Jan Heine "Busts" Another Tire/Wheel Myth...
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,003
Bikes: 2015 Charge Plug, 2007 Dahon Boardwalk, 1997 Nishiki Blazer, 1984 Nishiki International, 2006 Felt F65, 1989 Dahon Getaway V
Liked 1,702 Times
in
840 Posts
Jan Heine "Busts" Another Tire/Wheel Myth...
A few years ago Jan Heine dispelled the generally held belief that narrower tires are always faster than wider tires of the same size. There are some particular and specific parameters, but it really shook up the industry. (https://www.renehersecycles.com/12-m...es-are-slower/)
Well, last week he challenged the notion that 700 wheels roll appreciably faster than 650/26" wheels (and smaller). Again, there are specific parameters (the wheels must have pneumatic tires on them).
https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...t-roll-faster/
As before, how a tire/wheel combination FEELS can be different from how it PERFORMS.
Well, last week he challenged the notion that 700 wheels roll appreciably faster than 650/26" wheels (and smaller). Again, there are specific parameters (the wheels must have pneumatic tires on them).
https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...t-roll-faster/
As before, how a tire/wheel combination FEELS can be different from how it PERFORMS.
Likes For BobbyG:
#2
Senior Member
I like his Bon Jon Pass tires, but Jan Heine and the scientific method have only a passing acquaintance. I would take his conclusions with a large grain of salt.
Likes For Koyote:
#3
Non omnino gravis
Wheels on racing vehicles are as small as possible because rotating mass (and unsprung weight) is a huge issue. Racing vehicles will nonetheless run very big wheels at times, because they need to fit very big brakes-- not an issue with bicycles. Bikes are fairly limited as to what their tire height can be relative to width-- cars do not have this limitation, because they can run a tire with 5 plies in the 6" high sidewall.
I agree with everything stated about hysteresis, but there is obviously a practical limit-- if there wasn't, we'd all run motorcycle-sized tires... and there's Fatbikes, which do pretty much that, but are inarguably niche bikes with a narrow range of applications. This is (IMO) why their test seems to completely ignore the flywheel effect-- if they had tested a solid aluminum 20" wheel with any BMX tire on it, it would roll farther than all of them. End of the day, once fitted with an appropriate tire, 700c, 650b, and 26" all stand roughly the same height-- so it's not surprising that they would all roll similar distances. Somewhere in there is a point of diminishing returns.
I agree with everything stated about hysteresis, but there is obviously a practical limit-- if there wasn't, we'd all run motorcycle-sized tires... and there's Fatbikes, which do pretty much that, but are inarguably niche bikes with a narrow range of applications. This is (IMO) why their test seems to completely ignore the flywheel effect-- if they had tested a solid aluminum 20" wheel with any BMX tire on it, it would roll farther than all of them. End of the day, once fitted with an appropriate tire, 700c, 650b, and 26" all stand roughly the same height-- so it's not surprising that they would all roll similar distances. Somewhere in there is a point of diminishing returns.
Likes For DrIsotope:
#4
Senior Member
Heine's been saying this stuff for decades. He also believes that bottom bracket stiffness is self-defeating etc. Interesting fellow, I'm not sure what to think about his ideas. I do like his tires, though.
#5
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,232
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Liked 2,557 Times
in
1,441 Posts
I read that article, and it seems a bit thin and overly specific to me.
What really caught my attention is that he used off-road vehicles to make his point, but if you look at off-road BIKES, it has become apparent that 29” wheels roll faster, which is why they have dominated XC racing for years, are the majority in Enduro, and are making big inroads in DH.
The downsides of larger wheels off road has been about handling and design constraints.... the issue of whether they roll faster has been pretty well settled.
What really caught my attention is that he used off-road vehicles to make his point, but if you look at off-road BIKES, it has become apparent that 29” wheels roll faster, which is why they have dominated XC racing for years, are the majority in Enduro, and are making big inroads in DH.
The downsides of larger wheels off road has been about handling and design constraints.... the issue of whether they roll faster has been pretty well settled.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 9,006
Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee
Liked 2,009 Times
in
1,257 Posts
Every so often when I read one of Heine's articles I'm reminded of the excellent Wikipedia article on chauvinism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism), especially the second and third paragraphs. Fanatical devotion and undue partiality to the cause of Rene Herse building the best possible bicycles ever, anyone?
Of course, that partisanship doesn't mean he won't follow the market. Why else would Rene Herse offer twice as many tire models in 622 than they do in 584?
