phughes

You are hilarious. The point of the wider tire is to be able to run a lower pressure which gives the same weight carrying ability as a narrow tire at a higher pressure, thereby giving a more comfortable ride. Yeah, if you improperly inflate a wide tire to a higher pressure than it needs in order to carry the load, then it will not be as compliant as a narrow tire at the same pressure, but, the narrow tire at that pressure will be properly inflated for the weight. Now, inflate the wide tire to the proper pressure to carry a given weight, then inflate the narrow tire to the proper pressure to carry the same weight, and the wide tire will have lower rolling resistance than the narrow tire, AND will ride more comfortably.

Please stop. This thread is about the redshift stem. It moved on to wider tires as another way to get a more comfortable ride. You took it to a debate on rolling resistance, all while not grasping the data available that actually proves your assertions incorrect. The site you are using is very good, and I have looked at it in the past. The problem is you cannot look at it and understand what they are actually showing to be true. It is a wonderful resource for those researching a tire purchase, while looking for tires that have lower rolling resistance, that is affected by many variables, as they have shown. The basic truth though, irrespective of tire construction differences, rim width differences, tread differences, and inner tube differences, is that a wider tire has lower rolling resistance than a narrower tire at the same pressure.

Anyway, it has been fun, but annoying at the same time. It is like trying to debate someone who insists cold air gives you the common cold. NO amount of facts can dissuade them form their adherence to the old wives' tale. YOu shall very soon be forever relegated to the ignore list, though I'd rather not do that. You truly do have a wealth of riding experience, and I appreciate that, unfortunately you are deeply opinionated and cannot stray from said opinions despite multitudes of people showing you your data is incorrect. You cannot understand someone is making a statement of an isolated fact, devoid of variables. An example would be, an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. That statement is true, in a vacuum. Someone not understanding that a person is talking about a controlled situation would argue that an object slows down over time. Just like you try to state that xNarrow tire has less rolling resistance than yWider tire, completely ignoring the fact that the physics dictating lower rolling resistance of a wider tire vs a narrower is dependent upon all things being equal, including tire pressure.

When proven wrong, you then assert that a wider tire pumped up to higher pressures gives a less comfortable ride than a narrow tire pumped to the same higher pressure. Well, yeah, that's because the wider tires does not need to be inflated to that pressure to carry the same weight, it can use a lower pressure, and in fact it is designed to carry more weight at a lower pressure, than a narrower tire can at the same lower pressure.

This "debate" has been unreal. I'm finished with my part. You may continue if you like. Once again, I appreciate your experience in biking, I honestly do, and am actually a bit jealous of the amount of touring and riding you have done, but at the same time I am happy for you that you have been able to do that. Having ridden a bike for many miles though does not necessarily mean all you think is true, is in fact true.

Have a good night.

Yan 

They did exactly that. That was the second pressure determination method in their test (lower on the very same page) where they inflated all tires to whatever pressure achieved 15% tire drop, which they said was the proper recommended pressure for each width. That was the chart I posted earlier in this thread. Here it is again.

The wider tires had higher rolling resistance.

But all good, no hard feelings. Take care now.

phughes

Yeah I saw that, and the differences are negligible, which was my point. As I said, I was arguing the point that all things being equal, a wider tire has lower rolling resistance than a narrower tire. That is a very narrowly defined statement.

If you look even farther down in the article, they aired up the tires to have the same comfort. In that test, the results were a flat line, meaning the rolling resistance was the same between all the widths of that tire. For me, I will go with the wider tire, since getting the same comfort out of a narrower tire increases the chance of pinch flats. However you look at it, you have so many other factors to weigh, durability, flat resistance, and so on, an each of those things affect rolling resistance. These results work with this tire. I wonder if it would hold true to a different set of tires from another manufacturer. What these results do tell me, is that tire manufacturers can, and do produce very good tires today. We are lucky for that.

Okay, it's been fun, and as always, I learn when I do this. Good debate. Have a good night.

Yan 

I totally get the comfort benefit of wider tires. Zero arguments from me against that point. In fact their comfort equalized test is also artificial, because in the real world you can't actually lower the pressure on a narrow tire to match the same comfort of a wider tire. You'll bottom out soon enough and start getting pinch flats. Wide tires are where it's at if comfort is needed.

Atlas Shrugged

The amazing part is you do not lose any efficiency with that increased comfort so it’s a win/win situation. In fact wider tires up to say 45mm are faster than narrow tires. Just finished a 1200 km tour in Southern Spain and Portugal on a super supple 42 mm tire. Never to go back to the old school garden hose traditional touring tire.

mstateglfr 

Yan - how many watts slower is a 40mm smooth tire vs a 32mm smooth tire due to wind resistance?
I genuinely don't have a number or formula. I have read articles that said in wind testing, it is less than the difference between rolling resistance for a good tire and a cheap tire.
But again, I don't have a formula or actual number.


You have argued the point, many times, that wind resistance is gonna get ya at 40mm so it's best to drop to 32m.
What controlled testing is that based on? I honestly don't know what the difference is and am curious.

I have bikes with 26mm, 27mm, 32mm, 38mm, and 43mm tires right now and some are the same brand and model. Curious to know.

Yan 

It's going to make almost no difference at touring speeds. Every 10mm wider tire gives you an extra ~70cm2 frontal area, turned into a square would be 8.4x8.4cm, equivalent to about 1/4 the wind resistance of hanging one front pannier. Wind resistance isn't a major factor in tire width selection for touring because we're barely breaching 20km/h.

Not sure about watts, maybe you could find something via Google where someone's done some wind tunnel testing. Most of the product manufacturers wind tunnel test at 50km/h to amplify their marketing spin. Not sure if anyone has ever tested at 20km/h. It'll probably be some absolutely tiny number, like less than one watt.

mstateglfr 

You have continually argued an aero narrative in this thread. And after all that, you post the above comments.
Classic.

Yan 

Show me where in this thread where I said "aero was a bigger factor than rolling resistance and weight". Go ahead and TRY to find some quotes of my past posts.

Good luck lmao.

You need to realize when you should sit down.

mstateglfr 

I didn't claim you said that.
Talk about moving goalposts.

I say one thing and your respond with a challenge that is tangentially related, yet distinctly different from what I said.

Yan 

Stop dodging like a coward.

1. you said wide tires have lower rolling resistance than narrower tires even on smooth ground
2. I said you're wrong, asked you to find a lab test as evidence
3. Like a clown you posted a lab test whose conclusion went against you own argument, talk about self sabotage lmao
4. Now you want to refocus and start arguing about "aero"

Please, just stop.

mstateglfr 

I don't think you claimed aero is bigger than rolling resistance or weight.
I also didn't claim you claimed that, so me saying you didn't claim it is...well quite pointless.
Strawman, moving goalposts, inability to process basic conversation...you are nailing the trifecta in this thread.

Since I am thinking about things you haven't claimed in this thread, I will preemptively also agree that you have not claimed puppy breath is magical. Oh, you haven't claimed wizards pee upside down either. Hopefully I can keep you from challenging me to find where you have said those things too, even though I didn't claim you said em.

Yan 

1. you said wide tires have lower rolling resistance than narrower tires even on smooth ground
2. I said you're wrong, asked you to find a lab test as evidence
3. Like a clown you posted a lab test whose conclusion went against you own argument, talk about self sabotage lmao
4. Now you want to refocus and start arguing about "aero"

Please, just stop.

Tourist in MSN

I am surprised this thread was not closed down yet.