rsbob 

or 30 in front and 32 in the back?

terrymorse 

It's also worth mentioning that nobody is forced to pump their tires to rock-hard psi. Even "skinny" tires can be run at reduced pressures, with the lower limit being enough pressure to prevent pinch flats. A "skinny" tire with reduced pressure enjoys all the advantages of the "fat" tire at reduced pressure, without the penalty of weight and wind drag.

3alarmer 

...I'm usually at @236 # for rider weight. Much, if not all, of my riding these days is done on asphalt, whatever that means for road surface. I pretty much look down to figure out tire drop when the bike is weighted, and I can "feel" the difference between 100 psi and 130 psi, even if it's imaginary. Larger riders seem to do better with higher pressures, IME. I'm generally at sidewall printed maximums on most of my tires on bicycles, even the aforementioned wider ones for wet weather. I'm one of those ancient dinosaurs who still has a couple of bicycles set up with 27" x 1 1/4" tires, which combined with modern box section wheel rims make for a remarkably pleasant ride around town here.

None of this is really about speed for me, so I'm not inflating to those pressures hoping to set a Strava personal best.

smd4

I'd rather own a Ferrari than a Lincoln Town Car. I imagine most guys here would.

smd4

Lighter weight and better road feel.

Thanks for letting me do me. I appreciate it.

JohnDThompson 

You get most of the benefits, at the increased risk of pinch flats. And a narrow tire will have more sidewall deformation in use than a wide tire, so somewhat higher hysteresis losses.

Maelochs

There was some discussion in another thread about the precise parameters of the term "retrogrouch."

3alarmer 

.
...wasn't it Jan Heine who originally popularized the "wider tires better" thing ? Talk about your retrogrouches.
I'd be the first one going wider and softer if I were riding around on cobblestones all day long here. I pay big taxes for smooth, paved streets.

nttawwcobblestones.

squirtdad

steel frame does not automatically = heavy

Koyote

For starters, that's not what I wrote or suggested, although the lightest steel frames are indeed heavier than even mid-level cf frames.

The poster to whom I was responding doesn't ride one of the lightest steel frames; far from it, in fact.

And it is weird for a person riding a heavy old steel frame to then cite weight as a factor for not riding tires that are both faster and more comfortable.

squirtdad

My experience is getting the right pressure is key to getting best ride/speed for any size tire. for me the rene herse calculator seems to be best (as compared to the silca and others) https://www.renehersecycles.com/tire...culator-intro/

I am on the larger side 225 lb and have been riding 28 for a long time, I have rene herse 32's on my newest bike and they are smoother than the 28's but can only really tell when going over rougher areas

I also think that you can't just look at tires and size, but have to look at the whole wheel, tire, tube, tire type etc

Example: the smoothest, fastest, almost magic ride I have had is on 25 mm challenge elite tubular at 130 on a lighter mavic 330 rims.

and for tubie fans even Jan Heine says "tubies ride bigger"..i.e a 30mm tubular is similar to a 35 mm supple clincher

ride what works for you

smd4

It's pretty light. Not to mention iconic, classic, timeless, the epitome of a classic Italian racing bike. It's even been described as "legendary."

No cf frames will ever be known by any of these adjectives.

smd4

I thought I already addressed this with you?

Koyote

Nope. Not compared to modern heat-treated and air-hardened steels like Reynolds 853 and the True Temper equivalents. And even those frames, made of the latest and metallurgically greatest steels, are still significantly heavier than even inexpensive cf frames.

Agreed, though irrelevant to the present discussion.

smd4

I like my Cinelli to be as light as I can make it. Why do you have a problem with that endeavor?

Koyote

I wasn't addressing you in either of the posts to which you responded.

shelbyfv

I live in fear of hydroplaning with my 32s. I suppose 23s might ease my mind.

Maelochs

The obvious question is Why do you want to make the bike you own as light as possible? You state repeatedly that you are not in a race or interested in competitive performance metrics …. Yet two ounces of tires is a big deal? Why?

If your ride quality would be improved and yur rolling resistance lowered, you would gain the Effect of having dropped weight even though you might have added a couple hundred grams …. And since speed isn’t an issue, the fact that a bike which was a couple hundred grams heavier might be one tenth of a second slower up a ten-mile high-percentage incline (and faster everywhere else but you don’t care … ) wuld not be an important fact.

So … WHY do you want to make the bike ligtert when it will also be slowwr? What benefit do you gain from riding a lighter, slower bike?

The issue here is that you keep trying to present what you think is logic to support your positions but people keep pointing out that maybe you don’t understand what “logic” is.

No one cares how much your bike weighs, how fast you ride, or what size tires you use.

I mentioned the term “retrogrouch” because one definition of a ”retrogrouch” is a rider who knows, logically, that newer ideas are better, but refuses to accept them, and even derides them, saying “The old way is the right way,” …. Which is fine but illogical. Thios p[retty much makes to yhr poster-boy retrogrouch, at least on this issue.

You can take that as an insult if you like … your option. I don’t see it as being insulting, just an accurate description of a trend exhibited by a lot of older riders … and older people in general … “We didn’t need computers or calculators back in my day …. Back then we all failed at math and couldn’t find square roots to save our lives … and that was good enough.”

You have decided that even though lab testing a real-world testing also (those Wo5ld Tour teams aren’t running wider tires to be slower) shows that you could have improved performance---more than outweighing any loss due to 100 or 200 grams of added tire weight—that you just won’t change.

Cool. But when people question your logic, and you cannot provide logic to back up the decision, don’t expect people not to notice that.

I ask again …. What is the Logical reason for wanting your bike to be as light as possible …. And by the way, if that is what you Really wanted, logical consistency would indicate that you should be riding tubulars on ultralight rims.

Whatever.

smd4

Right. Do I have your permission to respond to this post?

Koyote

Funnily enough, Maelochs articulated my thoughts about you. We're talking past each other (as you and some other posters, in other threads, have talked past each other) because only one of us is talking in terms of empirical facts and logic. That's why I'm no longer responding to you - it's pointless.

smd4

Why not?

Glad I can comfortably disregard all the warm-fuzzy, "ride what you want and be happy," to which you pay great lip-service.

smd4

On that we can agree.

Eric F 

The Colnago C40 nails all of those adjectives.

smd4

Um...no.

Eric F 

You're delusional