Going back to 23/25 from 28/30...?
#151
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,926
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4817 Post(s)
Liked 3,945 Times
in
2,566 Posts
I was thinking about this and it's true. On my carbon I got 28mm and it's comfy. But saw video discussing reasons why we do a lot of things. For example wheels are stiffer because they have to resist the force of disc rotors, so they have more spokes etc. Forks are stiffer and reinforced because of the disc brakes are attached to the lower end of the fork where it should be the most compliant. Aero tubes require the frames to be even more stiff and rigid. All these things are reason why people are riding 30-32mm tires to compensate for all these problems created by aero frame and disc brakes.
But ride a vintage steel with steel fork on 23mm tires? Yeah, the 23mm on steel is more compliant and comfy. It is true. It's why my current project is probably going to be renovating my parents old steel. And I'm certain that with 23/25mm, that steel will be more comfortable than my carbon with 28mm.
But ride a vintage steel with steel fork on 23mm tires? Yeah, the 23mm on steel is more compliant and comfy. It is true. It's why my current project is probably going to be renovating my parents old steel. And I'm certain that with 23/25mm, that steel will be more comfortable than my carbon with 28mm.
It never crossed my mind that I wanted a tire wider than a (probably Vittoria made) training tubular from Palo Alto Cycles. (Good thing; those tires pretty close to maxed out my Fuji Pro.)
Fast forward to last September. I rode the final week long Cycle Oregon on a Pro Miyata which is basically my old Fuji only 6-7 years more advanced design and tubing but virtually the same tire clearances. Like the Fuji, tighter in back. Max stock tires that fit with clearances I'd want to do serious riding on are 25c front, 24c rear. (24s are hen's teeth so I went 23c in back.) And except for the one mile of gravel we saw, the tires I rode were wonderful. (Vittoria Corsa G+ tubulars.)
Also - wheels have changed big time from the shallow hoops we glued out tubulars onto to the stiff, deep carbon fiber hoops ridden now, Even the aluminum Mavic Open Pros, the ubiquitous rims of the post tubular, pre CF era, are very stiff vertically compared to the early tubular GP4s. (Later GP4s got deeper and stiffer.) Lace those early GP4s with light spokes and you get a wonderfully comfortable wheel on rough roads. (But keep your mouth shut because you'll get posters here telling you that feeling the difference is impossible. Just watch! )
#152
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,699
Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked 463 Times
in
319 Posts
I have found tires with actual width of 27-30mm to be my pavement sweet spot. I do still have a couple sets of 26 mm gravel kings that I use occasionally. I like them much better on Hed Belgium rims, 18+mm interior, than on 15 mm internal DA C24’s. They measure out to a hair under 28mm on the Hed, a hair under 26mm on the C24.
I did go to 25mm Vittoria Open Pave for a short while last year, cannot remember bike or wheels, decided I prefer a bit wider tire. The 27mm Open Pave on a wider rim is a fine ride.
I did go to 25mm Vittoria Open Pave for a short while last year, cannot remember bike or wheels, decided I prefer a bit wider tire. The 27mm Open Pave on a wider rim is a fine ride.
#153
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,253
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2600 Post(s)
Liked 5,686 Times
in
2,937 Posts
Here's a little factoid that might ruffle some feathers among Fat Tire Club:
A skinny tire is more compliant than a fat tire at the same pressure. So if you're still one of the holdouts that hasn't joined Fat Tire Club, try reducing the pressure. The only down side I can think of is an increased risk of a pinch flat.
My current choice is GP5000 25 (measured width 27.5 mm), at 78/82 psi. Smooth and comfy, and I certainly could go lower.
A skinny tire is more compliant than a fat tire at the same pressure. So if you're still one of the holdouts that hasn't joined Fat Tire Club, try reducing the pressure. The only down side I can think of is an increased risk of a pinch flat.
My current choice is GP5000 25 (measured width 27.5 mm), at 78/82 psi. Smooth and comfy, and I certainly could go lower.
