Wider tires, All-road bikes

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 8:17:00 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
All that stuff is in my jersey pocket. I will ride 100 miles with my
reduced wallet, a couple Cliff bars, two GUs, my iPhone and that's it.
If I need more, I stop. I can even put my rain jacket or vest in a
jersey pocket.

Ach, I hate stuffed jersey pockets. My favorite jersey has no pockets
at all, much more comfortable. Often I wear a T-shirt instead of a bike
jersey at all. Works fine, haven't died yet. And I like wool jerseys
(Minnesota is wool weather about 8 months a year).

But mostly "special" bike clothing is unnecessary if one has a small bag
on the bike to put that stuff it. Or pants/shorts with pockets.

Handlebar bags add mass to steering, they rattle, etc., etc. Maybe I'd
use one on a tour (even though I typically used low riders), but for a
one-bottle ride? And if they were so good, why did they disappear only
to become epidemic in the last year or so.

They're not epidemic here and most of the bar bags I see are fixed to
the handlebars with something like a KlikFix or whatever it's called,
usually on a flat bar'd uprght "comfort bike." There are few small rack
mounted front bags locally- just mine, usually: a GB Mini 86 and a GB
Alex Singer bag. They're handy but small enough that it's hard to
weight them down enough to affect the steering. Jan Heine seems to like
trunk bags on the front of his bike, but he does live in Seattle and
ride a lo in the mountains so probably carries various clothing options
for the different microclimates he encounters.

This is like some weird fashion wave -- in leather and cotton. Cotton?
Really? (yes, I know it "swells" and becomes magically waterproof and
thus all the cotton rain jackets in the world).

The cotton and leather thing comes from the Brits, and they know from
rain. My Carradice Nelson Longflap saddlebag has been on one bike or
another for nearly 20 years. Never had anything get wet in it. And I
even have a rain cape that I use sometimes- a great item but it is
certainly attention getting as I look like a yellow tent on wheels.

The superiority of leather and treated cotton duck as wet-weather fabrics is borne out by their dominance of the market -- in 1932. Anything from plant or animal on my bike rots or grows fur during the long wet season, which is basically all the seasons except one in PDX.

And a rain cape? I tried one for a day and dumped it because I didn't like being the human spinnaker. Showers Pass. It's the best -- made in Portland via Asia somewhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIzz9VBdKCU Flapping rain gear drives me crazy particularly since it is the rare day when I ride in the rain and there isn't some wind. My favorite weekend light-rain gear for fast riding is my Gabba jacket that fits like a jersey, but it can't handle a downpour. For fast riding in actual downpours, I love my Showers Pass race jacket, which is now their Spring Classic. Great venting and not too warm.


I don't care what tires a person uses either, but when you claim that
fat tires roll better and are faster than lighter, narrower tires
(with their "placebo" effect (his words)), you're riding on thin ice.

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 prefer my 25mm ProRace to the 28mm 4Seasons but the latter have better wet traction and are a good choice for my fast rain bike. The el-cheapo 32mm Zaffiros on my commuter are like two (or three or four) different tires depending on inflation pressure. Ten PSI difference turns them into slugs or rocks. Pumping them to max pressure makes them a lot more peppy, but rough riding. BTW, Jan can get his Compass tires into reasonable RRs, but according to the experts, by using light and not terribly durable components. https://www..bicyclerollingresistanc...-jon-pass-2018


That said, you can see my comments about my own pair of Compass tires in
another post. They're not all that and a bag of chips, in summation,
and I probably won't buy them again (in the 26 x 1.8" size, anyway)
versus the Panaracer Pasela 1.75s they replaced. At nearly 3x the cost,
the value proposition is not convincing.

If that were true, the entire pro peleton would by riding 45mm tires.

Well, they are riding wider tires than before. 25mm is standard now and
some ride wider.

I think Heine found a niche and is working it as hard as he can.

Of course he is. He has a living to make, a business to run and
unfortunately his magazine, which I used to enjoy, has become too much
of a marketing tool for my taste (for example, on test bikes he usually
replaces some of the components with his own products). He wears his
biases on his sleeve. But he also focuses very closely on the kinds of
bikes he likes and their suitability for the kind of riding he likes to
do. And he now owns the Rene Herse brand outright, so his former line
of Compass products will be folded into that over time.

Yes, so you can buy an oldified re-branded Sugino triple crank for $515.


That said, a lot of Jan's ideas are worth considering rather than
dismissing out of hand just because he looks like a retrogrouch. I have
a bike built in the Alex Singer mold and it is superb- performs as well
as any of the bikes I had in my racing days and noticeably better than
my old Bianchi Reparto Corsas, on par with my Ritchey.

But then my tastes in bikes has been strongly influenced by the era in
which I grew up (late 60s-70s) and by the Guinness Bicycle Book by Jean
Durry and Jock Wadley (counterbalanced by Frank Patterson, so not
exactly modern, eh?).

