tires, the wider the better

Back around 1899, the typical men's bike used a 28" rim, and the
following articles from the free New York Times archive predicted that
riders would be sensible enough to use wider 2-inch tires instead of
the absurdly narrow 1.5 inch tires.

Here are some tire widths mentioned:

a full 2" tire = 51 mm, wave of the comfortable, efficient future
1 & 3/4" tire = 44 mm, predicted improvement
1 & 5/8" tire = 41 mm, foolish current weight-weenie fad
1 & 1/2" tire = 38 mm, no better than a board

1896:

"The general tendency to lightness in all things pertaining to the
construction of bicycles has caused the cycling public partially to
lose sight of the highest advantage to be derived from the use of the
pneumatic tire. When pneumatics were first used, a full two-inch tire
was considered none too large. It was not necessary to pump it to
extreme hardness in order to preserve either the tire or rim of the
wheel, and its wide track and great resiliency imparted to the rider a
sensation of floating along in the air with a delightful ease never
dreamed of in the earlier days of solid tires."

"For road riding a full two-inch tire is none too large. The larger
size adds somewhat to the weight of the machine, but it requires
relatively less propelling force to drive it over the road,
notwithstanding. The average tire of to-day is one and five-eighths
inches in diameter. This does very well, but it has not the elegant
riding quality of the two-inch tire. Many riders who prefer to have
their wheels as light as possible ride with inch-and-a-half tires,
which, when pumped to absolute hardness, are really little better than
would be wooden tires covered with sheet rubber."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 679ED7CF

***

1897 Interbike:

"It is noticeable that the tires on the handsome new models are larger
than those in use last year. This is only another indication that
comfort is being sought more and more by the devotees of wheeling. The
size this year in general use will probably average 1 3/4 inches, and
many riders will no doubt go as high as 2 inches."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 669ED7CF

***

In 1899, a Cornell professor tested bicycle tires:

"Test of Bicycle Tires"

"Conclusions Drawn from Experiments at Cornell University"

"Ithaca, N.Y., Jan 10.--Prof. Carpenter, in charge of the mechancial
experiment station at Cornell has completed a series of tests on the
comparative value of large and small bicycle tires. Several points
have been brought to light which would be scoffed at by the novice. In
spite of the decided tendency in the past few seasons for
manufacturers to diminish the size of their tires, Prof. Carpenter now
shows conclusively that, other things being equal, the larger the tire
the easier runs the wheel. This is particularly so in case the rider
is of more than average weight."

"It is not a matter of friction by contact with the ground, for that
being of the rolling type, amounts to practically nothing, but it
depends on the loss of power in compressing the tire. On a two-inch
tire the rider of average weight causes very little compression of the
tire tread. The tire has a great bearing surface. Take half an inch
from the diameter of the tube, however, and it rolls along a constant
indentation and release result. Here the power is lost and hence the
conclusion."

"Prof. Carpenter says that a poor two-inch tire will run easier than
the best one-and-a-half-inch tire that was ever made. A difference of
over 15 per cent. in the running qualities of a wheel is attributed to
the kind of tire used. A single tube always proves faster than the
double tube, but this may be due partly to the better material
employed in making the former."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 689ED7CF

***

The single and double tube tires mentikoned above are roughly tubulars
versus clinchers. Here's how to fix flats on each kind, circa 1900:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 6197D6CF

***

Columns 3 & 4 describe early tire history, starting with exactly how
Dunlop made his first pneumatic bicycle ti

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...9C94 669ED7CF

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article ,
wrote:

1896:

"The ...
sensation of floating along in the air with a delightful ease never
dreamed of...."

Yeah. That's it! That's what I've been looking for since high school.
I'll bet I would get it back if I could drop those 35 lbs I've added to
my 6'-2" frame in the intervening 35 years and get back to 160.

I used to float through the air during cross country season too. Now
the earth shakes.

Dan

On 2007-10-04, wrote:
[...]
"It is not a matter of friction by contact with the ground, for that
being of the rolling type, amounts to practically nothing, but it
depends on the loss of power in compressing the tire. On a two-inch
tire the rider of average weight causes very little compression of the
tire tread. The tire has a great bearing surface. Take half an inch
from the diameter of the tube, however, and it rolls along a constant
indentation and release result. Here the power is lost and hence the
conclusion."

c.f. more recent remarks by Schwalbe, that still "generate skepticism":

http://www.schwalbe.co.uk/pdf/techinfo.pdf

Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same
tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more
important, in other words the tire is “less round�.

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

On Oct 4, 4:59 pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2007-10-04, wrote:
[...]

"It is not a matter of friction by contact with the ground, for that
being of the rolling type, amounts to practically nothing, but it
depends on the loss of power in compressing the tire. On a two-inch
tire the rider of average weight causes very little compression of the
tire tread. The tire has a great bearing surface. Take half an inch
from the diameter of the tube, however, and it rolls along a constant
indentation and release result. Here the power is lost and hence the
conclusion."

c.f. more recent remarks by Schwalbe, that still "generate skepticism":

http://www.schwalbe.co.uk/pdf/techinfo.pdf

Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same
tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more
important, in other words the tire is "less round".

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

If we take deformation out of the equation, at what speed would a 23mm
tire start out performing a 60mm tire due to air resistance?

On 2007-10-04, tiborg wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:59 pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2007-10-04, wrote:
[...]

