Wider tires, All-road bikes

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:48:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 25/1/19 10:05 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:


Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews
Just going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to
feel about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable
to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR.
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster
Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea,
and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go
with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless
of the somewhat slower feel.


I can't be bothered with changing tyres depending on the weather. The
bitumen roads are rough where I live. 90 psi enough in the front 23 mm
tyre otherwise my hands buzz. I go just as fast (or slow) with my back
tyre (25 mm Michelin measures 27 mm) at 80 or 90 psi. In fact it got
down to about 70 psi the other day before I pumped it back up. Didn't
notice any speed difference while I was riding - except the road seemed
slightly less rough.

The same here. I went from 23mm to 25mm and then to 28mm tires and
while the ride certainly was better with the larger tires I couldn't
see any difference in average speed for a ride of say 10 miles (16
km). Although, at my age I'm certainly not the fastest thing on the
block :-)

Currently I'm presently running 28mm tires at 70 psi and other then
the noticeably softer ride I can't see any difference from the 23mm
tires I used to use. (well except I can't fit fenders to one of the
bike now )


Cheers,
John B.

with John B Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:31:58 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

*SKIP*
They are definitely better suited to snow and soft sand. There's also
a versatility factor: You can run 700C road wheels and go for long
road rides or run a set of 4" tires and head off into the dunes. No
matter what you do, they are quite slow - a lightweight version is in
the 12 kilo range, even with light wheels.
*SKIP*
As for slower, a heavy bike should be faster going down the hills,
shouldn't it :-)

Nope, because aerodynamics. On one particular downhill I assume 53kph,
friend of mine goes for 55kph (no power applied, obviously). Me and my
road-bike are havier, but I'm wider and that far I go with big messenger
bag, he's a backpack user.

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On 25/01/2019 00:19, Mark J. wrote:

I've been tempted to buy a cheap fat bike for the novelty; I expect it
would handle like a tank.


I got a cheap adventure (like a cross) bike, 40mm tyre, as a stopgap
when my normal road bike was out of action for a few weeks.

The results were very surprising. The geometries were the same, the tyre
rolling resistance didn't appear to be much different and the extra 4kg
didn't appear to make much difference to my speed.

On the plus size it was a more comfortable to ride, it felt slightly
more solid on the road.

I now ride it all the time in preference to my road bike.

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 12:05:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/24/2019 12:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:


Well, that was what Jobst's tire testing reports presaged.
Lots of data on this, actually, and generally speaking it is
accepted that (all other things about the tires being equal)
the wider tire rolls with fewer losses. A good case in point is
the Continental 4000sII, which comes in three widths and the
widest has the best RR numbers. No doubt there is a point of
diminishing returns and I don't know where that is. I've got
the 4000sII Contis on my bike in 700 x 28 which measures at 31
and they are excellent tires, very pleased with them.

RR is an odd thing because it doesn't necessarily reflect how a
tire rides. Some low RR tires are sluggish and too balloon-tire
like for me.

I don't get it. How would a tire with low rolling resistance be
"sluggish"?

Yes, its counter-intuitive which means I'm correct in today's market.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...res-isnt-easy/
But actually, its usually weight and (maybe) casing related or
testing artifact.

I hated silks because they were squishy to me sprinting or climbing
out of the saddle and yet they had really low measured RR and were
light. I liked stiffer cotton tubulars. Fatter Contis have lower RR,
but the 28mm tires feel balloonish compared to the 23mms.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...0s-ii-23-25-28

Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews Just
going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to feel
about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR. https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea, and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless of the somewhat slower feel.

-- Jay Beattie.

In this month edition of TOUR magazine they tested the new Continental GP5000 tyres 25, 28 mm, clincher and tubeless (TL) smooth and rough asphalt 7 and 5,5 bar. At 35 km/hr an 85 kg:


https://photos.app.goo.gl/CHzQASm7YEqbVc4M7

Lou

On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 6:05:05 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:48:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 25/1/19 10:05 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:


Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews
Just going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to
feel about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable
to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR.
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster
Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea,
and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go
with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless
of the somewhat slower feel.


I can't be bothered with changing tyres depending on the weather. The
bitumen roads are rough where I live. 90 psi enough in the front 23 mm
tyre otherwise my hands buzz. I go just as fast (or slow) with my back
tyre (25 mm Michelin measures 27 mm) at 80 or 90 psi. In fact it got
down to about 70 psi the other day before I pumped it back up. Didn't
notice any speed difference while I was riding - except the road seemed
slightly less rough.