Yesterday was riding the clincher GP5Ks on a frequent route with a very narrow shoulder and lots of cars on my left: Read: no place to go. Unexpectedly, the shoulder was covered in broken glass for about 15 - 20 feet and I rode right through it, while wiping each tire as quickly as possible. I thought I had to be doomed to flat within the next few seconds and if not, the next few miles. To my surprise, zero issues. This happens every year or so, when I am trapped and can’t avoid glass with zero resulting flats. And to think I used to abuse myself (so to speak) riding Gatorskins back in the 90s.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Likes For rsbob:
#154
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 5,762
Bikes: 2022 Salsa Beargrease Carbon Deore 11, 2020 Salsa Warbird GRX 600, 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX disc 9.0 Di2, 2020 Catrike Eola, 2016 Masi cxgr, 2011, Felt F3 Ltd, 2010 Trek 2.1, 2009 KHS Flite 220
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4404 Post(s)
Liked 3,027 Times
in
1,875 Posts
I follow the science on Crr. I use a slightly narrower tire in front and a slightly wider one in back. That's for two reasons: first, cuz I follow the science on *both* Crr *and* CdA; and second, cuz I still had a narrow tire that hasn't worn out yet and I'm kinda cheap. I run latex in both front and back, though.
FWIW, I was riding 23 in front, 25 in back for a while - also partly because I had new 23s to use up. I don't have any more of those, so I went to 25/25. Recently I switched to 28/28 because I was going riding in the Texas Hill country, where a lot of the back roads have quite a buzz to them. That worked pretty well. Now that I'm back in Minnesota, I'm thinking of stepping back to 25/28.
#155
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Española, NM
Posts: 1,067
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr., Libertas mixte
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 414 Post(s)
Liked 940 Times
in
451 Posts
I have gone back, on one bike, so far.
My old six-speed training wheels went from 19mm Specialized Turbo R clinchers to 28mm Specialized Turbo Cotton, which are staying.
My new seven-speed training wheels have 28mm Veloflex Corsa clinchers, also staying. Trying TPU tubes in them.
My six-speed tubular wheels still have a 30mm Vittoria on the front, but my seven-speed tubular wheels have gone to a 23mm in front instead of the 30mm, for the time being at least. Both have 28mm on the rears.
After a sudden front flat, I can tell you that a 30mm tubular is considerably squirmier when flat than a narrower one. I run both sew-ups at about 90-95 psi. Even when I was racing in the '70s, I never saw the sense in 120 psi, let alone 140, which was for board-track racers and hour-record attempts, imo. I usually ran 95-100 psi, maybe 105 for a short, smooth course. Sometimes I'll go up to 100 now, so I have a chance to ride two days with one top-off.
My brother's 48mm Barlow Pass tires are slower on his Clem Smith Jr. than the 35mm Continental TerraSpeeds I had on it. Pretty nice, though.
My old six-speed training wheels went from 19mm Specialized Turbo R clinchers to 28mm Specialized Turbo Cotton, which are staying.
My new seven-speed training wheels have 28mm Veloflex Corsa clinchers, also staying. Trying TPU tubes in them.
My six-speed tubular wheels still have a 30mm Vittoria on the front, but my seven-speed tubular wheels have gone to a 23mm in front instead of the 30mm, for the time being at least. Both have 28mm on the rears.
After a sudden front flat, I can tell you that a 30mm tubular is considerably squirmier when flat than a narrower one. I run both sew-ups at about 90-95 psi. Even when I was racing in the '70s, I never saw the sense in 120 psi, let alone 140, which was for board-track racers and hour-record attempts, imo. I usually ran 95-100 psi, maybe 105 for a short, smooth course. Sometimes I'll go up to 100 now, so I have a chance to ride two days with one top-off.
My brother's 48mm Barlow Pass tires are slower on his Clem Smith Jr. than the 35mm Continental TerraSpeeds I had on it. Pretty nice, though.
Last edited by Fredo76; 03-16-24 at 06:03 PM.
#156
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: location location
Posts: 3,035
Bikes: MBK Super Mirage 1991, CAAD10, Yuba Mundo Lux, and a Cannondale Criterium Single Speed
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked 297 Times
in
207 Posts
I was a proponent of "thinnest/hardest" for a very long time. I do not find I am any slower on 28s at 90 or so than 23s at 125 or so .....
