njkayaker

I'm not sure what else using the scientific method in testing/comparing bicycle tires could be doing.

njkayaker

The move away from those narrow tires started way-before Heine was involved. 21 mm tires are, themselves, "really old".

70sSanO

It is funny but at one time only newbs on cheap bikes and old people rode 32’s. I’ve gone from 20mm to 25mm over the years. Pretty sure I can’t fit 28’s on my road bike. I’ll stick with 25’s. I’m not about to change bikes for a wider tire.

In reality it is about the legs than anything else. A strong rider will always beat a weak rider no matter what tire is used.

John

njkayaker

"Stiffness" is a resistance to flexing. It makes sense that a stiffer frame is better suited to heavier/stronger riders. If riders generally prefer to have some flexibility in their frames, then the frame stiffness would have match the properties of the rider (a particular frame might feel "overly flexible" for a larger/stronger rider and feel fine for a lighter rider).

The "ideal" stiffness, in different situations, might not be the same for a particular rider either (more stiffness might be better for climbing and less better for "cruising"). A "more comfortable" frame might be faster for longer rides.

I don't think it matters as much as some think. Being able to claim a frame is "stiff" makes it easier to sell.

woodcraft

True. Not promoting Jan Heine ('tho I have received a sub to bicycle Quarterly as a gift and generally enjoy it),

so much as pointing to the issue of quasi-religious devotion to "the scientific method".

bikemig 

Not exactly. 32c tires or 27 x 1 and 1/4 were pretty common on touring bikes. Plus old road bikes (say from the 70s or earlier) have lots of clearance for wide tires.

njkayaker

I was trying to say that there was a trend away from narrow tires before Heine got involved.

The idea that "narrow tires with lots of pressure" is still fairly common and it doesn't appear to be true for the kinds of riding people are generally doing.

Heine is useful because he's calling into question things that many people just assumed to be true (without much support).

It's hard to design experiments that reveal what is going on with tires. Heine is, at least, making some sort of somewhat-reasonable attempt at it.

The argument that he can't do good work in this field "because his PhD is in geology" doesn't make much sense.

DrIsotope

Not that I doubt the accuracy of his findings (within such a limited scope-- Heine's "science" is on par with say Mythbusters or GCN Does Science) but I think that it's natural for readers to raise an eyebrow when they read through "tire test performed by the guy who sells tires." Impartiality tends to stop just before it reaches the bottom line.

elcruxio

Fatbikes may be niche, but they are also by far the most versatile mountain bike type out there. Perhaps not the fastest, but a front suspended fatbike'll easily ride anything a skinny full squish enduro rides.

Darth Lefty 

I like the part where he points out the wheel size on the vehicle with two feet of suspension travel

DrIsotope

Which still leaves it in a niche, because a fatbike is pretty damn good at a short list of things, and pretty terrible at everything else-- which can be said of most other bikes as well. This is the same reason you don't see bike messengers on fatbikes (unless maybe it's really snowy) or guys doing crit laps on DH rigs.
He should have gone with a picture of a trophy truck, which has tiny wheels and huge tires to go with 30-40" of suspension travel. Oh, and 800 horsepower. Lookit those teeny wheels!

ofajen

This is my experience, but I’m really not that picky. I suspect my 22” steel MTB frame is stiffer than my 25” steel road frame, but I really don’t notice much difference.

Otto

tyrion

Drum testing (like bicyclerollingresistance.com does) doesn't always reflect real world performance.


https://blog.silca.cc/asymmetric-eff...e-optimization

Kapusta

It tells us which is more-er better.

Kapusta

Drum testing is the gold standard for determining how well tires roll on indoor rollers.

79pmooney

In the heyday of bicycles (when the really bright people were designing bikes, not computers, software, aerospace ... someone did a study of wheel diameter vs road surface. (This was back when the worst roads were, by our standards, really bad and good pavement was a new concept.) He found that the rougher the surface, the bigger the optimum wheel diameter. Interestingly, he found that on smooth pavement, 27" was optimum. (27" being nearly exactly the outside diameter of a 700c road tire.)

