View Single Post
Old 03-22-19, 06:13 AM
  #4  
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,808

Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...

Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times in 339 Posts
If you believe Jan Heine (https://www.renehersecycles.com/wide_tire/), there really isn't such a great disadvantage to running fat tires, or even fat knobby tires. The important variable in tire efficiency is the flexibility of the sidewall, rather than the size. A high quality 2" tire rolls just as fast as a 1" tire. Now, I don't really want to get into arguing about whether Heine is right, or what his motivations are (he is the only one selling the tires he recommends, after all); but there's no denying that he sells some pretty expensive tires, and a lot of people are using them for long distances.

Last season I rode a lot of miles on 53 mm tires-- a whole SR series, two fleches, a 1200 km brevet, etc-- and if the tires slowed me down, it wasn't by much. With such fat tires, you don't hesitate to ride on rough or even unpaved roads. While the fat tires seem to have a distinct advantage on rough roads, they don't seem to have any disadvantage on smooth pavement. Seem, I say-- because it is hard to tell what's slowing you down. More readily apparent is the overall comfort of fatter tires. After last Saturday's brevet, a friend remarked that he felt like he'd been pummeled in a bar fight. I didn't; and I weigh more than he does.
__________________
www.rhmsaddles.com.
rhm is offline