|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Putting wider tires on my Bike. | modmans2ndcoming | Techniques | 2 | April 17th 06 11:28 PM |
Putting wider tires on my Bike. | modmans2ndcoming | Techniques | 0 | April 17th 06 09:31 PM |
Are wider tires easier to control? | e39m5 | Unicycling | 2 | September 17th 05 09:00 PM |
Do I need wider tires? | Dukester | General | 10 | June 27th 05 02:03 AM |
Too many flats......wider tires needed? | Jay Adair | Recumbent Biking | 12 | August 8th 04 10:38 PM |