The same here. I went from 23mm to 25mm and then to 28mm tires and
while the ride certainly was better with the larger tires I couldn't
see any difference in average speed for a ride of say 10 miles (16
km). Although, at my age I'm certainly not the fastest thing on the
block :-)

Currently I'm presently running 28mm tires at 70 psi and other then
the noticeably softer ride I can't see any difference from the 23mm
tires I used to use. (well except I can't fit fenders to one of the
bike now )


Cheers,
John B.

The difference in average speed from these changes is only definable in TT terms. If you don't notice your speed decreasing and the ride is better why wouldn't you make the change?

The ride yesterday at the top of one of the climbs we started down the other side. It always seems to me that people are afraid to go fast because I can kick off and accelerate and then coast faster than most of the can pedal.. What other thing could it be aside from lower rolling resistance. They all pass me going up hills.

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 10:33:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 12:05:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/24/2019 12:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:


Well, that was what Jobst's tire testing reports presaged.
Lots of data on this, actually, and generally speaking it is
accepted that (all other things about the tires being equal)
the wider tire rolls with fewer losses. A good case in point is
the Continental 4000sII, which comes in three widths and the
widest has the best RR numbers. No doubt there is a point of
diminishing returns and I don't know where that is. I've got
the 4000sII Contis on my bike in 700 x 28 which measures at 31
and they are excellent tires, very pleased with them.

RR is an odd thing because it doesn't necessarily reflect how a
tire rides. Some low RR tires are sluggish and too balloon-tire
like for me.

I don't get it. How would a tire with low rolling resistance be
"sluggish"?

Yes, its counter-intuitive which means I'm correct in today's market.

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:51:02 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 10:33:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 12:05:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/24/2019 12:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:


Well, that was what Jobst's tire testing reports presaged.
Lots of data on this, actually, and generally speaking it is
accepted that (all other things about the tires being equal)
the wider tire rolls with fewer losses. A good case in point is
the Continental 4000sII, which comes in three widths and the
widest has the best RR numbers. No doubt there is a point of
diminishing returns and I don't know where that is. I've got
the 4000sII Contis on my bike in 700 x 28 which measures at 31
and they are excellent tires, very pleased with them.

RR is an odd thing because it doesn't necessarily reflect how a
tire rides. Some low RR tires are sluggish and too balloon-tire
like for me.

I don't get it. How would a tire with low rolling resistance be
"sluggish"?

Yes, its counter-intuitive which means I'm correct in today's market.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...res-isnt-easy/
But actually, its usually weight and (maybe) casing related or
testing artifact.

I hated silks because they were squishy to me sprinting or climbing
out of the saddle and yet they had really low measured RR and were
light. I liked stiffer cotton tubulars. Fatter Contis have lower RR,
but the 28mm tires feel balloonish compared to the 23mms.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...0s-ii-23-25-28

Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews Just
going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to feel
about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR. https://www.cyclist..co.uk/in-depth/...-really-faster Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea, and the princess could feel it.. It was not a placebo pea. I do go with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless of the somewhat slower feel.

-- Jay Beattie.

In this month edition of TOUR magazine they tested the new Continental GP5000 tyres 25, 28 mm, clincher and tubeless (TL) smooth and rough asphalt 7 and 5,5 bar. At 35 km/hr an 85 kg:


https://photos.app.goo.gl/CHzQASm7YEqbVc4M7

Lou

Lou, can you give us the gist of that? I don't read German (well, not much) and the magazine article can't be copied and shoved through a translator..

It appears that there is a typo with the initial 7 bar reading not for a 25 but rather a 28. And it also appears that the rolling resistance was tested on a smooth surface.

There is a typo. The 5.5 bar reading for the TL version (tubeless) was for a 28 mm wide tyre. For each tyre there was a measurement on rough surface (rau, top bar)) and on a smooth surface (glatt, bottom bar). They tested at a speed of 35 km/hr at a total weight of 85 kg.

Translated summary (fazit) ahum:

'among the top allround tires the Conti GP5000 regained the top position. Despite their solid construction and best puncture resistance they have an incredible low RR and very good traction. The performance jump has its price though. The price for the foldable clincher is euro 62.90 and for the tubeless version euro 74.90 a piece.'

I just ordered a set 25 mm for euro 45.75 a piece at my preferred online supplier for my Canyon Aeroad replacing the Conti GP4000 S II 25 mm which lasted more than 4500 km. For the last 5-10 years you can't go wrong with Continental GP 4000S, GP 4000S II and I expect the same from these GP 5000. We will see the coming season.


