Notices
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area Looking to enter into the realm of track racing? Want to share your experiences and tactics for riding on a velodrome? The Track Cycling forums is for you! Come in and discuss training/racing, equipment, and current track cycling events.

Wheel & Tyre Widths

Old 06-23-20, 11:33 PM
  #1  
Ace32
Newbie
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Wheel & Tyre Widths

So, our skinny hill-climbing roadie cousins are all riding fat tres now, claiming rolling resistance gains and less tyre deflection overrides the aero loss of a slightly wider profile. (I'm cutting a long story short here, but you guys have the internet... you know.)

What are you guys seeing on the track? should we all be rolling 25 mm tyres and 25mm wide rims nowadays? Is 19 still the answer for us? Maybe there's the crossover on a concrete track, but what about a timber 'drome where it really matters? Any ideas what the big boys are doing (or were planning on doing before covid took our toys away)?

Time to buy some wheels. If I get to play with this stuff, might as well buy faster.

About Me - 2nd year sprinter, 100kg (220 lbs), getting faster...
Ace32 is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 12:23 AM
  #2  
nosaad
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 12

Bikes: 2019 ICAN AC135, 90's Orbea Lobular

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm certainly not part of the "big boys" club you want intel on, but for some type of data point see below. I'd likely run 10 to 15psi more on a smooth indoor surface.

Wheelset: 25mm external width
Tires: 23c tubular (they measure 24mm)
PSI: 110
Me: 180lbs (82kg)
Track Surface: outdoor concrete of lackluster smoothness (Marymoor/JBMV)
nosaad is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 12:26 AM
  #3  
Baby Puke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kanazawa
Posts: 1,637

Bikes: Marin Stelvio, Pogliaghi SL, Panasonic NJS, Dolan DF4, Intense Pro24 BMX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 33 Posts
I don't think the extra width gains you much on the track, unless your track is extremely bumpy (may be the case in the US). I think the bigger concern for trackies is the aero profile of tire width + rim width/shape. E.g., if you have an older Io, you probably still want to run a 19 on it.

EDIT: By the way, Marymoor is one of the smoother tracks in the US in my experience. Not as good as Carson, on par with Trexlertown and Colorado Springs, certainly better than Hellyer and Washington Park Bowl, and probably better than most others.
Baby Puke is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 01:04 AM
  #4  
ruudlaff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Yeah the improvements that come from wider tyres on the road right now are due to the tyre almost providing a small suspension by it deforming to the changes in the road. It keeps the wheels from moving too much vertically, providing more confidence to push on and a slight measurable gain in traction for putting the power down. If your track is decent these are unnecessary. They also don't need stiffness in 45 degree banking

Someone will know better than me, but the assumption now is that the tyre for track is basically whatever one provides the best aero benefit with your wheel. So because rim widths have increased this is making the 19mm rarer? (Edit: Yeah what BP said)
ruudlaff is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 07:50 AM
  #5  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
As is often the case... it depends.

First, some wheels are very tire sensitive (old iO, H3, pre firecrest 808's...etc are good examples) and that should be the first thing driving pairing. (applies for road or track)
Second is picking a tire with a latex tube (not continentals unless you get the pros stuff)
Third is picking the tire for the specific track. A piste Dugast or Pista speed Vittoria are fast tires, but you don't want to run them on a lumpy outdoor track (you might run them for nationals+ timed events on such a track, but definitely not a consistent tire)
You also want a tire you can get "optimal" pressure on. That's pretty high vs. a road tubular, even on a rough track. (Probably nicest road vs. roughest track in the USA my tubular pressure would be 30'ish+ lbs higher)

One of the issues with wider tires for track is availability. 23 is pretty much the widest tire that's going to be "track specific" and once you go into road tires, even the fastest ones are going to be more robust (more protection, a little slower) than the top end track tires. And of course although it's not always true, in general "low yaw" scenario's.... narrow is aero.
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 09:49 AM
  #6  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,848
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1325 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 37 Posts
A few things to consider:

What's great for the road may not apply on a 44 degree banked track. On the road, one rides on the center of the tires most of the time. On the track, one rides on the side of the tires a significant percentage of time. Just look at your tires and you'll see this, especially if you have a one-sided rear wheel or a directional front wheel. After a while, one side will have worn more than the other.