Of course, that partisanship doesn't mean he won't follow the market. Why else would Rene Herse offer twice as many tire models in 622 than they do in 584?
#7
Occam's Rotor
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,712
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Liked 339 Times
in
254 Posts
His joint article on relation of Q-value to efficiency in BQ demonstrated the issue. They took old measurement data, from a thesis (?), that, within errors, showed no significant correlation between Q-value and efficiency. The data were apparently never published as contributing next to nothing to the question. However, the average values seemed to line up with the claim that a low Q value helps up to a point. A lay person tends to disregard the errors and they wrote an article for BQ few pages long making the claim of evidence. Well, these data still contributed next to nothing to the question, just a hint that maybe more measurements are desired.
#9
Senior Member
#10
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,464
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Liked 2,116 Times
in
1,379 Posts
You might wish he could move on from this and prove something else but I guess that wouldn't sell tires
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
#11
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,870
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Liked 3,474 Times
in
1,971 Posts
N.B. I also seem to recall that Heine has an advanced degree (post-graduate, not sure if MS or PhD) in geology, so he likely has a decent grasp of the scientific method.
Likes For JohnDThompson:
Likes For burnthesheep:
#13
Senior Member
I have considered this question over the years, as I like the 26" platform but, in real world application, do find 700c to roll faster. If only it weren't so.
What I think is that it goes beyond tire size to construction considerations.
Until recently, it was hard to get a 26" size tire designed for speed. Most come out of the off road or touring genre where durability is prioritized over speed. The same goes for wheelsets. Again, until recently, most 26" wheels were build for toughness rather than speed while 700c has a longer history (and trickle down effect) related to racing like lower spoke counts, aero design, light weight materials etc... And, lastly the gearing/geometry of 26" bikes usually hasn't been optimized for speed (unlike many 700c road bikes).
Add all those factors up and 700c has been historically faster than 26".
I'd like to see two similar bikes, using similarly designed wheelsets, with 26" and 700c tires go toe to toe. A part of me would be cheering for the underdog
What I think is that it goes beyond tire size to construction considerations.
Until recently, it was hard to get a 26" size tire designed for speed. Most come out of the off road or touring genre where durability is prioritized over speed. The same goes for wheelsets. Again, until recently, most 26" wheels were build for toughness rather than speed while 700c has a longer history (and trickle down effect) related to racing like lower spoke counts, aero design, light weight materials etc... And, lastly the gearing/geometry of 26" bikes usually hasn't been optimized for speed (unlike many 700c road bikes).
Add all those factors up and 700c has been historically faster than 26".
I'd like to see two similar bikes, using similarly designed wheelsets, with 26" and 700c tires go toe to toe. A part of me would be cheering for the underdog
Likes For Happy Feet:
#14
Thus, stiffness should match the rider’s power output, with stronger riders needing stiffer frames while lower output riders will prefer to ride more flexible frames.
It’s an interesting idea. The first part doesn’t surprise me and could be verified with appropriate testing. The second part is probably much more subjective, though I suspect stronger riders will generally tend to like stiffer frames.
Otto
#15
Senior Member
To be fair, testing tires under real-world conditions is an exceedingly complex undertaking in controlling for all the possible variables, including subjective ones, and he does point this out in his articles. I believe Heine has done as good a job at this as anyone has attempted.
N.B. I also seem to recall that Heine has an advanced degree (post-graduate, not sure if MS or PhD) in geology, so he likely has a decent grasp of the scientific method.
N.B. I also seem to recall that Heine has an advanced degree (post-graduate, not sure if MS or PhD) in geology, so he likely has a decent grasp of the scientific method.
#16
I think I know nothing.
Just chatting nothing technical to add.
I just started doing club/group rides, I have 6 or 7 rides in which are the first group rides (outside of two organized mass rides) since the mid 1990s. My current bike is nothing special, actually one of the few non-carbon frames in the groups I ride with. Although nothing special, it is a huge improvement over what I had in the mid 1980s to 1990s. 9 speed, AL frame, 700 x 23 tires.
Anyway, on a recent group ride we were on a rest stop and the conversation turned to wheels and tire size. 32s seem to be the normal. One of the riders made the comment that implied that only newbs or holdovers from 80s ride with 23 or 25s. I of course have 23s and I sensed this person realized this only after making the statement. No bother to me, I'm not going to throw a bunch of dollars at my bike to make others happy. I have a 700 x 28 tire that was given to me, it fits but is tight. Anyway, although I consider myself a newb and thus fitting the mold of only newbs using skinny high pressure tires, I'm not having any problems keeping up with my fellow riders. This is in a hilly area, not big hills, maybe 1600 feet of ascent over 22 miles but not flat by any means. Maybe this says more about them than me, I don't know.