"It is not a matter of friction by contact with the ground, for that
being of the rolling type, amounts to practically nothing, but it
depends on the loss of power in compressing the tire. On a two-inch
tire the rider of average weight causes very little compression of the
tire tread. The tire has a great bearing surface. Take half an inch
from the diameter of the tube, however, and it rolls along a constant
indentation and release result. Here the power is lost and hence the
conclusion."

c.f. more recent remarks by Schwalbe, that still "generate skepticism":

http://www.schwalbe.co.uk/pdf/techinfo.pdf

Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same
tire pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more
important, in other words the tire is "less round".

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

If we take deformation out of the equation, at what speed would a 23mm
tire start out performing a 60mm tire due to air resistance?

Good question. I've no idea but you'd think it couldn't make that
much difference considering how much wider the rider is than 60mm.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:59:39 -0500, Ben C wrote:

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

Mostly irrelevant. Wide tyres run lower pressures than narrow tyres.
"At the same tyre pressure" means at least one tyre is being misused.

On Oct 4, 8:07 pm, Aeek wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:59:39 -0500, Ben C wrote:
Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

Mostly irrelevant. Wide tyres run lower pressures than narrow tyres.
"At the same tyre pressure" means at least one tyre is being misused.

It might be less ambiguous to state:

When the objective is to smooth out road irregularities, a soft and
wide tire is better.

Or conversely:

When comfort is not an objective, a hard and narrow tire is better.

On 2007-10-04, Aeek wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:59:39 -0500, Ben C wrote:

Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a
narrow tire deflects more and so deforms more.

Mostly irrelevant. Wide tyres run lower pressures than narrow tyres.
"At the same tyre pressure" means at least one tyre is being misused.

Yes, although an interesting consequence is that the fat tyre at the
lower pressure might have similar RR to the thin one at higher
pressure-- as well as being more comfortable.

wrote:
Back around 1899, the typical men's bike used a 28" rim, and the
following articles from the free New York Times archive predicted that
riders would be sensible enough to use wider 2-inch tires instead of
the absurdly narrow 1.5 inch tires.

Here are some tire widths mentioned:

a full 2" tire = 51 mm, wave of the comfortable, efficient future
1 & 3/4" tire = 44 mm, predicted improvement
1 & 5/8" tire = 41 mm, foolish current weight-weenie fad
1 & 1/2" tire = 38 mm, no better than a board

1896:

"The general tendency to lightness in all things pertaining to the
construction of bicycles has caused the cycling public partially to
lose sight of the highest advantage to be derived from the use of the
pneumatic tire. When pneumatics were first used, a full two-inch tire
was considered none too large. It was not necessary to pump it to
extreme hardness in order to preserve either the tire or rim of the
wheel, and its wide track and great resiliency imparted to the rider a
sensation of floating along in the air with a delightful ease never
dreamed of in the earlier days of solid tires."


The problem a lot of people have nowadays is that even if they have
wider tires on a bike, the rims are still generally too narrow, and so
they never get the actual feel of a properly-set-up wheel.

Most MTB's come with the silly 1-inch wide rims now (-same as a road
bike!?!?!) when they would do a lot better with 1.5 to 1.75's, but if
you want that on any lower-end bike you usually are left having custom
wheels ordered or built that have "downhill" rims. Yes you can mount Big
Apples on a 1" wide rim but it don't work right--because you have to
keep the tire pressure up around 60-80 PSI to keep it from squirming
around turns, and these tires work best at lower pressures, 25-35 PSI.

Having a hybrid bike that had 1" rims and switching to wheels that have
1.4" rims (while using the same tires) I can say the difference in ride
quality is fairly impressive. The tire inflation is now a third less
than before, road vibration is much decreased yet the bike still handles
well.

Some cruiser bikes out there aren't too bad, with single-wall rims
around 1.25 to 1.5". The mighty Worksman 26"/559 rims are 1.75" (outside
diameter) but won't accommodate rim brakes at all and so are overlooked
by many people.
~

On Oct 5, 11:48 am, DougC wrote:
The problem a lot of people have nowadays is that even if they have
wider tires on a bike, the rims are still generally too narrow, and so
they never get the actual feel of a properly-set-up wheel.

Most MTB's come with the silly 1-inch wide rims now (-same as a road
bike!?!?!) when they would do a lot better with 1.5 to 1.75's, but if
you want that on any lower-end bike you usually are left having custom
wheels ordered or built that have "downhill" rims. Yes you can mount Big
Apples on a 1" wide rim but it don't work right--because you have to
keep the tire pressure up around 60-80 PSI to keep it from squirming
around turns, and these tires work best at lower pressures, 25-35 PSI.

Having a hybrid bike that had 1" rims and switching to wheels that have
1.4" rims (while using the same tires) I can say the difference in ride
quality is fairly impressive. The tire inflation is now a third less
than before, road vibration is much decreased yet the bike still handles
well.

Some cruiser bikes out there aren't too bad, with single-wall rims
around 1.25 to 1.5". The mighty Worksman 26"/559 rims are 1.75" (outside
diameter) but won't accommodate rim brakes at all and so are overlooked
by many people.
~

Interesting that you should bring this up since just yesterday I was
considering building a wheel for a Big Apple. For style I wanted a
deep rim like the Deep V, but I couldn't find any that were both wide
and deep. I settled on a DT Swiss FR6.1d, but after reading your
comment, I wonder if this ETRTO 559x25 rim is still to narrow for the
60-559 Big Apple.

The chart on Sheldown's page ( http://sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html
) suggests a 60mm tire on a 25mm rim would be extreme, but he admits
it's a conservative estimate.