Going to a bike shop these days, you literally have to go digging deep in the bin for tires more narrow than 25c...and then you'll get weird looks as you check out, "Do you mean to buy these?"

As a heavy rider, I've found that wider tires at lower pressures don't feel as "planted" as 19-23c tires at higher pressures when on steep inclines.

Further, tires with lots of meat on them will move laterally when at high speeds in turns (think of the big high speed dive at the start of a F200 on a 250M track). There is a lot of lateral force on the tires right then. This is evident by the horizontal striations on the tires. Not sure if you'll get those on indoor wooden tracks, but I've seen them on all of my tires when riding on outdoor tracks.

So, for those reasons, I never liked riding wider than 23c tires with not a lot of rubber on them.
carleton is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 11:08 AM
  #7  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
One of the fastest tested front wheels for a track set-up is the old Gippieme 16 spoke aluminum deep dish with a 19mm tire. That's on a wooden track with a high pressure. I can't remember who did the actual test, but it was a close second to a Zipp 808 set-up. That Gippieme is probably one of the narrowest wheels you can find now, with everything having gone wider, toroidal, bulged, etc., so that really says something about being able to cut down your frontal area on tracks that have a smooth surface that already sorts the rolling resistance issue for you.
taras0000 is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 11:35 AM
  #8  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
taras0000 this wheel?


Old Shamal's were also notably quick (forgot to mention them above)
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 11:38 AM
  #9  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,848
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1325 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 37 Posts
Originally Posted by taras0000 View Post
One of the fastest tested front wheels for a track set-up is the old Gippieme 16 spoke aluminum deep dish with a 19mm tire. That's on a wooden track with a high pressure. I can't remember who did the actual test, but it was a close second to a Zipp 808 set-up. That Gippieme is probably one of the narrowest wheels you can find now, with everything having gone wider, toroidal, bulged, etc., so that really says something about being able to cut down your frontal area on tracks that have a smooth surface that already sorts the rolling resistance issue for you.
Yeah, that Gippieme wheel is nice. Similar to the old Campy Shamal and Atlanta 96 wheels.

The wide trend has definitely come to the track and I'm not convinced that it's faster. I think it's more marketing and "keeping up with the Jones'" because they have to. Customers are convinced that it's faster and won't buy non-wide wheels or tires.
carleton is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 11:41 AM
  #10  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,848
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1325 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 37 Posts
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
taras0000 this wheel?


Old Shamal's were also notably quick (forgot to mention them above)
I think it's this one:



This is the one to which I refer.
carleton is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 11:55 AM
  #11  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
carleton ahh gotcha thanks!
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 12:15 PM
  #12  
carleton
Elitist
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,848
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1325 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 37 Posts
Here is the Shamal:



Darren Hill vs Jen Fiedler:



I can't find a pic of the Campy Pista wheels from the era. Those were the ones that the top riders in the world used at the time , either as a match set or bladed 16 spoke front and disc rear. It's still a very fast wheel. Aerodynamics haven't changed.
carleton is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 02:26 PM
  #13  
chas58
Senior Member
 
chas58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,258

Bikes: too many of all kinds

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked 198 Times in 159 Posts
I've been curious on this as well. The only difference I've noticed is wider wheels making a better aerodynamic match to the tire (well, wider than 17c or 15c wheels).

The rolling resistance benefit of wider tires is that a skinny tire has a long narrow contact patch, which increases sidewall deflection. I'm usually on a 166mm track, so my weight is probably effectively doubled at speed. I do notice a noticeable sidewall deflection on some tires on the track (typically not for the skinny guys). I can't see my rear tire on the track (like I can on the road), but I'm thinking rolling resistance has a lot to do with minimizing tire drop. If you are over 200lbs, you are going to need a lot of air in that tire in a 2g turn.

Last edited by chas58; 06-25-20 at 08:39 AM.
chas58 is offline  
Old 06-24-20, 09:45 PM
  #14  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by carleton View Post
Yeah, that Gippieme wheel is nice. Similar to the old Campy Shamal and Atlanta 96 wheels.
The Shamal was just a rebranded Gippieme 416. Gippieme was Campagnolo's aluminum rim supplier for ages.

