Originally Posted by
Koyote
It's been explained several times, in several ways, throughout this thread. Your refusal to learn does not negate that.
Really?? Here are all the responses I got:
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
Ew, David.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
"Doing it wrong" sums it up better. Well, if you're interested in performance, at least.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
If absurdly high pressure is what you prefer - you do you. If you think that it's faster - you're objectively wrong.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
Which is why I qualified my "doing it wrong" with, "if you're interested in performance."
Don't confuse your perception with reality. They're slower, they have a smaller contact patch, and being "less cushy" is the conversion of forward momentum in to upwards momentum.
There's a wide range of optimal, depending upon the rider, the tires, the surface, etc, but 140psi on pavement is well outside of the feasibly optimal range.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
So, if we want the fastest tires, we should be aiming for the least amount of friction between the road and the tire? Cool.
Originally Posted by
cxwrench
You're confused.
More confused.
You guys that think high pressure is fast because 'it feels fast' just don't get it. What you're feeling is the very definition of rolling resistance. If you're feeling every little bump and bit of texture it's because the bike AND you are going up and down. Not as efficient as if the bike AND you weren't going up and down. 'Feels' count for very little here, we're dealing with physics. Which are known as the LAWS of physics.
Originally Posted by
HTupolev
1-Friction forces between a typical sealed road surface and a tire are substantially more proportional to total normal force than to contact area. A small contact area mostly just makes the friction less consistent, i.e. traction can be sketchier.
2-The friction between tire and road surface is mostly static friction, not sliding kinetic friction, meaning that there's not much frictional energy dissipation happening at the interface.
3-The two above points have very little to do with rolling resistance. Ignoring vibration, Crr on a sealed road surface is largely driven by friction internal to the tire (i.e. hysteresis of the casing and tread and whatnot), not friction between the tire and the road surface.
Originally Posted by
asgelle
Originally Posted by
Koyote
That's your decision. But don't be deluded into confusing your feeling with facts.
Originally Posted by
Koyote
Sometimes when everyone is saying you're wrong, it's because you are wrong.
As you can see, except for HTupolev, there's has been a whole lot of un-helpfulness and un-explanation in this thread, mostly telling me 1) I'm disgusting, 2) I'm "doing it wrong;" 3) I'm wrong; 4) I'm "confused" and "don't get it;" 5) I'm "deluded;" and 6) I'm wrong again. Even HTupolev's explanation leaves room for the apparently impossible fact that a smaller contact area produces less rolling resistance. asgelle provided a link to a book, which may or may not be helpful. But certainly not an explanation.
Anyway, constantly telling folks they're just "wrong" is probably the easiest way to explain things. But thanks anyway.