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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Yan

Going from 32mm to 40mm tires has a speed penalty.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by phughes

That's a nice looking folder. What model is it?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

A wider tire can be faster than a narrower tire on good quality pavement due to lower rolling resistance.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr

Also, we aren't in a velodrome. That isn't realistic so stop mentioning it.

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.

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?

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.