Racers have settled on that diameter. Now, there have been race bikes built around much smaller wheels. In criteriums those bikes are fully competitive because what they give away in rolling resistance they gain in radically lower inertia; paying real dividends every corner.

The place where we moderns missed the boat is on poor surfaces. Mountain bikes. 45 years ago, the 26" wheel was adopted. Not because it had any advantages but because kid's bikes were available and cheap. Yes smaller wheels do better in tight places and fit smaller people better, but the disadvantages on rough surfaces were so limiting that you had to be seriously hard core (and slightly crazy) or willing to spend money, research, technology, etc, etc, to get enough suspension to make those bikes rideable. Much later, the 29s came along. Just what that guy told us 120 years ago!

Ben

Cyclist0108

No, but a Ph.D. in a field of science from the University of Washington makes me more willing to take him seriously than an anonymous person on the internet who makes such claims. As a scientist myself, I have a reasonably nuanced idea of what constitutes "scientific method," and from everything I have read from Jan Heine, it is clear he does as well.

It is cheap and easy to denounce someone like this on the internet, but I would find evidence far more compelling.

Cyclist0108

Just out of curiosity, what is it that you are calling "the scientific method?" (I ask in all sincerity, because you won't find universal agreement.)

Koyote

The scientific method is for testing hypotheses, which might include questions about the effect of tire size (or width) on rolling resistance, smoothness/comfort, speed, etc. But since those are sometimes competing goals, it cannot tell us what is "best." In other words, "best" is a subjective judgment which reflects preferences or priorities.

ofajen

it would be interesting for the bicycle rolling resistance guy to test the three different sizes of the same tire. I have one set of 26” wheels with Continental Race King Protection tires. He indicates a drum rating of 18.0 watts at 35 psi for the 29er version. It would be interesting to see the ratings for the 26” and 27.5 versions of the same tire. Are they essentially the same or is there a difference? It’s not obvious to me how or why there would be much difference. Perhaps there is a roadish tire of the same width and identical construction on all three rims sizes that could also be tested?

Otto

Koyote

Yes, there is not universal agreement - that's why there have been sooo many books and intellectual debates about it. I can recall reading a ton of that stuff in grad school, since I had some profs who were into it.

In the case of Heine's experiments, I've always found that - while he may be doing as well as possible for "real world" tests - his methods don't allow him to adequately control for the variables other than those in which he is interested. (You know, the whole ceteris paribus thing.) Additionally (and this is not entirely disqualifying, but still), it is clear that he is a less-than-dispassionate analyst.

njkayaker

The "scientific method" is an overly idealized conception of what happens when people "do science".

It doesn't capture the "try stuff out (in a reasonably careful/disciplined way) and see what people think of it".

???

The point is to understand the properties so that it can inform a choice.

No one is saying the purpose is to determine a singular "best" tire for all uses.

It seems that a wider tire is objectively better than a narrow one for rough surfaces (that is, it doesn't seem to be merely a "preference").

Seems like a normal thing for these sorts of investigations (looking at a complex situation with a limited budget). In any case, it might be better than nothing (it doesn't seem what was done before was better).

The alternative was hewing to the standard "understanding" of narrow/high-pressure being faster (based on assumptions and worse investigations).

It appears, he's managed to challenge many assumptions reasonably convincingly, Maybe, not perfectly (but, so what?).

fietsbob

His tests coincide with placing his tires as having better marks, as published in the magazine he publishes..

Koyote

1) Agreed.
2) Scientific testing might prove that a wider tire gives a smoother ride, but only you (your preferences) can determine whether that is "better," since a wider tire brings other tradeoffs. This gets to your first point: that the tests can only inform your choice, not determine what is "best" in any universal sense.
3) Agreed.

tz250

yes!