I got wider tires and its more comfortable and I'm just as fast. Baloney!
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18349 Post(s)
Liked 4,501 Times
in
3,346 Posts
Also there is the all important PRESSURE. Go for the soft cushy ride, and one may not see as much benefit as keeping the tires quite hard.
But, I do think there is something to comparing quality (or even average) skinny tires to either low or high quality fat tires.
I've got a pair of Clement X'Plor USH 120tpi (700x35) tires with a center wear strip on my cross bike. Not a lot of definitive tests, but a few tests of peak speed have shown promise.
The X'Plor USH tires definitely feel better than whatever heavy generics I got with the bike.
#54
Senior Member
1-The average cyclist is heavier than the average pro cyclist.
2-They race on tubulars, most of us are riding clinchers. Tubs tend to ride like somewhat wider comparable clinchers.
3-Pros tend to be a lot faster than most of us, which makes aero a more significant part of the equation.
If 25mm is ideal for the pros, I'd personally expect the ideal size for the average cyclist to be at least above 30mm.
If the OP is seeing road feel totally go away by switching from 25 to 32, the 32s might be getting run kind of flat.
Last edited by HTupolev; 09-11-16 at 01:44 PM.
#57
Erik the Inveigler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The California Alps
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Well, I guess it just depends. When I lived in the San Francisco east bay I lived in a town, the western portion of which, had tons of climbs that are well over 20% gradients. I tend to do almost nothing but climbing and descending, as I had said earlier. So, the last thing that *I* want is a soft-feeling tire--especially in the front--for those long, hard grinds out of the saddle. So, to riff further also on an earlier reference: I prize tumescence in my tires.
Maybe if I become a flatlander in my seniority I will then again consider wide, soft tires.
Maybe if I become a flatlander in my seniority I will then again consider wide, soft tires.
#58
Don't Believe the Hype
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: chicagoland area
Posts: 2,668
Bikes: 1999 Steelman SR525, 2002 Lightspeed Ultimate, 1988 Trek 830, 2008 Scott Addict
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#59
Non omnino gravis
That definitive test is only two rides on a single segment. And, it doesn't rule out whether there are some things such as flat segments or quick accelerations that would show benefit one tire over another.
Also there is the all important PRESSURE. Go for the soft cushy ride, and one may not see as much benefit as keeping the tires quite hard.
Also there is the all important PRESSURE. Go for the soft cushy ride, and one may not see as much benefit as keeping the tires quite hard.
Maxxis: 70psi
And as was pointed out at the top of the post, my average speed for an entire month, Maxxis vs. Michelins, the wider tires were over 0.75mph faster overall, over the course of 1,000 miles each month.
So empirically, the Maxxis are both wider and faster.
#60
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Michelins: 85psi
Maxxis: 70psi
And as was pointed out at the top of the post, my average speed for an entire month, Maxxis vs. Michelins, the wider tires were over 0.75mph faster overall, over the course of 1,000 miles each month.
So empirically, the Maxxis are both wider and faster.
Maxxis: 70psi
And as was pointed out at the top of the post, my average speed for an entire month, Maxxis vs. Michelins, the wider tires were over 0.75mph faster overall, over the course of 1,000 miles each month.
So empirically, the Maxxis are both wider and faster.
Do you have any indication *where* you are faster with the wider tires? Is it on the flats, climbs or descends? Perhaps if you compare a few rides on the same route? I don't meant to create work for you, I am just curious.
Thanks.
#61
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Now that's interesting. I wonder if the fastest on 32 issue is because the overall ride is smoother so the rider isn't beat up as much and can ride the last quarter/third faster.
I guess the only empirical way to evaluate this is to do the same ride on 25 and 32s and compare tires over different segments.
I guess the only empirical way to evaluate this is to do the same ride on 25 and 32s and compare tires over different segments.
#62
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#63
Non omnino gravis
2.0 mile segment with 116ft of gain:
Michelins: 16.8mph avg speed, 148bpm avg HR, 190W avg pwr
Maxxis: 16.9mph avg speed, 145bpm avg HR, 185w avg pwr
Cadence within +/- 2 strokes across both, temp 82º vs. 86º (Michelin/Maxxis.) Less power, lower HR, more speed with the wider tires.
