A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is the point of tubeless tires?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old January 17th 19, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:54:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/16/2019 3:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.


I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.


Most of us here are probably much the same. But regarding the typical
consumer's decisions, a book I'm currently reading has some relevant
ideas. The book is _Risk_ by Dan Gardner, and it deals in detail with
the psychology that causes people to have greatly distorted ideas about
danger. (Um - like regarding riding bikes, although he doesn't mention
that.)

In discussing psychology fundamentals, he makes much of the difference
between what he calls "Gut" and "Head" which he treats as almost two
separate brains living inside your skull. "Gut" is your first
instinctive reaction, and is quick but not so smart. It's what makes
that stick look like a snake and cause you to jump away, or what makes
_that_ girl look very, very interesting. "Head" is the smarter but
slower, calculating part that says "There are no snakes in the snow" or
"If she's standing on a street corner at midnight in a miniskirt, she
might not make a good mother." Or whatever.

Thing is, it takes a certain amount of intelligence and a certain amount
of relevant knowledge for "Head" to do a decent job. With bikes as with
so much else, a lot of people's "Heads" aren't properly equipped.

So "Gut" says "Oooh, this one is shiny!" And the purchase is made.



Rather like those that argue that guns are dangerous, isn't it. But
guns aren't dangerous per se. My grandfather kept two rifles and one
shotgun leaned in a corner of the passageway between the kitchen and
the "front room", and they never jumped out and shot anybody in the
probably 60 years that they sat there.

In fact people scoff at the idea, espoused by the National Rifle
Association I believe, that, "Guns don't kill, people kill"
--

Cheers,

John B.
Ads
  #162  
Old January 17th 19, 12:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 5:40:34 PM UTC-8, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On 1/11/2019 9:11 PM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?


Well, if I'm reading the reviews correctly (and notwithstanding Joerg's experience), they do offer excellent flat resistance with appropriate sealant. TK seems to be the only person who has used them, AFAIK, and the rest of us are just re-posting reviews. I think this one sums it up, and its from a reputable source:
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...eless-clincher I think for racing, I'd go with a latex tube or sew-ups, but for a winter commuter, tubeless with sealant might be a great way to go -- although I'm in no hurry to change. I don't get that many flats -- usually.

[snip]

"Odd notes: unfortunately the tires are not tubeless ready. Odd, especially since Michelin pioneered tubeless tech in the mountain bike side of things. When pressed for the reason why, we were told that although they have “a solution”, they “are just waiting for market demand to grow.” Although they spoke of increased performance with their latex tubes, Michelin does not import the inner tubes in America."


Not many flats here either, and I wonder if the sealant loses any
effectiveness in low temperatures. Truth be told, fear of an ugly mess
(even if due to operator error) makes me uninterested in trying.

I was going to correct you (or whoever you were quoting) about Michelin
latex tubes sold in the US, and then I see that neither
BikeTiresDirect.com nor Universal Cycles stocks Micheline latex anymore.
Is that a recent change?

Mark J.


https://www.probikekit.co.uk/tyres-t...ner-tubes.list
  #163  
Old January 17th 19, 12:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/16/2019 5:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:54:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/16/2019 3:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 10:39:18 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 11:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts.

Really! In particular, one friend of mine bought her bike specifically
because of the Zertz (well, and the supposed comfort from carbon fiber).
I don't know if she saw ads or believed the local shop guy (who, BTW, is
a very good guy and probably believed the hype himself). She had some
back problems causing some discomfort and hoped for a real improvement,
but she said she felt no difference at all.

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?

I don't know. We talked about it only once, maybe two years ago. I
didn't ask for details.

I do have riding friends who are engineers. With them, I might ask more
details, and we might have discussed. But this person is a lawyer. I've
learned that with lawyers, it's better to just let certain things go.
Except here, of course. ;-)

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

Um... on that "road"? I think I'm reading a work of fiction. That
wouldn't qualify as an alley around here.

But yes, I'm skeptical about the idea that every time a helmet touches
something, an injury was prevented - even a "nice scalp injury." (Should
the people jogging on that path wear helmets for the same reason?)


OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.

I don't doubt disc brakes work great. And I know by experience that
caliper brakes do, too.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want.

Sorry, the industry _does_ tell you what you have to have. Sometimes
it's explicit, in (say) a Buycycling magazine cover page or article
headline. I'm sure "The Gear you Have to Have!" has been in print there.
But just as often, the phrasing is different but the meaning is the
same, telling the gullible they have to buy this or that to keep up with
their friends, or to be safe on the roads, or stay in fashion or whatever.

Can you buy whatever you want anyway? Yes, it's still a (mostly) free
country and the industry's push doesn't necessarily work. But the
marketers never stop trying.

