79pmooney

+1 And vintage bikes were ridden on tires of the era which happened to be tubulars. (1977, my best year racing, there were just barely OK clinchers and rims, almost as good as my training tubulars (but a lot heavier). Tubulars are a little more comfortable than the same size clincher and can be run at higher pressure. The bikes of those days were optimized around tubulars because if you were an ace bike designer, why would you optimize around anything else? And with a half century or more of experience with skinny steel tubes and tubulars, they had it totally dialed in.

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! )

tFUnK

Quoting this because as someone who has older bikes with tire clearance limitations, but who has also moved onto modern wheels that are wider, I know this exercise of figuring out what labeled tire widths measure out when mounted on different rims well. Most of my frames can fit a 27mm true width tire. This usually corresponds to a 25mm labeled tire mounted onto a wider rim. A 28mm labeled tire mounted onto moderns wheels will not clear with 100% certainly, and if mounted on an old school narrow rim, may clear just 50% of the time. The old Conti GP4Ks were fat for their 25mm label, and pairs well with a modern wider rim for me.

rsbob 

Looks like we run identical tires at the same width and pretty close pressure. Must frequent the same sites. The tire is rated for much higher pressure, but like the ride and no pinch flats - knock of wood.

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.

MinnMan

+1. Somewhere along the line, people thinking about the optimum tire got caught up 100% in rolling resistance, but the front tire is, well, out front and so affects your aerodynamic profile more than the rear, which is going to pass through turbulent eddies whether it is wide or narrow. Also, rolling resistance is more important for the tire that is bearing greater weight. And furthermore, it's the rear tire that has greater influence on you perception of a smoother ride.

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.

Fredo76

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.

Leinster

Nailed it, 4th post on the thread.

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).

georges1

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.

Trakhak

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!

PeteHski

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.

Trakhak

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.”

Smaug1

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

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.

genejockey 

I think car sidewalls became NARROWER, mostly. The outer diameter of the tires isn't all that different but the diameter of the wheels is a lot larger. That simple reduction in width greatly reduces the flex.

3alarmer 

...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.

terrymorse 

The same Jobst Brandt who wrote The Bicycle Wheel. He would also go on about how stupid you were for riding a bike made with carbon fiber.

Atlas Shrugged

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.

3alarmer 

...no, the guy I quoted from that article did not write the article. I can't make you read it, I can only provide a link. I don't know when the marketing manager for Schwalbe made that comment, and the author of the article doesn't mention it. The idea that it is ten years in the past, or 20 years in the past, or even 30 years in the past when someone last "won the Tour on steel" seems to have little to do with the point of it. But that's just me. I'm not quite as fixated as you are on "being right". I prefer a more nuanced approach to life. nttawwt

...you keep telling me how I can vastly improve my cycling experience. You have done the same thing, advising me about the magic of CF frames. The people who come to my door with the Jehova's Witness pamphlets are basically doing the same thing. I smile, and I take the pamphlets, and I thank them. This works at the front door. So thanks very much.

Calsun

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.

genejockey 

That's a very telling observation, because what it suggests is the person who said that (not the author of the article, BTW, but rather "Tim Ward, Schwalbe's UK Marketing Manager") doesn't know what he's talking about.

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)

3alarmer 

...but I bet it is laterally stiff and vertically compliant. Everything made from CF was back then.

genejockey 

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.

genejockey 

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.

3alarmer 

... I think this has been known and accepted for quite some time. Cannondale frames were famously stiff, with their large diameter tubing. And this was used as one of the selling points, along with the lighter weight of the frame. If efficiency is your goal, and you feel like a stiff frame will actually contribute significantly to the efficiency of your rides, I can't argue with that. I am inherently inefficient in so many ways in life that a list would take up too much space.

...I have an old Cannondale touring bike, that someone gave me for free. Even with the steel fork, it was hard to ride very far with the tires that it came to me with. I managed to fit it with 700x32's, and it finally felt like a bike I could ride. It's too bad they didn't make them to fit wider tires back then, because I think more of them would still be in use. Anything more than 32's simply wont fit through the chainstays on mine.

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.

Trakhak

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.

3alarmer 

.
...without hucksterism, cycling as we know it would be impossible.