Lou

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 12:23:48 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:51:02 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 10:33:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 12:05:42 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 10:37:54 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/24/2019 12:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara
wrote:


Well, that was what Jobst's tire testing reports presaged.
Lots of data on this, actually, and generally speaking it is
accepted that (all other things about the tires being equal)
the wider tire rolls with fewer losses. A good case in point is
the Continental 4000sII, which comes in three widths and the
widest has the best RR numbers. No doubt there is a point of
diminishing returns and I don't know where that is. I've got
the 4000sII Contis on my bike in 700 x 28 which measures at 31
and they are excellent tires, very pleased with them.

RR is an odd thing because it doesn't necessarily reflect how a
tire rides. Some low RR tires are sluggish and too balloon-tire
like for me.

I don't get it. How would a tire with low rolling resistance be
"sluggish"?

Yes, its counter-intuitive which means I'm correct in today's market.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...res-isnt-easy/
But actually, its usually weight and (maybe) casing related or
testing artifact.

I hated silks because they were squishy to me sprinting or climbing
out of the saddle and yet they had really low measured RR and were
light. I liked stiffer cotton tubulars. Fatter Contis have lower RR,
but the 28mm tires feel balloonish compared to the 23mms.
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...0s-ii-23-25-28

Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews Just
going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to feel
about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR. https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea, and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless of the somewhat slower feel.

-- Jay Beattie.

In this month edition of TOUR magazine they tested the new Continental GP5000 tyres 25, 28 mm, clincher and tubeless (TL) smooth and rough asphalt 7 and 5,5 bar. At 35 km/hr an 85 kg:


https://photos.app.goo.gl/CHzQASm7YEqbVc4M7

Lou

Lou, can you give us the gist of that? I don't read German (well, not much) and the magazine article can't be copied and shoved through a translator.

It appears that there is a typo with the initial 7 bar reading not for a 25 but rather a 28. And it also appears that the rolling resistance was tested on a smooth surface.

There is a typo. The 5.5 bar reading for the TL version (tubeless) was for a 28 mm wide tyre. For each tyre there was a measurement on rough surface (rau, top bar)) and on a smooth surface (glatt, bottom bar). They tested at a speed of 35 km/hr at a total weight of 85 kg.

Translated summary (fazit) ahum:

'among the top allround tires the Conti GP5000 regained the top position. Despite their solid construction and best puncture resistance they have an incredible low RR and very good traction. The performance jump has its price though. The price for the foldable clincher is euro 62.90 and for the tubeless version euro 74.90 a piece.'

I just ordered a set 25 mm for euro 45.75 a piece at my preferred online supplier for my Canyon Aeroad replacing the Conti GP4000 S II 25 mm which lasted more than 4500 km. For the last 5-10 years you can't go wrong with Continental GP 4000S, GP 4000S II and I expect the same from these GP 5000. We will see the coming season.


Lou

Well, 5.5 watts isn't much but remember that most of the people here would have trouble maintaining 200 watts so an almost three percent improvement while not the sort of thing you could feel would make a difference in the way you feel after a long ride.

Yesterday's ride had everyone beat me to the top of the 5 mile climb by a minute for the fast guys and 20 seconds for the slower. On the downhill I was the second from last to leave. I closed right up on the first guy. He has a titanium bike with Di2 shifting. I was doing 6 mph faster than he was! I slowed and dropped in behind him and the 40 year old passed us. I chased the young guy an while there was even a slight incline I was closing but as soon as the road tipped slightly up he was off. We then rode 12 miles. Everyone seemed to be getting tired at the same rate but my tired made me proportionally slower than theirs. I did see them turn into the cafe and I was less than 300 yards behind them. I turned the opposite way and did another 5 miles before pulling into the café.

On 1/25/2019 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 6:05:05 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:48:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 25/1/19 10:05 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:


Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews
Just going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to
feel about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable
to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR.
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster
Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea,
and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go
with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless
of the somewhat slower feel.


I can't be bothered with changing tyres depending on the weather. The
bitumen roads are rough where I live. 90 psi enough in the front 23 mm
tyre otherwise my hands buzz. I go just as fast (or slow) with my back
tyre (25 mm Michelin measures 27 mm) at 80 or 90 psi. In fact it got
down to about 70 psi the other day before I pumped it back up. Didn't
notice any speed difference while I was riding - except the road seemed
slightly less rough.

