|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
On Apr 29, 9:48*am, Kastnerd wrote:
I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? The problem is how do you duplicate "real world road conditions?" If you're concerned about "every small little bump" then how do you duplicate to make sure that each tire, wheelset or whatever you're interested in testing are truly tested under the same condition? So far, the only real true test seems to be using a steel drum roller. Maybe putting cement on the rollers to get that "small little bump" effect might give it more "real world road condition," maybe. Here's arguably the best test using steel drum rollers. Its pretty old and most tires tested are no longer available. Still, it gives a good idea of what tires can do: http://bike.terrymorse.com/rolres.html Discussion of the test: http://bike.terrymorse.com/rrdiscuss.html Good Luck! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
Kast Nerd who? wrote:
I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. When I read this sort of statement I doubt that the writer understands what causes tire rolling resistance or that characterization would not be mentioned. Rolling resistance arises from hysteretic behavior of elastomers, those of which the tire is made, mostly one kind of rubber or another. Tires are deformed by the road and do not rebound with the same force that was needed to deform them (hysteretic). When bending a ride tread or sidewall, the local stretch and compression depends on thickness so that the thicker of two, otherwise identical tires, has greater losses. In addition, the inner tube is pressed against the tire casing with sufficient force that the tube becomes essentially a rubber coating (tread) on the inside of the tire and causes more losses. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? I think you are suspecting ghosts. Regardless of the surface of the test roller, the tires will perform proportionally the same. IRC a noted tire manufacturer performed the most telling test, typically on smooth steel drums, shown in curves to be seen at this web site: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/r...e-tubular.html This is a selection of popular road tires of that time. All RR tests by tire companies are done on smooth steel drums. Jobst Brandt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
Kast Nerd who? wrote:
I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. When I read this sort of statement I doubt that the writer understands what causes tire rolling resistance or that characterization would not be mentioned. Rolling resistance arises from hysteretic behavior of elastomers, those of which the tire is made, mostly one kind of rubber or another. Tires are deformed by the road and do not rebound with the same force that was needed to deform them (hysteretic). When bending a road tire tread or sidewall, the local stretch and compression depends on thickness so that the thicker of two, otherwise identical tires, has greater losses. In addition, the inner tube is pressed against the tire casing with sufficient force that the tube becomes essentially a rubber coating (tread) on the inside of the tire and causes more losses. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? I think you are suspecting ghosts. Regardless of the surface of the test roller, the tires will perform proportionally the same. IRC a noted tire manufacturer performed the most telling test, typically on smooth steel drums, shown in curves to be seen at this web site: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/r...e-tubular.html This is a selection of popular road tires of that time. All RR tests by tire companies are done on smooth steel drums. Jobst Brandt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Kastnerd
wrote: I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? Dear K, It's darned hard to do a credible practical test, unless there's a large difference. You could start by coasting down the same very long hill, day after day, and checking the max speed on your cyclometer. Unfortunately, several details besides tires and pressures may affect the maximum speed display and confuse things. First, you have to calibrate the cyclometer for each tire and pressure. You're looking for a tiny difference in top speed, so tiny that 2096 mm versus 2124 mm for the effective roll-out might skew the results. (You could avoid this by timing between two distant points, but it turns out that starting and stopping stopwatches introduces a fair amount of variation--the max speed function is automatic.) Next, you have to duplicate the temperature and barometric pressure as closely as possible. Peek at a few online speed calculators, and you'll find that these affect top speed enough to goof things up. (One detail not often mentioned is that temperature will change not just the wind drag, but how easily the tire rubber flexes.) Then there's the wind--a head or tail wind of half a mile per hour is undetectable except by watching smoke, but it's going to change your results significantly. Early morning is when the wind dies down, but anyone who's watched smoke pots at a grass air strip knows how rare truly still conditions are. Of course, the rider's aerodynamics make a huge difference--even slight changes in your posture show up in wind tunnels, which is why top riders spend money on such testing. Tuck your shirt in differently, and you may see a difference. And the rider's weight varies, too. It's normal to vary a pound or two either way from the weight on your driver's license, depending on what you ate and drank last and when you last visited the bathroom. Again, the calculators will show speed differences for 139 versus 141 pounds. Here's a few calculator that shows the predicted differences for even small changes, including rolling resistance: