O.K. here's the dope: Rolling Resistance and Tire Pressure.

  1. george

    offline
    Member

    Me thinks some folks have a false belief that higher pressure equals faster speeds.

    http://velochimp.com/2006/11/rolling-resistance/
    Quote:
    Some test conclusions will be particularly enlightening if you’re riding on narrow, high-pressure clinchers seeking more speed via lower rolling resistance. Your skinny tires may not be as fast as you think.

    For the full eight-page report on tire performance, order the Vol. 5 No. 1 issue from http://www.bicyclequarterly.com. The test included nine 700C tires, seven 650B tires and two tubulars. The protocol and results were reviewed by industry experts. These are eight findings:

    —With roughly the same power output, the rider’s speed can vary by as much as 20% depending on tire choice. For example, the rider on the fastest tire [in this roll-down test] moved down the road at approximately 16.4 mph (26.2 kph) while the same rider on the slowest tire went approximately 13.6 mph (21.7 kph).

    —Many longtime riders believe tires with a cotton casing are faster than modern casings made from nylon. Testing seems to confirm this. The best-performing tire in the test, the Deda Tre Giro d’Italia 700x23C (actual width 24.5 mm), has a cotton casing.

    —Tire pressure has only a small effect on the rolling resistance of most tires. Narrow 23-mm tires seem to roll fastest at pressures of 105 psi (7.2 bar) or more. However, running these tires at 85 psi (5.8 bar) for improved comfort increased the test times only 2%. Wider 28-mm tires are as fast at 85 psi as they are at higher pressures.

    —Tubular tires perform worse at very high pressure. At 130 psi (9 bar), the narrow Clement Criterium rolled slower than it did at a more comfortable 105 psi. The wider Clement Campione del Mundo rolled slightly faster at 85 psi than at 105 psi.

    —Wide tires do not roll slower at lower pressures. In fact, testing indicated that a wide tire at lower pressures rolls faster than a narrow tire at high pressures, if all other factors remain the same. Even narrow tires can be ridden at comfortable pressures with only very small concessions to performance.

    —Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin’s relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Thinner latex tubes, like used in tubular tires, may offer better performance, but when used in clinchers they are more prone to punctures caused by friction between tire and tube. Latex tubes do improve comfort.

    —Perhaps the most important result of the test is that tire pressure does not significantly affect rolling resistance. Wide tires in particular do not need high pressures to roll fast. But because many current wide tires are designed to handle high pressure, they have strong casings that lack suppleness. This results in higher rolling resistance than necessary.

    —The test’s findings point to a new direction for performance bicycles. For most cyclists, wide, supple tires at low pressures offer more speed, better comfort, increased versatility and improved safety than today’s narrow high-pressure tires. However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available. Hopefully, these test results will help persuade manufacturers to produce them.

    Since this article was written new rims and tires are available to be comfortable at speeds.

    Posted 3 months ago
  2. KidWok

    offline
    Member

    Definitely supports the unscientific observations I've had since switching to 25-28's the last few years. With 25's I NEVER felt slower. I run 90 psi in the front and 100 in the rear. On longer rides, I definitely notice feeling much fresher at the end of the ride than I used to riding 23's, especially after riding on chip seal all day. After rolling on 25's for a couple of years, I didn't hesitate to go up to 28's. It does feel a bit slower, but the extra comfort is so worthwhile. Since I'm usually leading training rides for slower riders, I don't need the speed anyway.

    Tai

    Posted 3 months ago
  3. Honus

    offline
    Member

    Bob,
    That's an interesting article, one of several with similar conclusions that I've run across over the years. But it ended with a statement that, thankfully is no longer true - "However, this type of wide, fast tire currently is not available.", as you pointed out at the end of the post.

    Lot's of really cool stuff out there in the wider profiles, nowadays. Since graduating to the world of 38-40 mm tires I've discovered a whole new world. But the really cool stuff is happening in the 650B size. What's not to like about this gem?

    Lots more like it here ...

    http://www.compasscycle.com/tires.html

    If I weren't so cheap I'd ditch the 700 c wheels and get me some of these tires!

    I ride alone in bad company ...
    Posted 3 months ago
  4. JS

    offline
    Member

    Wide is good to a point. Aero becomes an issue the wider you for at higher speeds.

