tires, the wider the better: but slower?

"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?

datakoll wrote in news:1191721552.772055.153000@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?

What is equal? Weight? Air pressure? Tire tread?
What are your road or trail condition?

sally wrote:
datakoll wrote in news:1191721552.772055.153000@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?

What is equal? Weight? Air pressure? Tire tread?
What are your road or trail condition?

gene is dodging alligators on a shopping run to woolmort.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"datakoll" wrote in message
ups.com...

"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?


That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
affect speed when compared to smooth.

Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
to propel yourself as with a skinny tire.

There are other factors that slow you down and require more energy. Wind
resistance is one of them. Of course a wide tire doesn't cause a significant
amount of air friction since your body and arms are probably ten times as
wide as a 2 inch tire. The change in air friction of using a big tire is
hardly worth considering in this question even though it's friction with the
road is worth considering.

What may be more important is that a wider tire may or may not have twice
the footprint of the skinny tire. Air pressure can make this vary
considerably. It may be that the amount of friction that needs to be
overcome goes by the area in contact with the ground at any moment as
opposed to just the width. A long footprint can then produce surprising
amounts of friction. I bought a fat tire to replace an older fat tire. The
new tire took 65 pounds of pressure. The old tire used 80 pounds. Isn't that
going to result in a bigger area of the tire in contact with the ground at
any time? Wouldn't that cause a lot more friction?

The best way to get your answer is to try both tires at the pressures you're
going to be riding them on. You need some way of measuring the watts you're
using, so you need one of those expensive watt meters that they train with
on the tour le france. Run a few hundred tests and average your answers.

Greens who? wrote:
"datakoll" wrote in message
ups.com...
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?


That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
affect speed when compared to smooth.

Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....

Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
internal friction of the tire casing cords.

I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
resistance, based on actual testing:
http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Oct 6, 10:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Greens who? wrote:
"datakoll" wrote in message
oups.com...
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?

That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
affect speed when compared to smooth.

Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....

Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
internal friction of the tire casing cords.

I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
resistance, based on actual testing:
http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Quit complicating things with evidence and facts. Adhere to the party
line! large tire are slooow, dontcha know?
Please visit the "Large spoke tension drop with inflated tire" thread
and share your experience..

right. to federalize the question, let's snot complicate the evidence
and facts with reality or even hearsay or rumor.
let's proceed on speculation.

posts around the subject roll toward fatter is EASIER. Are the
commentaters considering physical energy loss or does psychological
EASE add into less physical stress giving an ILLUSION of fat is
EASIER?

Cause, to restate the less obvious, if the posters were "able" to use
a radically skinnier tire than the fat tire they're crowing about,
they'd use the skinnier cause common knowledge sez skinnier tires are
faster than fat tires that is to say skinny tires use less energy.

So I came to one conclusion that an energy loss was REAL but not
EVIDENT or DYSFUNCTIONAL as energy loss was less than psychological
gain.

Trying to fit the analysis if you could call this BS analysis into
traveling further than going to woolmort in an expedition sense where
point A to B is necessary not optional I'll ask a hypothetical
question that has no value whatsoever and could be called obtuese or
stupid:

If Armstrong ran on 2.35" tires on the TdF and the field used 37c,
would Armstrong win or loose?

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Greens who? wrote:
"datakoll" wrote in message
ups.com...
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?


That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being
equal" means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would
significantly affect speed when compared to smooth.

Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you
the common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is
twice as wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and
therefore require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance
to your forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as
much energy to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....

Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road does
not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due to
hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make the
flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and internal
friction of the tire casing cords.

I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling resistance,
based on actual testing: http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


"Anthony King" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 6, 10:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote:
Greens who? wrote:
"datakoll" wrote in message
oups.com...
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?

That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being
equal"
means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would
significantly
affect speed when compared to smooth.

Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you
the
common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice
as
wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much
energy
to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....

Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
internal friction of the tire casing cords.

I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
resistance, based on actual testing:
http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

Quit complicating things with evidence and facts. Adhere to the party
line! large tire are slooow, dontcha know?
Please visit the "Large spoke tension drop with inflated tire" thread
and share your experience..


You have sacrificed agility and acceleration for comfort, but at slow speeds
your tire might have less resistance than a skinny tire.

Just to make things more complicated...
http://schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance

"Wider tires roll better than narrow ones.

Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but narrow tires
can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. However, they then
obviously give a less comfortable ride.
narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at higher speeds, as they
provide less air resistance.

Air resistance rises squared with increased speed. At a straight-line speed
of 20 km/h on the flat, air resistance is the main resistance force.

a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate because the
rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is much more agile.

At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better with wider tires.
In practice, the energy saving is even greater than in theory as the
elasticity of the tires absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be
transferred to the rider and so saves energy."

"datakoll" wrote in message
ups.com...
right. to federalize the question, let's snot complicate the evidence
and facts with reality or even hearsay or rumor.
let's proceed on speculation.

posts around the subject roll toward fatter is EASIER. Are the
commentaters considering physical energy loss or does psychological
EASE add into less physical stress giving an ILLUSION of fat is
EASIER?

Cause, to restate the less obvious, if the posters were "able" to use
a radically skinnier tire than the fat tire they're crowing about,
they'd use the skinnier cause common knowledge sez skinnier tires are
faster than fat tires that is to say skinny tires use less energy.

So I came to one conclusion that an energy loss was REAL but not
EVIDENT or DYSFUNCTIONAL as energy loss was less than psychological
gain.

Trying to fit the analysis if you could call this BS analysis into
traveling further than going to woolmort in an expedition sense where
point A to B is necessary not optional I'll ask a hypothetical
question that has no value whatsoever and could be called obtuese or
stupid:

If Armstrong ran on 2.35" tires on the TdF and the field used 37c,
would Armstrong win or loose?


I'm guessing he'd lose. He'd be slower to accelerate. He'd be carrying more
weight than every one else. He'd be less agile. He'd also be more
comfortable and have better "roll".

How many times does he have to acclerate during the tour? Probably hundreds
of times and most likely accelerating smartly is key to winning.

I conclude that he'd lose with the fat tires mostly because if fat tires won
tours, everyone would be riding them. The Darwinian nature of the race is
why fat tires have been weeded out.

Some folks are built like this, some folk are built like that, But the
way I'm built, y'all, don't you call me fat. I'm built for comfort,
and I ain't built for speed,