I really don't know how ordinary consumers make their purchasing decisions -- what they see or how they are influenced by marketing. Most of the bicycle marketing I see is counter-productive and generally for products that I don't want because they don't meet my needs. From my experience watching others in bike shops (in a non-creepy way), I do know that some less sophisticated consumers get excited about weird things that are really meaningless, or they get turned off by minor issues that are easily fixed. For example, a civilian may test ride two bikes and prefer one because its shifts better although it is affirmatively worse than the other bike which just needs a cable tightened -- or he or she might get super excited about positive feeling discs, but the rest of the bike sucks. People develop preferences for some strange reasons entirely unrelated to marketing.

Marketing or reviews have swayed some of my HiFi purchases with mixed results. I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because of the talking Chihuahua. But with bike stuff, the market only affects me to the extent it dictates the technology I must endure on a bike that I otherwise want to purchase -- like all the dopey BB standards, multiple through axle standards, etc. I may get confirmation bias from a Velo News review (Bicycling finally quit coming), but my buying decisions are more often driven by price, industry contacts, warranty, etc. Every company's good bike is pretty damned good. It's hard to go wrong these days.


Most of us here are probably much the same. But regarding the typical
consumer's decisions, a book I'm currently reading has some relevant
ideas. The book is _Risk_ by Dan Gardner, and it deals in detail with
the psychology that causes people to have greatly distorted ideas about
danger. (Um - like regarding riding bikes, although he doesn't mention
that.)

In discussing psychology fundamentals, he makes much of the difference
between what he calls "Gut" and "Head" which he treats as almost two
separate brains living inside your skull. "Gut" is your first
instinctive reaction, and is quick but not so smart. It's what makes
that stick look like a snake and cause you to jump away, or what makes
_that_ girl look very, very interesting. "Head" is the smarter but
slower, calculating part that says "There are no snakes in the snow" or
"If she's standing on a street corner at midnight in a miniskirt, she
might not make a good mother." Or whatever.

Thing is, it takes a certain amount of intelligence and a certain amount
of relevant knowledge for "Head" to do a decent job. With bikes as with
so much else, a lot of people's "Heads" aren't properly equipped.

So "Gut" says "Oooh, this one is shiny!" And the purchase is made.



Rather like those that argue that guns are dangerous, isn't it. But
guns aren't dangerous per se. My grandfather kept two rifles and one
shotgun leaned in a corner of the passageway between the kitchen and
the "front room", and they never jumped out and shot anybody in the
probably 60 years that they sat there.

In fact people scoff at the idea, espoused by the National Rifle
Association I believe, that, "Guns don't kill, people kill"



Guns don't kill. Hammers do:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/16/hammer...buffet-attack/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #165  
Old January 17th 19, 03:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/16/2019 7:53 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?


A tubeless tire offers
1. lower cost, the impermeable membrane is cheaper than a tube
2. lower rolling resistance, the membrane is more flexible
3. better air retention, membranes that don't need to stretch leak less
4. (slightly) lighter weight, the membrane is thinner than a tube
5. (neat, small) punctures can be plugged without dismounting

A tubeless tire requires
1. a close tolerance interference fit at the beadseat
2. a positive bead retention scheme in the case of air loss
3. an airtight mounting surface (no spoke holes)
4. a reliable method for mounting and dismounting the tire bead on the seat

The advantages are marginal, the requirements are showstoppers for bicycle
applications. As tires get bigger, around motorcycle sizes, the requirements
can be met more easily and the (slender) advantages remain. As manufacturing
precision gets better and cheaper, tubeless bicycle tires might make sense

bob prohaska


+1

I'm big on pressed steel tubeless automobile wheels (as
opposed to spoked wheels with tubes) but for a bicycle, I'm
yet skeptical.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #166  
Old January 17th 19, 03:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...


If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.


With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long.. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling.

-- Jay Beattie.




  #167  
Old January 17th 19, 05:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:26:33 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Consumer Reports, who famously rated several three speed
bicycles (Huffy, Murray Ohio, Rollfast etc) then ranked the
Raleigh Sports unacceptable because the brakes were overly
responsive.


The last time I read Consumer Reports, it introduced a survey of
bicycles by saying that they wouldn't review any bike that cost more
than $200 because lightweight, easy-to-pedal bikes are strictly for
"people who like to torture themselves".

This was a long time ago.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

  #168  
Old January 17th 19, 05:15 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/16/2019 8:53 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?