Originally Posted by carleton View Post
The wide trend has definitely come to the track and I'm not convinced that it's faster. I think it's more marketing and "keeping up with the Jones'" because they have to. Customers are convinced that it's faster and won't buy non-wide wheels or tires.
I totally agree with this. For outdoor tracks, there may be some data to support going wider, especially if you need a wider tire because of the track surface. On an outdoor track, depending on how sheltered it is, you may be dealing with crosswinds, and therefore greater yaw angles where wider combos have some benefit in keeping a more laminar flow around the rim.

Originally Posted by carleton View Post
Here is the Shamal:



Darren Hill vs Jen Fiedler:

I can't find a pic of the Campy Pista wheels from the era. Those were the ones that the top riders in the world used at the time , either as a match set or bladed 16 spoke front and disc rear. It's still a very fast wheel. Aerodynamics haven't changed.
Again, this wheel was supplied by Gippieme. I knew a guy who had a set and they were almost identical to the old Shamal wheel save for newer hubs and spokes. In case anyone was interested, they also supplied wheels for Miche.

Originally Posted by chas58 View Post
I've been curious on this as well. The only difference I've noticed is wider wheels making a better aerodynamic match to the tire (well, wider than 17c or 15c).

The rolling resistance benefit of wider tires is that a skinny tire has a long narrow contact patch, which increases sidewall deflection. I'm usually on a 166mm track, so my weight is probably effectively doubled at speed. I do notice a noticeable sidewall deflection on some tires on the track (typically not for the skinny guys). I can't see my rear tire on the track (like I can on the road), but I'm thinking rolling resistance has a lot to do with minimizing tire drop. If you are over 200lbs, you are going to need a lot of air in that tire in a 2g turn.
I've never seen a tire less than 18mm in the flesh, or even heard of them outside of older World Cup equipment available to top riders on a made to order basis.

The reason for running really high pressures on skinny tires is to minimize ANY tire deformation. To minimize rolling resistance at the tire, you need to eliminate as much tire deformation as possible (not just sidewall, but contact patch as well), and minimize your contact patch. This only works to a certain point, because there still needs to be a certain amount of suppleness and grip. This is why many competition tubulars are rated to >200psi and had super thin silk casings with a high thread count and soft rubber compounds. On a smooth surface, this is the ideal set-up no matter the weight of the rider, because it also minimizes tire deflection in the banking. The only reason to go to a wider tire is if the surface requires it. This could be due to surface roughness, to maintain control, or a lack of traction, requiring more rubber in contact with the surface. Going lower in pressure on a larger tire does allow for less extreme tire deformation, but now you've increased your contact patch, which increases rolling resistance.

About 18-20 years ago is when the idea of going wider really started to set in. Better testing brought about some new info for top riders at the time. We learned that going a little bigger actually dropped rolling resistance on the road, so we started to see more 23mm tires. Then Vittoria started to make "open tubulars" from the carcasses of their best glue up tires, and those were even faster than the larger tubs. Top TDF road pros were using clinchers for TTs because they exhibited a lower rolling resistance to the tubulars available at the time (due to the way a clincher sets up on a rim vs a tubular, allowing less sidewall deformation) which went against the mantra of tubulars being better rolling than clinchers. They still used tubs for road races because the tires rode more comfortably over the long haul than clinchers, and they were lighter, and still reigned supreme in that usage until tubeless came along.