The same here. I went from 23mm to 25mm and then to 28mm tires and
while the ride certainly was better with the larger tires I couldn't
see any difference in average speed for a ride of say 10 miles (16
km). Although, at my age I'm certainly not the fastest thing on the
block :-)

Currently I'm presently running 28mm tires at 70 psi and other then
the noticeably softer ride I can't see any difference from the 23mm
tires I used to use. (well except I can't fit fenders to one of the
bike now )


Cheers,
John B.

The difference in average speed from these changes is only definable in TT terms. If you don't notice your speed decreasing and the ride is better why wouldn't you make the change?

The ride yesterday at the top of one of the climbs we started down the other side. It always seems to me that people are afraid to go fast because I can kick off and accelerate and then coast faster than most of the can pedal. What other thing could it be aside from lower rolling resistance. They all pass me going up hills.

Well, the ratio of weight to aerodynamic drag is a big answer to "what
else could it be." Those two factors are generally more important than
rolling resistance - not that rolling resistance doesn't matter.

Our club used to have a member whose nickname was "Downhill." He was
unbeatable at coasting. Nice guy. Waist size was about 50".

Notice, I'm not saying Tom is fat. I'm just explaining the main factors
in downhill speed.

In addition, I believe that downhill speed increases if the rider
suspends part of his weight on bent legs, instead of putting all his
weight on the saddle. Kinetic energy is lost by jostling the squishy
human body. With your body suspended, an upward jolt results in less
energy loss.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 5:28:11 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2019 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 6:05:05 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:48:28 +1100, James
wrote:

On 25/1/19 10:05 am, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:05:11 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 25/1/19 6:51 am, jbeattie wrote:


Some tires have pretty low RRs, but are heavy, which you can feel
climbing. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews
Just going by a drum test doesn't tell you everything there is to
feel about a tire. This is not entirely imagined.


That pea under your mattress must be real uncomfortable.

The sluggishness of a 28mm versus 25mm Conti Grand Prix is noticeable
to me and yet the fatter tire has a claimed lower RR.
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/7...-really-faster
Maybe it is princess and pea, but even in the fable, there was a pea,
and the princess could feel it. It was not a placebo pea. I do go
with the fatter tire in wet weather (and different model), regardless
of the somewhat slower feel.


I can't be bothered with changing tyres depending on the weather. The
bitumen roads are rough where I live. 90 psi enough in the front 23 mm
tyre otherwise my hands buzz. I go just as fast (or slow) with my back
tyre (25 mm Michelin measures 27 mm) at 80 or 90 psi. In fact it got
down to about 70 psi the other day before I pumped it back up. Didn't
notice any speed difference while I was riding - except the road seemed
slightly less rough.

The same here. I went from 23mm to 25mm and then to 28mm tires and
while the ride certainly was better with the larger tires I couldn't
see any difference in average speed for a ride of say 10 miles (16
km). Although, at my age I'm certainly not the fastest thing on the
block :-)

Currently I'm presently running 28mm tires at 70 psi and other then
the noticeably softer ride I can't see any difference from the 23mm
tires I used to use. (well except I can't fit fenders to one of the
bike now )


Cheers,
John B.

The difference in average speed from these changes is only definable in TT terms. If you don't notice your speed decreasing and the ride is better why wouldn't you make the change?

The ride yesterday at the top of one of the climbs we started down the other side. It always seems to me that people are afraid to go fast because I can kick off and accelerate and then coast faster than most of the can pedal. What other thing could it be aside from lower rolling resistance. They all pass me going up hills.

Well, the ratio of weight to aerodynamic drag is a big answer to "what
else could it be." Those two factors are generally more important than
rolling resistance - not that rolling resistance doesn't matter.

Our club used to have a member whose nickname was "Downhill." He was
unbeatable at coasting. Nice guy. Waist size was about 50".

Notice, I'm not saying Tom is fat. I'm just explaining the main factors
in downhill speed.

In addition, I believe that downhill speed increases if the rider
suspends part of his weight on bent legs, instead of putting all his
weight on the saddle. Kinetic energy is lost by jostling the squishy
human body. With your body suspended, an upward jolt results in less
energy loss.

I understand the physics, but I've ridden with some little guys who can rip downhills -- even straight sections. Speed through corners can be calculated based on rider age, minus number of prior crashes, divided by car traffic volume over insurance deductible times the inverse of satisfaction with life. Something like that. It's a complicated equation.

-- Jay Beattie.