration too. Day two, I dropped front tire pressure to between 40 and 45 psi, and that got rid of the rough feel on my hands. Used that lower pressure for the remaining week.

Rear tire, that was not a problem, I kept high pressure in the rear tire. Photo of the bike below.



Yes that is a Brooks Conquest on my folding bike.
That's a nice looking folder. What model is it?
phughes is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 02:54 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,007

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: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3377 Post(s)
Liked 1,401 Times in 1,098 Posts
Originally Posted by phughes
That's a nice looking folder. What model is it?
Airnimal Joey, 24 inch wheels. I bought the frame and fork in 2006, thus the bike is fitted with rim brakes, pre-disc brake. A later frame has more tire clearance and can be fitted with a front derailleur which mine can't use.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Likes For Tourist in MSN:
Old 11-23-23, 03:10 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
phughes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,011
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1005 Post(s)
Liked 1,218 Times in 704 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
Airnimal Joey, 24 inch wheels. I bought the frame and fork in 2006, thus the bike is fitted with rim brakes, pre-disc brake. A later frame has more tire clearance and can be fitted with a front derailleur which mine can't use.
It makes a nice looking bike. Thanks for the info.
phughes is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 05:40 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Do you read what I posted earlier? I don't think so, because you are still claiming things that aren't correct.

You don't need to only compare different widths of the same brand and tire. That's an absurd requirement because we are in the real world where people buy all sorts of brands and tires.
- not all tires come in widths that are 32mm and 40mm or close to those widths. Using your reasoning, if a tire doesn't exist in wider or narrower widths, then there is nothing faster than that tire. Again, absurd.
You can obviously compare different brands and models because real difference can happen when you change brands and models. I already gave examples of this. When comparing tires, people look at a bunch of options in their shop or on a website(s) then they buy what they want based on any number of factors. If they value price the most they can then buy the best rolling tire att hat price ort hee best flat protection at that price, etc. Tires from many brands will be compared, and that makes sense.
- I provided an example(and there are more) where tire widths from the same brand and model are compared and the wider tire rolls faster, even when psi is properly set.
- I provided an example where different brands are compared and the wider tire rolls faster even when psi is properly set.
Both are perfectly acceptable because in the real world people change brands and models all the time, so comparing varying brands and models is realistic and smart.


Also, we aren't in a velodrome. That isn't realistic so stop mentioning it.
Even though we aren't in a velodrome, drum testing uses a consistent and smooth rolling surface, and some wider tires of the same brand and model have tested to roll with less resistance. So while that isn't a velodrome surface, it is a pretty smooth surface.

Yes, a narrower tire in general will have less wind resistance on its own when compared to a wider tire. That difference in wind resistance is minimal compared to rolling resistance that can be saved in some situations. Again, the word 'some' is key since actual details matter.
This is just dumb.

If you're comparing different brands and models, of course you can choose a wider tire designed for speed and say it's faster than a narrower tire designed for durability. Duh.

But why are you allowed to choose fast tires while I am stuck with the slow stuff? I also have the right to choose a fast tire. What happens if I already chose a fast tire and you have no faster models to cheat with? That blows your argument out of the water. Bicyclerollingresistance.com did this exact test with a fast tire that you cannot cheat around, and the results were entirely predictable. Enjoy.

FYI you were misinformed about drum testing. They don't use a smooth drum. Their standard test is a patterned drum to simulate road bumps. Quite a rough pattern at that, far bumpier than typical suburban asphalt.


Last edited by Yan; 11-23-23 at 06:26 PM.
Yan is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 05:53 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
A wider tire can be faster than a narrower tire on good quality pavement due to lower rolling resistance.

Later in your next post:
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Also, we aren't in a velodrome. That isn't realistic so stop mentioning it.

Nice sneaky attempt at a move the goal post cop out lmao.

I didn't set up the scenario. YOU chose the scenario. This entire thread I have been saying choose your width based on expected surface. But YOU said no, you want to compare on a smooth surface. Ok, fine, I then made a post responding to YOUR scenario. And now you don't like smooth surfaces afterall? Why, because you learned you were wrong?

Last edited by Yan; 11-23-23 at 06:31 PM.
Yan is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 06:14 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
Even though we aren't in a velodrome, drum testing uses a consistent and smooth rolling surface, and some wider tires of the same brand and model have tested to roll with less resistance.
Really? This is fantastic news. I'd love to know what model of tire this is so I can maybe switch to it. Can you share the drum testing you're talking about?
Yan is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 06:15 PM
  #49  
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,412

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

Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10802 Post(s)
Liked 7,271 Times in 4,077 Posts
Originally Posted by Yan
Later in your next post:



Nice sneaky attempt at a move the goal post cop out lmao.

I didn't set up the scenario. YOU chose the scenario. This entire thread I have been saying choose your width based on expected surface. But YOU said no, you want to compare on a smooth surface. Ok, fine, I then made a post responding to YOUR scenario. And now you don't like smooth surfaces afterall? Why, because you learned you were wrong?
I havent moved goalposts.
You have mentioned choosing tires based on expected surface, but have kept it basically to either pavement or gravel and declared confidently and without room for exception that a wider tire is slower on pavement.
Once more, that claim can be true, but it can also be incorrect. Details matter.

A wider tire can roll faster than a narrower tire. It depends on the tires being compared. It depends on psi too.
Additionally, a wider tire can be faster overall than a narrower tire even after aero drag is accounted for. It depends on the tired being compared.
mstateglfr is offline  
Old 11-23-23, 06:33 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Yan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,748
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1690 Post(s)
Liked 503 Times in 354 Posts
Originally Posted by mstateglfr
I havent moved goalposts.
You have mentioned choosing tires based on expected surface, but have kept it basically to either pavement or gravel and declared confidently and without room for exception that a wider tire is slower on pavement.
Once more, that claim can be true, but it can also be incorrect. Details matter.

A wider tire can roll faster than a narrower tire. It depends on the tires being compared. It depends on psi too.
Additionally, a wider tire can be faster overall than a narrower tire even after aero drag is accounted for. It depends on the tired being compared.
I've already addressed all this in post #46 above. Instead of typing it all out again I'll just refer you back to it.

And don't forget my post #48. I'm always eager to find out about well performing new products.
Yan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.