The "science" is actually Science ... as in, people did a lot of tests and found that on anything but a board track (or a machined metal drum on a tire-tester) the softer tires offered less rolling resistance because they didn't chatter and bounce.
I weigh a huge amount, so I still run my tires firm--I hate even a little squirming on corners ..... and I still have 23s on two bikes .... but I fully understand that I would probably be marginally faster on 28s there .... but at my age and pace any sort of marginal gain is too marginal. I can afford to lose a few seconds an hour .... I am no racer. That said, when I run out of my stock of 23s I might move upwards. if I lose no speed and gain comfort , and possibly even gain a minuscule amount of speed .... why not?
But as @Iride01 says ....
The "science" is actually Science ... as in, people did a lot of tests and found that on anything but a board track (or a machined metal drum on a tire-tester) the softer tires offered less rolling resistance because they didn't chatter and bounce.
I weigh a huge amount, so I still run my tires firm--I hate even a little squirming on corners ..... and I still have 23s on two bikes .... but I fully understand that I would probably be marginally faster on 28s there .... but at my age and pace any sort of marginal gain is too marginal. I can afford to lose a few seconds an hour .... I am no racer. That said, when I run out of my stock of 23s I might move upwards. if I lose no speed and gain comfort , and possibly even gain a minuscule amount of speed .... why not?
But as @Iride01 says ....
I recently put on my last pair of 23s out of the drawer. I’m unlikely to buy 23s again, and will probably go 28s from here on (all my road bikes are rim brake… i will not be buying anything with more clearance in the foreseeable future).
Likes For Leinster:
#157
Steel is real
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Not far from Paris
Posts: 1,972
Bikes: 1992Giant Tourer,1992MeridaAlbon,1996Scapin,1998KonaKilaueua,1993Peugeot Prestige,1991RaleighTeamZ(to be upgraded),1998 Jamis Dragon,1992CTWallis(to be built),1998VettaTeam(to be built),1995Coppi(to be built),1993Grandis(to be built)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Liked 982 Times
in
652 Posts
I always rode my road bikes with 23mm (michelin performer, michelin hi lite super comp, conti grand prix 4000 now decided to stick with conti grand prix 4 seasons) and now 25mm , they are choices for me because I don't own disc brake frames, the maximum tire clearance with the frames I have and rim width with the rims I own won't allow me to bigger tire sizes than that. I also have a touring hybrid gravel bike which is on 700*38 Schwalbe tires for roads that are not in that good condition.
#158
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,404
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 2,979 Times
in
1,690 Posts
Also - wheels have changed big time from the shallow hoops we glued out tubulars onto to the stiff, deep carbon fiber hoops ridden now, Even the aluminum Mavic Open Pros, the ubiquitous rims of the post tubular, pre CF era, are very stiff vertically compared to the early tubular GP4s. (Later GP4s got deeper and stiffer.) Lace those early GP4s with light spokes and you get a wonderfully comfortable wheel on rough roads. (But keep your mouth shut because you'll get posters here telling you that feeling the difference is impossible. Just watch! )
It's easy for old guys like you and me to believe those myths that we first encountered in the 1960's and 1970's, such as that there were significant differences in vertical stiffness between different models of tubular rims (and, bringing the myth up to date, between a yellow-label or Ergal Fiamme tubular rim and a modern carbon rim), but it's not true. The vertical stiffness of a rim is determined by spoke tension. That's why you can find data on lateral rim stiffness but almost none on vertical rim stiffness.
Knowing how set in our ways we old guys can be, I won't be surprised if you cheerfully ignore the test results. Just watch!
Last edited by Trakhak; 03-16-24 at 05:03 AM.
Likes For Trakhak:
#159
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,522
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4452 Post(s)
Liked 4,913 Times
in
3,042 Posts
My current road endurance bike is on 30 mm Conti GP5000S TR tyres and 22 mm internal width rims. I weigh 80kg and run them at 65 psi. I find this a great combination for our mixed quality roads and I’m faster than ever on local loops I’ve ridden for years. I can’t really think of any downsides at this point. They are fractionally heavier of course (40g per tyre over the 25 mm version), but my bike is still relatively light at 7.8 kg and 80g isn’t going to make any real world difference.