5.0 mile segment with 350ft of loss:
Michelins: 19.6mph avg speed, 140bpm avg HR, 218W avg pwr
Maxxis: 22.4mph avg speed, 142bpm avg HR, 261W avg pwr
Cadence within +/- 1 stroke across both, temp difference 3º cooler on Michelin (77º vs. 80º) This one falls into my new favorite metric to track-- PWR per HR. Michelin 1.56, Maxxis 1.84. So the takeaway isn't that the Maxxis fitted ride was faster or higher wattage, it was that it was that much easier to put the power on the ground with the Maxxis. Efficiency.
Also probably of some note, the Michelin ride was one the 5th day of my current ride "streak," days riding without an off day. The Maxxis ride came on day 34.
Finding segments with long descents or the absence of stoplights/intersections is proving... difficult.
#64
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 27,199
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 1,409 Times
in
909 Posts
I've seen a number of people write here saying they went from 25mm to 32 or even 35mm and have emphatically stated the ride is much more comfortable and they are just as fast.
I ride both road bikes and hybrids. I doubt I've ridden a hybrid with 25's, though. Mine has 1.25's, about 32's. Now, 25 to 32 is a big jump, > 25% in width, which would have about a 25% jump in height, so that's a big tire change. Add that around the circumference of the tire, and it's like 2 layers of tire.
a) the effort, given proper inflation, should not be that much different. My guess is that your rotational weight is a lot more than you expected, which explains the hill problem and perhaps even the speed problem. My guess is that it's a combination of the inflation, the weight of the tire, and the type of the tire. 1+1+1=4.
b) there is truth to going up incrementally on road tires without sacrificing speed. Continental stumbled upon this while developing motorcycle tires, and Michelin found it independently, as well. This speaks purely to the size vs. performance/rolling resistance, not the comfort.
c) comfort-wise, you would have to believe the PSI approach where tire roundness = the same rolling resistance from "perfectly round" with roughly the same height and width down to about 85% of the same height. You also have to subscribe to the loaded weight approach, where you bias the front/rear PSI to match the weight on the tire. My experience with this is that 23 to 25 is an improvement, and 25-28 more so, but looking down at a fat tire freaks me out. My experience also is that if you don't bias your tire's PSI, you generally are over on the front and under on the rear, which is where you're losing energy.
d) if you can't feel the road underneath the bike, you're PSI is probably too low. Simply increase it in increments until it's too hard, then back off a bit. Trust your body's reactions, no better equipment has been made, and use the common sense approach vs. what some magazine or tire ad or road know-it-all tells you. If it feels right, it probably is.
e) I hear you on the off-road. I've gone back to carrying a frame pump. I ride by that packed dirt lane and have no problem dropping 10psi and meandering down, but on the way back, I want my road tires back.
Tubulars. What really mucks it up is that with most tubulars (let's not talk Tufo), the wider ones, properly inflated, are a ton smoother than the narrow ones, if you can afford a good enough tubular to actually make a difference. Cheap tubulars are just like cheap clinchers: cheap. Which is why the pro's can race the TdF on 28's as fast as they raced on 23's, and as fast as they raced on 18's (yep, I've had them, too-sucked.) The pro's are on high end tires, professionally mounted, often balanced, and cost is not a problem. If they felt there was a sacrifice in speed going up to 25's and 28's, they simply would not do it. The wider rims also help in the aero department, but at our speeds, that's not really an issue. While I'd like to think my A23's with 700x25c GP4000SII's are helping me in aero, the difference between 42mph and 45mph bombing down off of Thunder Ridge is more about my nerves, I think.
I've seen a number of people write here saying they went from 25mm to 32 or even 35mm and have emphatically stated the ride is much more comfortable and they are just as fast.
To that I say baloney, BS, crapola etc.
I went 25mm to 32mm tires (both smooth) on my hybrid and:
a) There is no way I am as fast. Riding up hills felt like really sluggish like having a whale tied to the back of the bike. Descending also felt sluggish like something was holding the bike back. On the flats it was hard work to maintain 15+ mph.
b) The ride is a bit more comfortable sure, but I can't feel the road underneath the bike, it's weirdly disconnected.
c) Riding off-road is nice row course, I can now ride over rocks, on sand and even mud no problems.