    For all the good they've done me, I might as well have stuck them up my arse. - Mark Renton
    Posted 3 months ago
  5. thinline

    offline
    Member

    I definitely use less pressure since switching from 23s to 25s

    Posted 3 months ago
  6. Orange Crush

    offline
    Member

    I am still waiting for word that 1.9" tires are optimal before taking the MTB back out on the road.

    The wise man said follow me...and he walked behind.
    Posted 3 months ago
  7. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    JS raises a salient point not addressed in the points above - aerodynamics. IIRC, gains in aerodynamics typically offset gains in Crr for a wider tire. Now, those again can be offset by comfort, but that is a qualitative decision and cannot be measured. Very personal.

    Just say "NO!!" to WCP!

    "Want to get faster? Work harder, eat better, cut the crap. Instead of talking the talk, work the work"
    Posted 3 months ago
  8. 79pmooney

    offline
    Member

    JS, "the wider you" you talk about affects climbing too. But I'm not sure I follow how tire selection matters! :)

    Ben

    Posted 3 months ago
  9. nightfend

    offline
    Member

    Not only that, but when Velo did their rolling resistance test, they found that 24mm was the sweetspot. Below 24 and above 24mm the rolling resistance increased.

    Posted 3 months ago
  10. PT

    offline
    Member

    At least for me, aerodynamics is immaterial with the widths talked about here. For all practical purposes I live in a wind tunnel (Wyoming) and tire size is the least of my worries -- a flat back and tucked in knees while pedaling mean far more. I know there's a Zipp test out there showing narrower is "better", and others have data like that too. Jan Heine has done some wind tunnel testing too -- his data isn't in the link but it's summarized below. The comments and response to comments following the blog are of interest too.

    From:

    http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/the-downsides-of-wide-tires/

    "Jan Heine, Editor, Bicycle Quarterly says:
    February 6, 2012 at 8:42 am
    We tried to quantify the aerodynamic disadvantage of wider tires when we tested various equipment choices in the wind tunnel. At 20 and 25 mph, the difference between a 25 mm and a 31 mm tire with similar tread profile was too small to measure. While this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a difference, it clearly is small compared to many other factors (stem height, clothing, etc.) that were easy to measure.

    We tested with the rider on board. Studies without the rider pedaling may have less noise, but they also don’t produce meaningful results, because the pedaling rider affects the airflow around the bike and its wheels."

    Posted 3 months ago
  11. george

    offline
    Member

    Thanks PT I just returned from the movies and meant to post Heine's "The downside of wide tires", earlier.

    BTW, "Stand Up Guys", Al Pacino,Christopher Walken
    and Alan Arkin, it was a riot.

    Posted 3 months ago
  12. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    a flat back and tucked in knees while pedaling mean far more

    Mutually exclusive concepts. You don't need to choose one of the other, and no one is suggesting that a narrow tire is of more aero gain than a flat back or tucked in knees. Even better, you can do both - have a good position and make smart tire choices.

    The other side of this is also how the tire mates with the rim shape. If they were just using box rims, then I am sure there was little aero advantage to a narrow tire over a wider tire. The whole system kinda sucks aerodynamically.

    Stick a 28mm tire on an aero wheel and then compare it to a 23 or 21mm tire and you'll see a clear advantage to a narrower tire.

    Posted 3 months ago
  13. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    I think they are different aspects of aerodynamic efficiency, but I would not call them mutually exclusive since they are both part of the aerodynamic package. The bike and the rider.

    To me mutually exclusive would be Crr/rolling resistance and tire width/aerodynamics.

    It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
    Posted 3 months ago
  14. george

    offline
    Member

    All things being equal aero counts for something but since we're are all not equal in ability and strength in means nada for us. IMHO
    Unless of course you are entered in The Race Across America then aero has
    a voice.

    Posted 3 months ago
  15. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Keith, they are mutually exclusive because you do not sacrifice one for the other. You can do both.

    Although the data varies by tire, there is some indication that there is a trade-off between Crr and aerodynamics in tires. Up to a point (and that point is not 100% conclusive nor constant), a wider tire has lower Crr but it comes with an aero penalty (especially when matched with an aero wheel). Again, most data suggests that the decrease in Crr is not worth the aero penalty at some point.

    @ bob - aero always has a voice, it is just a question of what your objectives are. If you primary purpose is fitness and enjoyment, then you don't worry about it too much. If your objective is performance, it carries a lot more weight. For my training needs, I couldn't care less about Crr or aerodynamics. I am chasing watts, not speed. If I can achieve my wattage goals, then my speed is irrelevant for the day. In fact, I like a higher Crr and non-aero wheel for training so that when I get on my race wheels, I get a psychological boost because those same watts are much faster. But come race day, it is all about performance and I make the smartest choices I can, blending multiple variables (budget, aero, comfort, I weight, etc).