I found this a useful comparison:-
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...-tr-comparison
In summary the wider versions of this tyre are probably a better choice for most riders. Given the above test data, there isn’t really a compelling argument for choosing the 25 mm version on a modern bike.
I found this a useful comparison:-
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...-tr-comparison
In summary the wider versions of this tyre are probably a better choice for most riders. Given the above test data, there isn’t really a compelling argument for choosing the 25 mm version on a modern bike.
Likes For PeteHski:
#160
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,404
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 2,979 Times
in
1,690 Posts
More on the myth of wheels/rims varying in vertical stiffness.
From that page, here's a quote from the late Jobst Brandt on the topic:
“Stiffness, in its various forms, is a subject often discussed by bicyclists with a regard to components as well as frames. Stiff wheels are often mentioned with approval.
"However, it should be noted that a bicycle wheel is so rigid that its elasticity is not discernible because the tires, handlebar, stem, frame and saddle have a much greater combined elasticity. Therefore, the differences between well constructed wheels are imperceptible to a rider.
"The 'liveliness' attributed to 'stiff' wheels is an acoustic phenomenon caused largely by lightweight tires at high pressure and tight spokes with a high resonant frequency. This mechanical resonance can be heard, and possibly felt in the handlebars, but it is not related to the wheel stiffness.”
From that page, here's a quote from the late Jobst Brandt on the topic:
“Stiffness, in its various forms, is a subject often discussed by bicyclists with a regard to components as well as frames. Stiff wheels are often mentioned with approval.
"However, it should be noted that a bicycle wheel is so rigid that its elasticity is not discernible because the tires, handlebar, stem, frame and saddle have a much greater combined elasticity. Therefore, the differences between well constructed wheels are imperceptible to a rider.
"The 'liveliness' attributed to 'stiff' wheels is an acoustic phenomenon caused largely by lightweight tires at high pressure and tight spokes with a high resonant frequency. This mechanical resonance can be heard, and possibly felt in the handlebars, but it is not related to the wheel stiffness.”
Likes For Trakhak:
#161
Commuter
Join Date: Jun 2022
Location: SE Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 565
Bikes: Main Bikes: 2023 Trek Domane AL3, 2022 Aventon Level.2 eBike, 1972 Schwinn Varsity, 2024 Priority Apollo 11
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
206 Posts
My Domane has 32 mm tires and I like them.
I tried my daughter’s bike with the 25s; no thanks to that! The ride is brutal!
I just added gravel bike with 40s; nice ride but I notice the speed penalty on that one.
32 or so is the sweet spot, IMO.
I tried my daughter’s bike with the 25s; no thanks to that! The ride is brutal!
I just added gravel bike with 40s; nice ride but I notice the speed penalty on that one.
32 or so is the sweet spot, IMO.
#162
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,555
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3901 Post(s)
Liked 1,953 Times
in
1,393 Posts
To start with, I'm still running clinchers. I'm between 145 and 153 during the year. I run 23mm 5000 tires on my '20 carbon Trek, 80 front, 100 rear. I have no problem with vibration or tiring. I've done 400s with these tires, They're fast and give good road feel. A little anecdote from the past which I've told here before but here it is again:
About 20 years ago, our group got a new rider who was super strong. He's short and compact, probably weighed a little less than me but was quite aero. I would drop him on every descent, which pissed him off because otherwise, he was much faster than I. This was back when there were rather delicate low rolling resistance tires, better ride than the same width tires today. I told him to buy the same tires I was using and pump them up to 140, same as mine. Next ride he dropped me on a descent. So much for RR lab testing. In modern times, running modern tires, 140 is impossibly high, over the tire max sidewall pressure. even 120 yields a very rough ride. My old tires had a 160 max pressure and felt about the same at 140 as my current tires at 100.
All that said, on a long ride I don't think the old tires would be faster due to increased risk of puncture. I can't remember the last time I flatted on my 5000s. The group used to have at least one flatted rider on every ride. Tubeless might have something to do with that, but not that many in our group have gone to tubeless.
I think car sidewalls have become stiffer, too. My wife was saying that she thought our right rear was low, so I checked it: 7 lbs. and just barely deformed on the bottom.