I just started doing club/group rides, I have 6 or 7 rides in which are the first group rides (outside of two organized mass rides) since the mid 1990s. My current bike is nothing special, actually one of the few non-carbon frames in the groups I ride with. Although nothing special, it is a huge improvement over what I had in the mid 1980s to 1990s. 9 speed, AL frame, 700 x 23 tires.
Anyway, on a recent group ride we were on a rest stop and the conversation turned to wheels and tire size. 32s seem to be the normal. One of the riders made the comment that implied that only newbs or holdovers from 80s ride with 23 or 25s. I of course have 23s and I sensed this person realized this only after making the statement. No bother to me, I'm not going to throw a bunch of dollars at my bike to make others happy. I have a 700 x 28 tire that was given to me, it fits but is tight. Anyway, although I consider myself a newb and thus fitting the mold of only newbs using skinny high pressure tires, I'm not having any problems keeping up with my fellow riders. This is in a hilly area, not big hills, maybe 1600 feet of ascent over 22 miles but not flat by any means. Maybe this says more about them than me, I don't know.
Likes For Thomas15:
#17
Senior Member
Just chatting nothing technical to add.
I just started doing club/group rides, I have 6 or 7 rides in which are the first group rides (outside of two organized mass rides) since the mid 1990s. My current bike is nothing special, actually one of the few non-carbon frames in the groups I ride with. Although nothing special, it is a huge improvement over what I had in the mid 1980s to 1990s. 9 speed, AL frame, 700 x 23 tires.
Anyway, on a recent group ride we were on a rest stop and the conversation turned to wheels and tire size. 32s seem to be the normal. One of the riders made the comment that implied that only newbs or holdovers from 80s ride with 23 or 25s. I of course have 23s and I sensed this person realized this only after making the statement. No bother to me, I'm not going to throw a bunch of dollars at my bike to make others happy. I have a 700 x 28 tire that was given to me, it fits but is tight. Anyway, although I consider myself a newb and thus fitting the mold of only newbs using skinny high pressure tires, I'm not having any problems keeping up with my fellow riders. This is in a hilly area, not big hills, maybe 1600 feet of ascent over 22 miles but not flat by any means. Maybe this says more about them than me, I don't know.
I just started doing club/group rides, I have 6 or 7 rides in which are the first group rides (outside of two organized mass rides) since the mid 1990s. My current bike is nothing special, actually one of the few non-carbon frames in the groups I ride with. Although nothing special, it is a huge improvement over what I had in the mid 1980s to 1990s. 9 speed, AL frame, 700 x 23 tires.
Anyway, on a recent group ride we were on a rest stop and the conversation turned to wheels and tire size. 32s seem to be the normal. One of the riders made the comment that implied that only newbs or holdovers from 80s ride with 23 or 25s. I of course have 23s and I sensed this person realized this only after making the statement. No bother to me, I'm not going to throw a bunch of dollars at my bike to make others happy. I have a 700 x 28 tire that was given to me, it fits but is tight. Anyway, although I consider myself a newb and thus fitting the mold of only newbs using skinny high pressure tires, I'm not having any problems keeping up with my fellow riders. This is in a hilly area, not big hills, maybe 1600 feet of ascent over 22 miles but not flat by any means. Maybe this says more about them than me, I don't know.
Likes For Koyote:
#18
I have considered this question over the years, as I like the 26" platform but, in real world application, do find 700c to roll faster. If only it weren't so.
What I think is that it goes beyond tire size to construction considerations.
Until recently, it was hard to get a 26" size tire designed for speed. Most come out of the off road or touring genre where durability is prioritized over speed. The same goes for wheelsets. Again, until recently, most 26" wheels were build for toughness rather than speed while 700c has a longer history (and trickle down effect) related to racing like lower spoke counts, aero design, light weight materials etc... And, lastly the gearing/geometry of 26" bikes usually hasn't been optimized for speed (unlike many 700c road bikes).
Add all those factors up and 700c has been historically faster than 26".
I'd like to see two similar bikes, using similarly designed wheelsets, with 26" and 700c tires go toe to toe. A part of me would be cheering for the underdog
What I think is that it goes beyond tire size to construction considerations.