To that I say baloney, BS, crapola etc.
I went 25mm to 32mm tires (both smooth) on my hybrid and:
a) There is no way I am as fast. Riding up hills felt like really sluggish like having a whale tied to the back of the bike. Descending also felt sluggish like something was holding the bike back. On the flats it was hard work to maintain 15+ mph.
b) The ride is a bit more comfortable sure, but I can't feel the road underneath the bike, it's weirdly disconnected.
c) Riding off-road is nice row course, I can now ride over rocks, on sand and even mud no problems.
#65
Erik the Inveigler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The California Alps
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I haven't seen people say that, but I believe you. I've also read a lot of the posts here, and some of them are worthless. texaspandj is spot on. What the pro's do does not relate to your hybrid riding.
I ride both road bikes and hybrids. I doubt I've ridden a hybrid with 25's, though. Mine has 1.25's, about 32's. Now, 25 to 32 is a big jump, > 25% in width, which would have about a 25% jump in height, so that's a big tire change. Add that around the circumference of the tire, and it's like 2 layers of tire.
a) the effort, given proper inflation, should not be that much different. My guess is that your rotational weight is a lot more than you expected, which explains the hill problem and perhaps even the speed problem. My guess is that it's a combination of the inflation, the weight of the tire, and the type of the tire. 1+1+1=4.
b) there is truth to going up incrementally on road tires without sacrificing speed. Continental stumbled upon this while developing motorcycle tires, and Michelin found it independently, as well. This speaks purely to the size vs. performance/rolling resistance, not the comfort.
c) comfort-wise, you would have to believe the PSI approach where tire roundness = the same rolling resistance from "perfectly round" with roughly the same height and width down to about 85% of the same height. You also have to subscribe to the loaded weight approach, where you bias the front/rear PSI to match the weight on the tire. My experience with this is that 23 to 25 is an improvement, and 25-28 more so, but looking down at a fat tire freaks me out. My experience also is that if you don't bias your tire's PSI, you generally are over on the front and under on the rear, which is where you're losing energy.
d) if you can't feel the road underneath the bike, you're PSI is probably too low. Simply increase it in increments until it's too hard, then back off a bit. Trust your body's reactions, no better equipment has been made, and use the common sense approach vs. what some magazine or tire ad or road know-it-all tells you. If it feels right, it probably is.
e) I hear you on the off-road. I've gone back to carrying a frame pump. I ride by that packed dirt lane and have no problem dropping 10psi and meandering down, but on the way back, I want my road tires back.
Tubulars. What really mucks it up is that with most tubulars (let's not talk Tufo), the wider ones, properly inflated, are a ton smoother than the narrow ones, if you can afford a good enough tubular to actually make a difference. Cheap tubulars are just like cheap clinchers: cheap. Which is why the pro's can race the TdF on 28's as fast as they raced on 23's, and as fast as they raced on 18's (yep, I've had them, too-sucked.) The pro's are on high end tires, professionally mounted, often balanced, and cost is not a problem. If they felt there was a sacrifice in speed going up to 25's and 28's, they simply would not do it. The wider rims also help in the aero department, but at our speeds, that's not really an issue. While I'd like to think my A23's with 700x25c GP4000SII's are helping me in aero, the difference between 42mph and 45mph bombing down off of Thunder Ridge is more about my nerves, I think.
I ride both road bikes and hybrids. I doubt I've ridden a hybrid with 25's, though. Mine has 1.25's, about 32's. Now, 25 to 32 is a big jump, > 25% in width, which would have about a 25% jump in height, so that's a big tire change. Add that around the circumference of the tire, and it's like 2 layers of tire.
a) the effort, given proper inflation, should not be that much different. My guess is that your rotational weight is a lot more than you expected, which explains the hill problem and perhaps even the speed problem. My guess is that it's a combination of the inflation, the weight of the tire, and the type of the tire. 1+1+1=4.
b) there is truth to going up incrementally on road tires without sacrificing speed. Continental stumbled upon this while developing motorcycle tires, and Michelin found it independently, as well. This speaks purely to the size vs. performance/rolling resistance, not the comfort.