Same here, but I lusted after Italian bikes and ultimately bought innumerable custom bikes from a builder in San Jose who was also a close friend. I did a lot of the grunt work myself, for better or worse (mis-cut tube on one frame). My last steel racing frame was basically a knock-off Masi. I had custom steel touring bikes, too, including the bike I used on my transcon and other long tours -- with Campy NR group, including a triple with a low, low gear of 36/28. BTW, standard reach NR brakes were more than adequate for stopping a fully loaded touring bike, and I liked them infinitely more than the cantis that went on the frame later. The Rally derailleur was a total mistake, and I went back to a Cyclone.


Next thing will be the superiority of toe clips and straps and nail-on
cleats with free-range cow leather soles.

Nah, he prefers clipless. With leather shoes, though. :-)

I rode and raced on 19mm SuperComp HDs, and they were fine.

Careful, man. You're a step from "in my day... uphill both ways into
the wind... damn whippersnappers get off my lawn." ;-) I already live
there and it's too crowded.

I'm actually swinging the other way -- getting tired of the recycled retro chic. Hey, I wore a wool jersey this morning, but its not like some point of pride. It just works well as a mid-layer on a rare dry day. I usually wear poly when its really cold, and I never wear wool as an out-layer when it rains, nor do I wear cotton duck.

Following the herd comes in many forms here in Portlandia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr6wY9ifYmE Most of my clothing and equipment choices (apart from those foisted upon me as OE on complete bikes) are based on 40-50 years of trial and error and not fashion. Even my team gear is from teams I rode on or that my son rode on (I can claim team mascot status for those jerseys).

-- Jay Beattie.

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"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

-- Jay Beattie.

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.

--
JS

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

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 6:27:30 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:50:47 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:07:50 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot

I'm beginning to see bikes over here with what appear to be 4 inch, or
maybe larger, tires. They look much like a hard tail MTB but with much
wider forks.

Fatbikes have been out for a while now. The only thing that irritates me about them is that they bitch about 'skinny' MTBs riding on "their" trails and leaving ruts - ignoring the fact that the trails they ride are usually multi-use, and get beat to **** by walkers, snowshoes, xc skis, and horses. I call them "fatbike fashionistas".


As I don't ride "in the bush" I only see the so called "fat bikes" on
the road, but they certainly look cumbersome.


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.

I had assumed that due to the much wider tires that the hubs would be
much wider also and that a conventional bike wheel wouldn't fit.

As for slower, a heavy bike should be faster going down the hills,
shouldn't it :-)


Cheers,
John B.

On 1/24/2019 2:51 PM, 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.

I think there's a problem with the definition of rolling resistance, as
I've said before. Jobst argued with me, saying it is (almost by
definition) precisely the property that's measured by a rolling drum
test. But I agree with Jan Heine that to be practical, you must somehow
include - or otherwise measure and account for - the effect of
suspension losses on the entire system, including the rider's body.

The fastest tire in a smooth drum test would be a "tire" made of steel,
as on ancient wagon wheels. It would have almost zero deflection, and
very low hysteresis. If you restricted the choices to historic bicycle
tires, the solid rubber tires of the 1880s would beat all the
new-fangled "pneumatics" in a smooth drum test.

I suppose with the diamond plate drum shown in those test photos, the
winners wouldn't be as obvious; but still, I think those test results
don't mimic the real world. And it seems silly to measure the
performance of pneumatic tires while ignoring the properties that caused
cyclists to universally adopt pneumatic tires in the first place.

As to the weight you can feel climbing, well, we've been there before.
That effect is very easy to calculate, since it's just the percent
difference in total bike+rider weight; and we've calculated that here
before with good results. It's the placebo effect that's really hard to
measure.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

On 1/24/2019 2:49 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:31:58 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 6:27:30 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:50:47 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:07:50 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot

I'm beginning to see bikes over here with what appear to be 4 inch, or
maybe larger, tires. They look much like a hard tail MTB but with much
wider forks.

Fatbikes have been out for a while now. The only thing that irritates me about them is that they bitch about 'skinny' MTBs riding on "their" trails and leaving ruts - ignoring the fact that the trails they ride are usually multi-use, and get beat to **** by walkers, snowshoes, xc skis, and horses. I call them "fatbike fashionistas".


As I don't ride "in the bush" I only see the so called "fat bikes" on
the road, but they certainly look cumbersome.


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.

I had assumed that due to the much wider tires that the hubs would be
much wider also and that a conventional bike wheel wouldn't fit.

I believe that /is/ the case with the "Fat" bikes for which I've seen
the specs. E.g. Trek's "Farley 7" lists the front hub as 150x15 and the
rear as 197x12. I interpret those to mean the front is 150mm lock nut
to lock nut, with a 15mm through-axle, and the back is 197mm o.l.n.

As for slower, a heavy bike should be faster going down the hills,
shouldn't it :-)

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

Mark J.

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.

--
JS

On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 4:48:35 PM UTC-8, 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.

--
JS

I'm using Michelin 25's. At 100 psi they jump around a whole lot. At 90 they are fine. At 80 I can't tell the difference with feel but in the group today downhill at 90 I was far faster than everyone else except the 40 year old and he pedals hard while I'm nearly coasting.