Until recently, it was hard to get a 26" size tire designed for speed. Most come out of the off road or touring genre where durability is prioritized over speed. The same goes for wheelsets. Again, until recently, most 26" wheels were build for toughness rather than speed while 700c has a longer history (and trickle down effect) related to racing like lower spoke counts, aero design, light weight materials etc... And, lastly the gearing/geometry of 26" bikes usually hasn't been optimized for speed (unlike many 700c road bikes).
Add all those factors up and 700c has been historically faster than 26".
I'd like to see two similar bikes, using similarly designed wheelsets, with 26" and 700c tires go toe to toe. A part of me would be cheering for the underdog
Until the pandemic, both had the same fit, with classic round drop bars and 11.5 cm from saddle top to stem clamp center. I also had “road” tires on both though most riding is on crushed stone and concrete paths. So 700x32 Ultra Sports and 559x58 RTPs.
Both bikes are steel frame and heavy by modern standards: the road bike is about 27 lbs and the MTB about 29 lbs.
On a favorite flat route with only hills when first heading out and finally getting home, the 26er was about as fast and more comfy. Terrain matters as I cross old railway bridges and I can hit hit them faster with the bigger tires. Best route times and level speeds were about the same.
On hillier routes, the 700c bike was consistently about 1 mph faster overall, which I assume is partly the weight on the climbs and partly because those routes tend to be more pavement where the damping of the 26” tires isn’t much of an advantage.
Since the pandemic I’ve changed both cockpits (raised the bars on the road bike and swapped for Scott AT-4 Pro on the MTB) so that part is less comparable but the results are pretty much still the same.
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#19
I think I know nothing.
#20
Otto
Likes For ofajen:
#21
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,232
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Liked 2,557 Times
in
1,441 Posts
Earning a PhD implies that you (under the guidance of a mentor) have shown expertise in the very specific field/topic in which you did research. Along with the topical knowledge of that very specific field is an understanding of the accepted scientific research models and types of data/experiments/observations and expectations of that field, and also the accepted methods of analyzing that information (again, in that field).
Having a PhD in geology makes one an expert in bicycle tire research about as much as earning MD in orthopedics makes one able to diagnose heart problems. Sure, they will likely understand better than the average Joe, but it is not their area of expertise.
Further, getting a PhD is just the first step. It is what you do AFTER that which determines if you are an expert in your field. Or have much credibility as a scientist at all.
Having a PhD in geology makes one an expert in bicycle tire research about as much as earning MD in orthopedics makes one able to diagnose heart problems. Sure, they will likely understand better than the average Joe, but it is not their area of expertise.
Further, getting a PhD is just the first step. It is what you do AFTER that which determines if you are an expert in your field. Or have much credibility as a scientist at all.
Likes For Kapusta:
#22
Senior Member
Earning a PhD implies that you (under the guidance of a mentor) have shown expertise in the very specific field/topic in which you did research. Along with the topical knowledge of that very specific field is an understanding of the accepted scientific research models and types of data/experiments/observations and expectations of that field, and also the accepted methods of analyzing that information (again, in that field).
Having a PhD in geology makes one an expert in bicycle tire research about as much as earning MD in orthopedics makes one able to diagnose heart problems. Sure, they will likely understand better than the average Joe, but it is not their area of expertise.
Further, getting a PhD is just the first step. It is what you do AFTER that which determines if you are an expert in your field. Or have much credibility as a scientist at all.
Having a PhD in geology makes one an expert in bicycle tire research about as much as earning MD in orthopedics makes one able to diagnose heart problems. Sure, they will likely understand better than the average Joe, but it is not their area of expertise.
Further, getting a PhD is just the first step. It is what you do AFTER that which determines if you are an expert in your field. Or have much credibility as a scientist at all.
For example, this person has a PhD in my field - and from Harvard, which is a top program. But he is widely regarded (rightly so) as a joke. He literally made up sources for some of his books.
#23
Senior Member
#24
Senior Member
Yet the fact that there are Bon Jon Pass tires for you to like is arguably due to his methods that you disparage.
"The scientific method" is often put on a pedestal and dressed in a lab coat, leading to confidently repeating steel drum tests that show 19mm tires at 120psi to be best.
Likes For woodcraft:
#25
Senior Member
Yet the fact that there are Bon Jon Pass tires for you to like is arguably due to his methods that you disparage.
"The scientific method" is often put on a pedestal and dressed in a lab coat, leading to confidently repeating steel drum tests that show 19mm tires at 120psi to be best.
"The scientific method" is often put on a pedestal and dressed in a lab coat, leading to confidently repeating steel drum tests that show 19mm tires at 120psi to be best.