You can set up your own rolling resistance "experiment" at home if you have a relatively accurate power meter and you can hold a constant speed on rollers. I did this about 18 years ago when things were just starting to get "shaken up" with tires on the road scene. I trained on a very poor track most of the time, and also on the road. I also ended up competing on many different types of tracks and surfaces, which ended up "necessitating" different wheel set ups. I had training clinchers that were 25mm wide (max 135psi), a front tri-spoke that had a 19mm tub (220 psi), a rear disc with a 20mm tub (220 psi), Zipp 404 tubs with 22mm F+R (220 psi), and a racing clincher set that was on 40mm rims and had 22mm Conti Supersonics (145psi), as well as a gaggle of other wheels that saw occasional use, but the aforementioned wheels are what I had tested. I had my bike set up with an SRM at the time, and ended up riding each set of wheels (with the max pressure) on my rollers at 40km/h to see what the wattage output was like. The reason I used rollers is because they accentuate rolling resistance more than a flat surface does (three short contact patches with way more deformation, vs two long contact patches with less extreme deformation). The big take away from that test was higher psi was better than lower, and smaller tire was better than wider, unless the psi was similar, then wider was better (I did run my 22mm tubs down at 150psi to compare to the Supersonics, then at 135 psi to compare to my training clinchers). You need quite a big jump in PSI to make up for a smaller contact patch. I don't remember the exact wattage savings, but they were noticeable, and if I can recall correctly, I needed about 165/170 psi in the 22mm tubs to be similar to the 25mm clinchers. Ideally, to do the test properly I would have had to drive the rear wheel with an electric motor for constant output while I sat on the bike, but that wasn't going to be an option for me at the time.

If you're a nerd like me about these things, I believe Alex Simmons of Australia has done testing like this as well, except on an actual wooden track with better equipment than I had. This is a quote of his lifted from the CyclingNews Forum. It doesn't validate my testing, but it gives you some more info to follow down the rabbit hole if you choose to keep going.

"Andy Coggan has a really neat chart showing real world (i.e. road) Crr vs Al's roller test numbers for a range of tyres with a range of Crr values. It's a really nice linear correlation:

Training and Racing With a Power Meter Journal: Crr - roller vs. field test results, part 2

and part I of that item:
Training and Racing With a Power Meter Journal: Crr - roller vs. field test results

You will see that testing on the rollers to assess relative Crr translates well to relative Crr on the road."
taras0000 is offline  
Likes For taras0000:
Old 06-24-20, 09:52 PM
  #15  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Someone had also run a Crr test for various tubular set ups that included different glues. For the fastest wheel, it was found to be a 19mm tubular glued up with shellac. Shellac was a fair bit better than Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing's Fast Tack, and even more so than Mastic type glues. In my opinion, this most likely had to do with the fact that Mastic glues allow the tire to "squirm" a bit on the rim, deforming not just on the sidewall, but across the whole carcass's cross section at the contact patch. 3M Fast Tack is more rigid (because you need less of it, so not as thick), and Shellac won't move at all where it's adhered.
taras0000 is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 05:18 AM
  #16  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by taras0000 View Post
Someone had also run a Crr test for various tubular set ups that included different glues. For the fastest wheel, it was found to be a 19mm tubular glued up with shellac. Shellac was a fair bit better than Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing's Fast Tack, and even more so than Mastic type glues. In my opinion, this most likely had to do with the fact that Mastic glues allow the tire to "squirm" a bit on the rim, deforming not just on the sidewall, but across the whole carcass's cross section at the contact patch. 3M Fast Tack is more rigid (because you need less of it, so not as thick), and Shellac won't move at all where it's adhered.
While that is true, keep in mind the age of those tests and the glue available at the time.

Many pro/world record/etc tires have been epoxied in the past as well for the reasons you mention, although again, some of that data has some age at this point.
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 08:15 AM
  #17  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
While that is true, keep in mind the age of those tests and the glue available at the time.

Many pro/world record/etc tires have been epoxied in the past as well for the reasons you mention, although again, some of that data has some age at this point.
Is there new data that shows better? The glue up test was done not that long ago, I believe only 4-5 years ago. Can't remember the name of the site, but they test tires and chain set ups quite frequently.
taras0000 is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 08:45 AM
  #18  
chas58
Senior Member
 
chas58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,258

Bikes: too many of all kinds

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked 198 Times in 159 Posts
Conti was doing some testing with one of the pro (road) teams this year. In blind testing, the pro riders were going for the heavier tubeless clinchers over Conti's tubulars, because they were just faster (less resistance).

Still, I don't see going tubeless on the track. I don't trust those tires to hold the pressure we need.

Last edited by chas58; 06-25-20 at 08:59 AM.
chas58 is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 08:54 AM
  #19  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
taras0000

On glues, Shellac or comparing the two?