About 20 years ago, our group got a new rider who was super strong. He's short and compact, probably weighed a little less than me but was quite aero. I would drop him on every descent, which pissed him off because otherwise, he was much faster than I. This was back when there were rather delicate low rolling resistance tires, better ride than the same width tires today. I told him to buy the same tires I was using and pump them up to 140, same as mine. Next ride he dropped me on a descent. So much for RR lab testing. In modern times, running modern tires, 140 is impossibly high, over the tire max sidewall pressure. even 120 yields a very rough ride. My old tires had a 160 max pressure and felt about the same at 140 as my current tires at 100.
All that said, on a long ride I don't think the old tires would be faster due to increased risk of puncture. I can't remember the last time I flatted on my 5000s. The group used to have at least one flatted rider on every ride. Tubeless might have something to do with that, but not that many in our group have gone to tubeless.
I think car sidewalls have become stiffer, too. My wife was saying that she thought our right rear was low, so I checked it: 7 lbs. and just barely deformed on the bottom.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#163
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,036
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10464 Post(s)
Liked 11,962 Times
in
6,124 Posts
To start with, I'm still running clinchers. I'm between 145 and 153 during the year. I run 23mm 5000 tires on my '20 carbon Trek, 80 front, 100 rear. I have no problem with vibration or tiring. I've done 400s with these tires, They're fast and give good road feel. A little anecdote from the past which I've told here before but here it is again:
About 20 years ago, our group got a new rider who was super strong. He's short and compact, probably weighed a little less than me but was quite aero. I would drop him on every descent, which pissed him off because otherwise, he was much faster than I. This was back when there were rather delicate low rolling resistance tires, better ride than the same width tires today. I told him to buy the same tires I was using and pump them up to 140, same as mine. Next ride he dropped me on a descent. So much for RR lab testing. In modern times, running modern tires, 140 is impossibly high, over the tire max sidewall pressure. even 120 yields a very rough ride. My old tires had a 160 max pressure and felt about the same at 140 as my current tires at 100.
All that said, on a long ride I don't think the old tires would be faster due to increased risk of puncture. I can't remember the last time I flatted on my 5000s. The group used to have at least one flatted rider on every ride. Tubeless might have something to do with that, but not that many in our group have gone to tubeless.
I think car sidewalls have become stiffer, too. My wife was saying that she thought our right rear was low, so I checked it: 7 lbs. and just barely deformed on the bottom.
About 20 years ago, our group got a new rider who was super strong. He's short and compact, probably weighed a little less than me but was quite aero. I would drop him on every descent, which pissed him off because otherwise, he was much faster than I. This was back when there were rather delicate low rolling resistance tires, better ride than the same width tires today. I told him to buy the same tires I was using and pump them up to 140, same as mine. Next ride he dropped me on a descent. So much for RR lab testing. In modern times, running modern tires, 140 is impossibly high, over the tire max sidewall pressure. even 120 yields a very rough ride. My old tires had a 160 max pressure and felt about the same at 140 as my current tires at 100.
All that said, on a long ride I don't think the old tires would be faster due to increased risk of puncture. I can't remember the last time I flatted on my 5000s. The group used to have at least one flatted rider on every ride. Tubeless might have something to do with that, but not that many in our group have gone to tubeless.
I think car sidewalls have become stiffer, too. My wife was saying that she thought our right rear was low, so I checked it: 7 lbs. and just barely deformed on the bottom.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,990
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26441 Post(s)
Liked 10,406 Times
in
7,225 Posts
Not just opinions from posters, but data.
It's easy for old guys like you and me to believe those myths that we first encountered in the 1960's and 1970's, such as that there were significant differences in vertical stiffness between different models of tubular rims (and, bringing the myth up to date, between a yellow-label or Ergal Fiamme tubular rim and a modern carbon rim), but it's not true. The vertical stiffness of a rim is determined by spoke tension. That's why you can find data on lateral rim stiffness but almost none on vertical rim stiffness.
Knowing how set in our ways we old guys can be, I won't be surprised if you cheerfully ignore the test results. Just watch!