c) comfort-wise, you would have to believe the PSI approach where tire roundness = the same rolling resistance from "perfectly round" with roughly the same height and width down to about 85% of the same height. You also have to subscribe to the loaded weight approach, where you bias the front/rear PSI to match the weight on the tire. My experience with this is that 23 to 25 is an improvement, and 25-28 more so, but looking down at a fat tire freaks me out. My experience also is that if you don't bias your tire's PSI, you generally are over on the front and under on the rear, which is where you're losing energy.
d) if you can't feel the road underneath the bike, you're PSI is probably too low. Simply increase it in increments until it's too hard, then back off a bit. Trust your body's reactions, no better equipment has been made, and use the common sense approach vs. what some magazine or tire ad or road know-it-all tells you. If it feels right, it probably is.
e) I hear you on the off-road. I've gone back to carrying a frame pump. I ride by that packed dirt lane and have no problem dropping 10psi and meandering down, but on the way back, I want my road tires back.
Tubulars. What really mucks it up is that with most tubulars (let's not talk Tufo), the wider ones, properly inflated, are a ton smoother than the narrow ones, if you can afford a good enough tubular to actually make a difference. Cheap tubulars are just like cheap clinchers: cheap. Which is why the pro's can race the TdF on 28's as fast as they raced on 23's, and as fast as they raced on 18's (yep, I've had them, too-sucked.) The pro's are on high end tires, professionally mounted, often balanced, and cost is not a problem. If they felt there was a sacrifice in speed going up to 25's and 28's, they simply would not do it. The wider rims also help in the aero department, but at our speeds, that's not really an issue. While I'd like to think my A23's with 700x25c GP4000SII's are helping me in aero, the difference between 42mph and 45mph bombing down off of Thunder Ridge is more about my nerves, I think.
#66
Jet Jockey
Now that's interesting. I wonder if the fastest on 32 issue is because the overall ride is smoother so the rider isn't beat up as much and can ride the last quarter/third faster.
I guess the only empirical way to evaluate this is to do the same ride on 25 and 32s and compare tires over different segments.
I guess the only empirical way to evaluate this is to do the same ride on 25 and 32s and compare tires over different segments.
Maybe I was just having a strong day. If nothing else, it says to me that there is really very little appreciable difference in speed. But the 32s were definitely treating me better over some of the nasty chip seal than my riding partners' 23-25 tires.
#67
Erik the Inveigler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The California Alps
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
In about 10 or 15 years time everybody will be riding on skinny tires again. Trust me; trust me (as I channel my inner Trump). It's the same old, tired Capitalist hat trick: where there is not an actual need, then create the perception of such a need and the money will follow and the "empirical" evidence will provide the toilet paper to provide the rationalization.
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
In about 10 or 15 years time everybody will be riding on skinny tires again. Trust me; trust me (as I channel my inner Trump). It's the same old, tired Capitalist hat trick: where there is not an actual need, then create the perception of such a need and the money will follow and the "empirical" evidence will provide the toilet paper to provide the rationalization.
He really had no financial interest in pushing wider tires when this all began. Much later, he took advantage of his position to get wider tires manufactured that he sells, so now he does have some financial interest in this trend. However, I think you're not going to see a return to 140 PSI 20mm tires, not in ten years and not ever. Why would anyone want to decrease their comfort, decrease their traction on fast descents and increase their rolling resistance? In ten years narrow high pressure tires will be seen as similar to using solid tires: just plain silly.
Maybe we need some way to place a wager on the duration of the wider/lower pressure trend.
#69
Erik the Inveigler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The California Alps
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1310 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
This one is a bit different. Go read the old posts on Jan Heine's blog from several years ago and then order some of the back issues of his Bicycling Quarterly magazine. This whole wide, supple tire thing started with him and it was mostly an accident. He was actually interested in what speed penalty he would pay by going wider, since he likes to incorporate a lot of unpaved stuff on his rides. He was more than a little surprised to find that wider supple tires at lower pressures had significantly lower rolling resistance. Some of his experiments were hilariously extreme (riding on rumble strips), but he did many that were right in a normal rider's experience.
He really had no financial interest in pushing wider tires when this all began. Much later, he took advantage of his position to get wider tires manufactured that he sells, so now he does have some financial interest in this trend. However, I think you're not going to see a return to 140 PSI 20mm tires, not in ten years and not ever. Why would anyone want to decrease their comfort, decrease their traction on fast descents and increase their rolling resistance? In ten years narrow high pressure tires will be seen as similar to using solid tires: just plain silly.