The only (public) testing I've ever seen shared on shellac was a long time ago on Biketechreview (roughly 15-20 years ago, it might have also been on the google wattage group at some point) and it was better than tubular glue, but again... it was better than old continental/etc glue of the period for that person.
I've never seen anyone share data on epoxy, mainly because it pretty much ruins the wheel.

Tubular (glued) tests on rollers are tough to standardize as well... as two tires glued by the same person the same "style" can have a fair amount of difference. That's why a lot of tubulars are tested on rollers without glue, just pressure holding them on so you can remove that variable from the crr results.
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-25-20, 10:31 AM
  #20  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
Originally Posted by chas58 View Post
Conti was doing some testing with one of the pro (road) teams this year. In blind testing, the pro riders were going for the heavier tubeless clinchers over Conti's tubulars, because they were just faster (less resistance).
With today's technology and information, I would expectt that a tubeless tires is faster. Eliminating the tube removes a big source of friction within the tire. That friction loss would surely translate to Crr efficiency.
Originally Posted by chas58 View Post
I don't see going tubeless on the track. I don't trust those tires to hold the pressure we need.
The rims would have to be too beefy to gain back the pressures required to go hard and narrow for wooden tracks. Although that may change as disc brakes become more common on the Road scene. Mountain bike Rim designs for disc brakes changed a bit when a sidewall was no longer needed, mostly allowing them to be lighter, as the pressures that the hook portion of the rim saw were still relatively low. Brakeless AND tubeless might allow for material placement/optimization which could allow higher pressures back into the hook bead side.

Once disc brakes really hit the pro road scene, I would bet that there are going to be even newer rim tire equations popping up.
taras0000 is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 08:06 AM
  #21  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,874
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1523 Post(s)
Liked 250 Times in 167 Posts
I would not expect any narrow tubeless rims any time soon. It's been discussed in the past, but track is not a target market for most manufacturers. If they can pass something on from road to track, sure, they'll do that, but they will not be developing any tubeless rims specifically for the demands of track racing. (And this completely ignores the need for appropriately narrow tubeless tires.)
topflightpro is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 09:47 AM
  #22  
Morelock
Senior Member
 
Morelock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 547
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 17 Posts
Man I can imagine someone burping a tire mid sprint.
Morelock is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 10:15 AM
  #23  
topflightpro
Senior Member
 
topflightpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,874
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1523 Post(s)
Liked 250 Times in 167 Posts
Originally Posted by Morelock View Post
Man I can imagine someone burping a tire mid sprint.
Would be like rolling a tubular.
topflightpro is offline  
Old 06-26-20, 10:37 AM
  #24  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 17 Posts
I think what will end up happening is we might see manufacturers open up more tubeless options, both clincher and tubular. TUFO has been making true tubeless tires for bicycles longer than anyone else. Their casings are vulcanized right through to the inner wall, making them airtight. I know they're not as sexy as the other top tier brands, but they are also not as big of a company. With access to more capital for R+D, and maybe a top team that's heavily involved in research (UKSI or Aus), then I think you can expect to see some very fast tires from them. I had access to some of their off-market stuff, and it was pretty neat. They had shipped me a set of 109g tubulars to try, test, and send back. It was crazy to feel a tire that light, and there was rumor that they did go lighter for single weekend stuff.
taras0000 is offline  
Old 06-27-20, 02:26 PM
  #25  
colnago62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,977
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 522 Post(s)
Liked 181 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by Baby Puke View Post
I don't think the extra width gains you much on the track, unless your track is extremely bumpy (may be the case in the US). I think the bigger concern for trackies is the aero profile of tire width + rim width/shape. E.g., if you have an older Io, you probably still want to run a 19 on it.

EDIT: By the way, Marymoor is one of the smoother tracks in the US in my experience. Not as good as Carson, on par with Trexlertown and Colorado Springs, certainly better than Hellyer and Washington Park Bowl, and probably better than most others.
originally, Marymoor had a grooved surface. The idea of the engineers was that would allow it to be used when wet. They weren’t track riders. The riding community went and got grinders and smoothed out the surface. The county also has done a good job of maintaining the track as has the velodrome association.
colnago62 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.