It's easy for old guys like you and me to believe those myths that we first encountered in the 1960's and 1970's, such as that there were significant differences in vertical stiffness between different models of tubular rims (and, bringing the myth up to date, between a yellow-label or Ergal Fiamme tubular rim and a modern carbon rim), but it's not true. The vertical stiffness of a rim is determined by spoke tension. That's why you can find data on lateral rim stiffness but almost none on vertical rim stiffness.
Knowing how set in our ways we old guys can be, I won't be surprised if you cheerfully ignore the test results. Just watch!
It's a topic that is often grossly oversimplified in Bike Forums level discussions. Anyway, I didn't see anything especially outrageous claimed in the linked article. FWIW, with my paved riding conditions, on mostly asphalt in reasonably good shape, 700x25's at 130psi work fine for me, given the wheels I use and the (mostly) steel frames I ride.
"Wind the clock back 10 years or more to when everyone in the peloton was riding a steel frame bike with shallow section rims; the bike frames and wheel rims had a degree of inherent flexibility and compliance which provided comfort," says Tim Ward, Schwalbe's UK Marketing Manager. "Therefore, riding narrow 19mm wide tyres at 120 or 130 PSI was not so much of an issue,"
"Modern carbon frames and wheels, by contrast, are very much stiffer and less complaint, although they are, of course, much more efficient in terms of energy transfer from the pedals to the ground," says Tim Ward. "So, the only real way to derive a reasonable amount of comfort on a modern road race bike is through having wider tyres at lower pressure, to provide a degree of compliant suspension."
https://road.cc/content/feature/why-...re-stay-307245
"Modern carbon frames and wheels, by contrast, are very much stiffer and less complaint, although they are, of course, much more efficient in terms of energy transfer from the pedals to the ground," says Tim Ward. "So, the only real way to derive a reasonable amount of comfort on a modern road race bike is through having wider tyres at lower pressure, to provide a degree of compliant suspension."
https://road.cc/content/feature/why-...re-stay-307245
#165
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,150
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3468 Post(s)
Liked 3,608 Times
in
1,810 Posts
More on the myth of wheels/rims varying in vertical stiffness.
From that page, here's a quote from the late Jobst Brandt on the topic:
From that page, here's a quote from the late Jobst Brandt on the topic:
#166
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1250 Post(s)
Liked 1,330 Times
in
679 Posts
...I posted this in another thread. I don't know how old Tim Ward is, but he's the current UK marketing manager for Schwalbe. The linked article discusses some of the factors in the current wider road tires trend. Of which there are many. I completely agree that the largest factor in this thing is tire flex (versus wheel and frame flex). But that doesn't mean older alloy rims and steel frames were not more flexible, and thus a factor in all of this.
It's a topic that is often grossly oversimplified in Bike Forums level discussions. Anyway, I didn't see anything especially outrageous claimed in the linked article. FWIW, with my paved riding conditions, on mostly asphalt in reasonably good shape, 700x25's at 130psi work fine for me, given the wheels I use and the (mostly) steel frames I ride.
It's a topic that is often grossly oversimplified in Bike Forums level discussions. Anyway, I didn't see anything especially outrageous claimed in the linked article. FWIW, with my paved riding conditions, on mostly asphalt in reasonably good shape, 700x25's at 130psi work fine for me, given the wheels I use and the (mostly) steel frames I ride.
You like 25mm at 130 good for you, however if you really want to transform your ride try a supple 32 mm at Silca recommended pressures it will be transformative. Much like taking a long road trip in a 66 VW bug it can be done however try a AMG E63 wagon and you can never go back.
#167
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,990
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26441 Post(s)
Liked 10,406 Times
in
7,225 Posts
You like 25mm at 130 good for you, however if you really want to transform your ride try a supple 32 mm at Silca recommended pressures it will be transformative. Much like taking a long road trip in a 66 VW bug it can be done however try a AMG E63 wagon and you can never go back.
Likes For 3alarmer:
#168
Banned
I know that for my road bikes a 28mm tire may be optimum but I am not about to buy new wheels that allow for that wide a tire. My old road bike takes 23mm tires and my newer e-bike uses 28mm tires. If I had a gravel bike for use off the pavement then 38mm tires would be what I would be using.
If I weighed a great deal then the situation would be different with wider tires supporting a greater total load and less chance for spokes breaking.