    Posted 3 months ago
  16. Orange Crush

    offline
    Member

    "Keith, they are mutually exclusive because you do not sacrifice one for the other. You can do both."

    Without going to Webster's and pardon me cause I only have a TOEFL grasp of the english language but wouldn't the proper word be "complementary" instead of "mutually exclusive"? Or you could say, they are NOT mutually exclusive.

    Posted 3 months ago
  17. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    What OC said.

    Posted 3 months ago
  18. george

    offline
    Member

    CK @ bob - aero always has a voice, it is just a question of what your objectives are. If you primary purpose is fitness and enjoyment, then you don't worry about it too much. If your objective is performance, it carries a lot more weight. For my training needs, I couldn't care less about Crr or aerodynamics. I am chasing watts, not speed. If I can achieve my wattage goals, then my speed is irrelevant for the day. In fact, I like a higher Crr and non-aero wheel for training so that when I get on my race wheels, I get a psychological boost because those same watts are much faster. But come race day, it is all about performance and I make the smartest choices I can, blending multiple variables (budget, aero, comfort, I weight, etc).

    CK,that is what I said but in much fewer words. :^)

    Posted 3 months ago
  19. PT

    offline
    Member

    @CK - "Keith, they are NOT mutually exclusive because you do not sacrifice one for the other. You can do both."

    There, fixed it for you.

    For future reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive_events

    @bobswire -- +1

    Posted 3 months ago
  20. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    I'll go even further and say that I have never finished a competitive event and thought to myself, "if I had more aero/lighter equipment, I would have performed better."

    Posted 3 months ago
  21. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    Keith, I've said this before but....just because you haven't thought it doesn't mean it wasn't true. ;-)

    Grammar aside, the point remains - you don't have to choose between the two at the expense of the other. You can do both. That is not necessarily the case w/ Crr and aero.

    Posted 3 months ago
  22. Orange Crush

    offline
    Member

    "if I had more aero/lighter equipment, I would have performed better."

    At the extreme end you can insert that pic of me tackling the MtBaker hillclimb race on an MTB here. I am sure I would have done a little better on a road bike; arriving fresher out of the rollers before the base of the main climb trying to stay with fast guys (that's why my eyes are so glazed in that pic).

    Equipment choices do matter, even the small ones. But most of the time in these situations I simply kick myself for poor performance (and rightfully so).

    I have yet to put in a Whistler GF ride that I am happy with.

    Incidently I've yet to crack my Baker hillclimb time set with that MTB. This year :-)

    Posted 3 months ago
  23. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    Sure CK. I have no doubt that had I been on a top of the line bike with carbon tubulars I would not have been dropped the last time up the main climb in Harriman that time...but I would never think nor utter such words. Just not how I think about the sport.

    Like the tire thing...all this Crr stuff and aerodynamics. Whatever. Probikekit has Schwalbe Lugano on sale for $15. Brought 'em. Don't really care what the Crr is.

    Bike racing is such a simple sport. At least it used to be. I miss that.

    Posted 3 months ago
  24. Cosmic Kid

    offline
    Member

    But that is what I said above....equipment decisions in regards to performance beyond a number of factors, price being a major one. Bt the data is undeniable....these things do make a difference.

    I'm not saying that any particular piece if equipment is gone change your results. What I AM saying is that when it comes to making equipment choices, make smart ones. Don't race on GatorSkins, because they are freakin' dogs in regards to Crr....to the point where it is significant. Bt i don't think worrying aut Crr diferences between top line tires is worth the time or effort. Get good tires. use latex tubes. easy. If you are looking to buy new wheels, favor aero over weight. Dn't sweat if the HED 6 is faster than the Zipp 404. Both will be faster than any Open Pro rim. Considering a new frame? At least investigate an aero road frame. Is it worth worrying about which frame is more aero, a Cervelo S5 or a Specialized Venge? Not in my opinion....but it is worth knowing that either of those frames are gonna save you a lot of watts over a regular round tube frame.

    Most recent example - BMC just released data that shows their aero road frame saves 28w @ 40kph over their regular road frames. 28w!!!! That is HUGE.

    Posted 3 months ago

Reply »

You must log in to post.