http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html If you reduce the default 0.0050 RR 10% to 0.0045, holding everything else the same, the calculator predicts a 0.28 km/h difference for the default values, a little less than 0.2 mph. Set the watts to 0 and roll the two bikes down a -6% grade, and the predicted speeds are 51.43 and 51.20 km/h, a 0.23 km/h difference for a 10% improvement in RR. An undetectable 0.23 km/h headwind will erase that difference. (It's not a straight loss of exactly 0.23 km/h top speed for 0.23 km/h headwind, but the difference is less than 0.01 km/h.) A temperature drop from 25 C to 22.5 C (77.00 F to 72.50 F) will also erase the tiny effect of 10% less rolling resistance. Changing frontal area from 0.40000 m^2 to 0.40355 m^2 wipes out the speed gain from a 10% RR reduction. Raising the altitude from 100 meters above sea level to 163 meters has the same effect on speed as a 10% RR reduction. Adding 0.73 kg (1.6 pounds) to the rider will let reach the same top speed with the 10% worse RR tires. In other words, real world variation in wind, temperature, air pressure, rider posture, and rider weight are all likely to have more effect on top speed down a 6% grade than the rolling resistance of roughly similar road tires. Plus you'll roll down the same road faster if rain or street sweepers have cleaned the winter sand off the surface, or if you pick a slightly different line to avoid the rougher patches and hit the cracks where they're smallest. You can get larger absolute differences at lower speeds, where rolling resistance is greater. On a -1% grade, the theoretical speeds drop to 16.19 and 15.44 km/h, a whopping 0.75 km/h (just under 0.5 mph) difference for 10% less rolling resistance. But few people are willing to roll repeatedly down 1% grades at 10 mph--and holding the same tuck for long enough to reach top speed at such a snail's pace (without swerving, which will goof things up) is awfully hard. That's why spin-down tests on drums are generally considered to be more reliable than real-world efforts for RR, even though they factor out such things as the increased drag of wider tires and the effect of higher pressures causing bouncing. Cheers, Carl Fogel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
On Apr 29, 9:48 am, Kastnerd wrote:
I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? All you need are a set of rollers with a pivoting fork mount, a scale, a power meter, and a LOT of spare time ;-) A description/explanation: http://www.mediafire.com/?mzlj1v1ntet A handy spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ceo4sngarj And a plethora of data already taken: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/...sting_rev6.pdf Alternatively, one can measure Crr differences using a power meter outside with the following method by keeping the aerodynamics of the situation (i.e, the Cda) constant: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/...sting_rev6.pdf I've used the "Chung method" above to look at "total non-aero resistance to forward motion" vs. tire pressure on "real roads to some success. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
On Apr 30, 11:06 am, Tom_A wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:48 am, Kastnerd wrote: I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world conditions. I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels. I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless. Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless (295g) both are triple compound. I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same weight. Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs. The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt more. What would be the best way to test these conditions? All you need are a set of rollers with a pivoting fork mount, a scale, a power meter, and a LOT of spare time ;-) A description/explanation: http://www.mediafire.com/?mzlj1v1ntet A handy spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ceo4sngarj And a plethora of data already taken:http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/...sting_rev6.pdf Alternatively, one can measure Crr differences using a power meter outside with the following method by keeping the aerodynamics of the situation (i.e, the Cda) constant: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/...sting_rev6.pdf I've used the "Chung method" above to look at "total non-aero resistance to forward motion" vs. tire pressure on "real roads to some success. Oops...that last link should have been: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/watt...direct-cda.pdf |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Testing rolling resistance.
On Apr 29, 10:48*am, Kastnerd wrote:
What would be the best way to test these conditions? This is not easy to do on the road since you will get a variance from aero resistance and wind. Probably the "best" method would be to generate detailed speed vs time curves in coast downs... then extract the aero and rolling resistance components with a curve-fit using the equations of motion. I don't know if there are any computers that allow you to record and analyse this information. You might consider getting an iBike power meter which does this as part of its calibration. For best results you will need to do a lot of runs and take care to minimize extraneous variables... especially wind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is there less rolling resistance on wet roads? | Peter | Australia | 28 | August 23rd 07 11:10 AM |
Hub rolling resistance | Don Whybrow | UK | 15 | March 25th 07 09:21 PM |
Rolling Resistance | newsboy | Techniques | 19 | August 5th 06 02:59 AM |
Hub Rolling Resistance - DA vs Ultegra vs 105? | pinnah | Techniques | 37 | July 20th 06 04:00 AM |
Rolling resistance vs. Aerodynamics | Kinky Cowboy | Techniques | 15 | April 6th 05 10:26 AM |