Maybe we need some way to place a wager on the duration of the wider/lower pressure trend.
He really had no financial interest in pushing wider tires when this all began. Much later, he took advantage of his position to get wider tires manufactured that he sells, so now he does have some financial interest in this trend. However, I think you're not going to see a return to 140 PSI 20mm tires, not in ten years and not ever. Why would anyone want to decrease their comfort, decrease their traction on fast descents and increase their rolling resistance? In ten years narrow high pressure tires will be seen as similar to using solid tires: just plain silly.
Maybe we need some way to place a wager on the duration of the wider/lower pressure trend.
I admit that I overstate my case. I'm being playful, mostly. Also, my viewpoint is pretty tailored to my specific needs, which include tons of climbing and traversing really steep, steep gradients quite routinely; and i just prefer a thinner tire with higher air pressures. I don't weigh very much and I don't really feel much fatigue using this combination. Of course, I do ride fat tires on my MTB; but the dynamics are totally different than on a road bike.
I do have a road bike that I could throw some wider tires on in order to experiment some more. I might do this and see what I think. For me, though, it would mean traveling so that I could ride on flatter roads.
#71
Lawman
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 205
Bikes: Spec. Tarmac Expert SL4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wider rims and tires
Today i replaced my 15/21 aluminum rim wheels and 23 mm tires with 21/25 aluminum rim wheels and 25 mm tires. The net width increase is about 5 mm. The weight per wheel/tire increased 2 oz. I ran the same 95/105 pressures I always use. The ride is much smoother. An informal coasting test with my ride partner suggests the same rolling efficiency. The new wheels are the ZIPP 30 course.
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Today i replaced my 15/21 aluminum rim wheels and 23 mm tires with 21/25 aluminum rim wheels and 25 mm tires. The net width increase is about 5 mm. The weight per wheel/tire increased 2 oz. I ran the same 95/105 pressures I always use. The ride is much smoother. An informal coasting test with my ride partner suggests the same rolling efficiency. The new wheels are the ZIPP 30 course.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1109 Post(s)
Liked 1,200 Times
in
760 Posts
I've seen a number of people write here saying they went from 25mm to 32 or even 35mm and have emphatically stated the ride is much more comfortable and they are just as fast.
To that I say baloney, BS, crapola etc.
I went 25mm to 32mm tires (both smooth) on my hybrid and:
a) There is no way I am as fast. Riding up hills felt like really sluggish like having a whale tied to the back of the bike. Descending also felt sluggish like something was holding the bike back. On the flats it was hard work to maintain 15+ mph.
b) The ride is a bit more comfortable sure, but I can't feel the road underneath the bike, it's weirdly disconnected.
c) Riding off-road is nice row course, I can now ride over rocks, on sand and even mud no problems.
To that I say baloney, BS, crapola etc.
I went 25mm to 32mm tires (both smooth) on my hybrid and:
a) There is no way I am as fast. Riding up hills felt like really sluggish like having a whale tied to the back of the bike. Descending also felt sluggish like something was holding the bike back. On the flats it was hard work to maintain 15+ mph.
b) The ride is a bit more comfortable sure, but I can't feel the road underneath the bike, it's weirdly disconnected.
c) Riding off-road is nice row course, I can now ride over rocks, on sand and even mud no problems.
You're tire is not only wider, but a LOT heavier. Much heavier tire, much heavier tube. Whereas, going from a 23 to a 25 or a 25 to a 28 adds only a couple of ounces in the tire and you can probably use the same tube.
I ride 32's on my gravel bike and it's perfect for rough roads and paths, but there's no way it's as fast up hill. Those tires and tubes are HEAVY.
#74
Senior Member
but there's no way it's as fast up hill.
If I was riding an 8% chipseal hill, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a good 32mm tire wound up outperforming a 25mm tire of similar manufacture.
Last edited by HTupolev; 09-12-16 at 01:16 AM.
#75
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 401 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There were a few people claiming they were as fast on 32s than 25s which inspired me to try them, but this site's search facility says "32" or "25" are too common terms.