A tubeless tire offers
1. lower cost, the impermeable membrane is cheaper than a tube
2. lower rolling resistance, the membrane is more flexible
3. better air retention, membranes that don't need to stretch leak less
4. (slightly) lighter weight, the membrane is thinner than a tube
5. (neat, small) punctures can be plugged without dismounting

A tubeless tire requires
1. a close tolerance interference fit at the beadseat
2. a positive bead retention scheme in the case of air loss
3. an airtight mounting surface (no spoke holes)
4. a reliable method for mounting and dismounting the tire bead on the seat

The advantages are marginal, the requirements are showstoppers for bicycle
applications. As tires get bigger, around motorcycle sizes, the requirements
can be met more easily and the (slender) advantages remain. As manufacturing
precision gets better and cheaper, tubeless bicycle tires might make sense

bob prohaska


Good analysis, I think.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #169  
Old January 17th 19, 05:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/16/2019 9:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...


If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.


With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling.


Well, one might say everything matters - but to what degree?

The weight factor is easy to quantify. Some here may remember when it
was shown, using some magazine's test data, that the difference in speed
between old steel bikes and new CF bikes during a long climb were
perfectly predicted by the change in weight. The article's claim about
the new frames' stiffness, aero drag or whatever were shot down by their
own data - not that they noticed.

Assuming the gearing is not badly inappropriate, weight is pretty much
all that matters. Tire rolling resistance is a small factor in a climb,
but tires have to be very dead to make as much difference as a couple
pounds. And unless you're climbing in a raging headwind, aero stuff
makes no difference.

The unquantifiable bit is the placebo effect. Athletic performance is
heavily psychological, so I guess if a person _believes_ their red bike
climbs faster, it may actually do so.

So obviously, every pro team should have a regular doctor plus a witch
doctor. ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski
  #170  
Old January 17th 19, 05:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:29:52 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 9:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:01:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/16/2019 4:04 PM, Duane wrote:

For bikes, I might be interested in something based on what friends are
using, especially if they're dumping me up the hills or something...

If your friends are dumping you on the hills, it probably has very
little to do with any bike equipment they have but you don't. It's
almost always just the ratio of power to bike+rider weight.

The only exception that comes to mind is if your bike lacks gears low
enough for a long climb.


With that said, the bike does matter. The question is how much and how long. It may just mean that you're dumped a little closer to the top, or it may mean that you get over the top with everyone. Or it may change nothing.

I ride with the same guys all the time, and the gaps between us change based on bikes, e.g. if some guy is on his rain bike and everyone else is on their fast bike -- or even rain bike versus rain bike. I have a really fast rain bike. It rolls way better than my best pal's rain bike, and I can narrow or close the gap between us on that bike. When we are on our fast bikes, I slaughter myself to keep the gap down, but I never close it. And I have a great fast bike. He's younger and faster, and its always been that way.

I just don't believe the people who say they are just as fast on their Surley moon units as the Pinarello F10. I can feel the difference between 10-15lb pressure added to my front tire on the commuter, but full disclaimer, the 32mm Zaffiro Pros cheap-o tires on my commuter become very sluggish when not pumped up pretty high for a fat-ish tire. It's kind of startling.


Well, one might say everything matters - but to what degree?

The weight factor is easy to quantify. Some here may remember when it
was shown, using some magazine's test data, that the difference in speed
between old steel bikes and new CF bikes during a long climb were
perfectly predicted by the change in weight. The article's claim about
the new frames' stiffness, aero drag or whatever were shot down by their
own data - not that they noticed.

Assuming the gearing is not badly inappropriate, weight is pretty much
all that matters. Tire rolling resistance is a small factor in a climb,
but tires have to be very dead to make as much difference as a couple
pounds. And unless you're climbing in a raging headwind, aero stuff
makes no difference.

The unquantifiable bit is the placebo effect. Athletic performance is
heavily psychological, so I guess if a person _believes_ their red bike
climbs faster, it may actually do so.

So obviously, every pro team should have a regular doctor plus a witch
doctor. ;-)
--
- Frank Krygowski


I remember two MIELE road bicycles I had at the same tie in the mid to late 1980's. One was the BETA with clincher rims and tires and Shimano New 600 groupset. The other was the Equipe Pro with Columbus SL frameset, Dura Ace groupset and tubular rims and tires. That Equipe Pro climbed like a homesick angel compared to the Beta and no, it was not a placebo effect.

Even today I see a noticeable difference in required effort when I ride my bicycle with the tubular tires instead of the usual clincher tires.

Cheers
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tubeless Tires. [email protected] Techniques 0 November 18th 18 10:09 PM
Tubeless Tires [email protected] Techniques 16 August 20th 18 03:57 PM
Tubeless Tires [email protected] Techniques 5 April 12th 17 03:49 AM
tubeless tires steve Techniques 2 March 14th 08 12:18 PM
Tubeless tires MT Techniques 2 March 30th 05 09:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.