|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
"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." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
tires, the wider the better: but slower?
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, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
tires, the wider the better | [email protected] | Techniques | 17 | October 9th 07 08:21 AM |
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 |