If I weighed a great deal then the situation would be different with wider tires supporting a greater total load and less chance for spokes breaking.
#169
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,036
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10464 Post(s)
Liked 11,962 Times
in
6,124 Posts
Well the genius who wrote the article mentions that 10 years ago pros were riding steel bikes and thus the narrow tires. Unfortunately he is completely off base and the last tour win on a steel bike for example was Indurain in 1994, that’s 30 years ago!
You like 25mm at 130 good for you, however if you really want to transform your ride try a supple 32 mm at Silca recommended pressures it will be transformative. Much like taking a long road trip in a 66 VW bug it can be done however try a AMG E63 wagon and you can never go back.
You like 25mm at 130 good for you, however if you really want to transform your ride try a supple 32 mm at Silca recommended pressures it will be transformative. Much like taking a long road trip in a 66 VW bug it can be done however try a AMG E63 wagon and you can never go back.
But, you know, as it happens I own a CF bike from 12 years after the last steel bike TdF win. It's quite stiff, and not at all cushy. I was able to JUST BARELY fit 28s on it, which made it much more comfortable, but still not as comfortable as my 2020 Canyon, which also rides on 28s. So it MAY BE true that CF frames from 10 years after the peloton was all on steel bikes WERE really stiff and would have benefited from wider tires. But they didn't really have them (My bike came with 23s)
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#170
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,990
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26441 Post(s)
Liked 10,406 Times
in
7,225 Posts
#171
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,036
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10464 Post(s)
Liked 11,962 Times
in
6,124 Posts
Okay, so let's turn it around. Let's suppose for the moment that it's true that CF frames are so stiff that you have to make the tires more compliant, whereas back in the Golden Years Of Yore, your steel frame was so compliant you could run rock hard tires. Might I gently suggest that the stiff frame/compliant tires is superior for efficient cycling, compared to compliant frame/stiff tires, because you don't waste energy twisting the frame? I've never had chain scrape on the FD when out of the saddle on a carbon bike, but I have had it on steel bikes.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
Likes For genejockey:
#172
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 18,036
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10464 Post(s)
Liked 11,962 Times
in
6,124 Posts
It's not my harshest riding bike. That would be my 1994 Cannondale with the 3.0 frame. Second harshest is the Battaglin built of Columbus MAX. I'd say that old CF Bianchi is a little harsher than the steel Ritchey or the Litespeed, and way harsher than the CF Canyon, but the Canyon is as stiff when sprinting or climbing out of the saddle, while also being my most comfy bike on any pavement.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#173
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,990
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26441 Post(s)
Liked 10,406 Times
in
7,225 Posts
Okay, so let's turn it around. Let's suppose for the moment that it's true that CF frames are so stiff that you have to make the tires more compliant, whereas back in the Golden Years Of Yore, your steel frame was so compliant you could run rock hard tires. Might I gently suggest that the stiff frame/compliant tires is superior for efficient cycling, compared to compliant frame/stiff tires, because you don't waste energy twisting the frame? I've never had chain scrape on the FD when out of the saddle on a carbon bike, but I have had it on steel bikes.
It's not my harshest riding bike. That would be my 1994 Cannondale with the 3.0 frame. Second harshest is the Battaglin built of Columbus MAX. I'd say that old CF Bianchi is a little harsher than the steel Ritchey or the Litespeed, and way harsher than the CF Canyon, but the Canyon is as stiff when sprinting or climbing out of the saddle, while also being my most comfy bike on any pavement.
The guy who gave it to me was a RAAM rider. He said he used it in that endeavor. He must have had a very muscular butt at the time.
#174
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,404
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2502 Post(s)
Liked 2,979 Times
in
1,690 Posts
A pet peeve of mine: the claim (frequently trotted out by manufacturers and reviewers) that the newest iteration of some diamond-frame bike is superior to the last version in l.s. and v.c. by, e.g., 5%. They don't mention that that's 5% of, e.g., 0.012" of vertical frame compliance for a 180 lb. rider. Not that it matters, other than the hucksterism.
#175
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,990
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26441 Post(s)
Liked 10,406 Times
in
7,225 Posts
.
...without hucksterism, cycling as we know it would be impossible.
...without hucksterism, cycling as we know it would be impossible.