Originally Posted by
jideta
Dude, your theories, or whatever you want to call it, are just that: whatever you want to call it.
You would think that after oh, 120 years or so of Paris Roubaix, if running 2.0 inch tires made them faster and more efficient, everyone would be riding 2.0 inch tires by now.
Hell, they tried everything else.
Alas, no.
The Hour Record has been around even longer and I'm pretty damn sure if wider tires meant faster and more efficient they would have done it by now.
You think tradition or image keeps folks on skinny tires?
I don't see anyone setting records on fat tires.
Money makes the world go round and no one is winning on 38s.
If running wider tires meant faster, the FIRST guys on them would be the PROs.
I don't see no one in the peloton riding 29er tires.
And by the way, F1 tires have actually gotten smaller.
Oh and I might be more open to your theories if you had any actual evidence.
I concede narrow tires have less rolling resistance on a VELODROME but more rolling resistance on a road. Also, they have less mass to spin up so they're better to break away from the peloton in a sprint situation. Beyond that, they have more rolling resistance on all but the smoothest of smooth roads and they're dangerous.
The PR and Hour Record are perfect examples of the point I am making: narrow tires are good in CONTROLLED RACING conditions - where you're either on a velodrome or a sprint finish situation is anticipated to win. These ideas are deeply ingrained in cycling design, which is a shame. If guys like you could give up your wet dreams of competing in a Grand Tour, then we'd probably all have more efficient, safer bikes on the market. Thankfully, some manufacturers are taking note and making bikes with wider tires and shorter stems/top tubes despite industry (and mostly aesthetic) norms.
It's a shame most guys like you buy bikes and tires based on what the A Group on your Saturday AM ride thinks and not what actually works out here in the real world.