Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I notice that effect a lot on the fat bike. LOTS of wheel weight there! When you hit a climb with momentum on your side, you can feel that rotating mass throwing you up the hill. It feels similar to the way a fixed gear seems to push you along as you pedal it... Steve On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On 01/03/2014 01:02 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. And the additional weight will act as a flywheel, and help keep the rotation more nearly constant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Clearly the ironclad scientific conclusion is that that all of you have the slowest possible wheels. If you increase the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because the extra momentum will push you along. If you decrease the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because lighter wheels spin up faster. You (all of you all and me) climb slowly because your wheels have you in a local minimum. Do something about that! We should get into marketing, maybe for Specialized. ;-) On Friday, January 10, 2014 6:11:32 AM UTC-8, stevef wrote: I notice that effect a lot on the fat bike. LOTS of wheel weight there! When you hit a climb with momentum on your side, you can feel that rotating mass throwing you up the hill. It feels similar to the way a fixed gear seems to push you along as you pedal it... Steve On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Palincsar pali...@his.comjavascript: wrote: On 01/03/2014 01:02 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. And the additional weight will act as a flywheel, and help keep the rotation more nearly constant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
If I increase the weight in my head with more rocks will I comprehend this conversation any faster? It's spinning, so pretty sure the same forces are involved. Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Friday, January 10, 2014 2:14:00 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: Clearly the ironclad scientific conclusion is that that all of you have the slowest possible wheels. If you increase the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because the extra momentum will push you along. If you decrease the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because lighter wheels spin up faster. You (all of you all and me) climb slowly because your wheels have you in a local minimum. Do something about that! We should get into marketing, maybe for Specialized. ;-) On Friday, January 10, 2014 6:11:32 AM UTC-8, stevef wrote: I notice that effect a lot on the fat bike. LOTS of wheel weight there! When you hit a climb with momentum on your side, you can feel that rotating mass throwing you up the hill. It feels similar to the way a fixed gear seems to push you along as you pedal it... Steve On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Palincsar pali...@his.com wrote: On 01/03/2014 01:02 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. And the additional weight will act as a flywheel, and help keep the rotation more nearly constant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Did you say Specialized My attorneys will be contacting you shortly with a cD letter. Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bill Lindsay tapebu...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly the ironclad scientific conclusion is that that all of you have the slowest possible wheels. If you increase the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because the extra momentum will push you along. If you decrease the weight of your wheels, you will climb faster because lighter wheels spin up faster. You (all of you all and me) climb slowly because your wheels have you in a local minimum. Do something about that! We should get into marketing, maybe for Specialized. ;-) On Friday, January 10, 2014 6:11:32 AM UTC-8, stevef wrote: I notice that effect a lot on the fat bike. LOTS of wheel weight there! When you hit a climb with momentum on your side, you can feel that rotating mass throwing you up the hill. It feels similar to the way a fixed gear seems to push you along as you pedal it... Steve On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Steve Palincsar pali...@his.com wrote: On 01/03/2014 01:02 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. And the additional weight will act as a flywheel, and help keep the rotation more nearly constant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
no one here has been talking about the difference between a 230g and a 250g tire. What we're talking about is the difference between a 200g tire and 500g tire, and it is without question a perceptible difference in acceleration. On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:52:14 AM UTC-6, Tim McNamara wrote: Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they *feel*different, and sometimes I prefer to do it. I *feel* like it. Sometimes I decide to run 700x25, sometimes 700x28 and sometimes 700x35. They feel different and I run what I feel like running. Feeling is a big deal I remember a similar back and forth when a vendor made a crankset in 170 and 175 and refused to offer it in 172.5mm. He emphatically stated that the reason he wouldn't do it was because it is impossible for a rider to feel the difference between 170 and 172.5. A lot of people (including me) got kind of miffed about it. I sure as heck can feel the difference. Could I get used to a 170? Sure. But I've got 6 bikes and they all have 172.5s. I'm not switching cranks on all my bikes, and I don't want to RE-get-used-to the bike every time I ride it. I can feel the difference and I prefer to run 172.5. I doubt there's a measurable performance benefit, but if somebody told me NOT to run 172.5s because it's impossible to feel the difference, I'd inform them that they are wrong. Similarly, I am not telling you, Ron, NOT to run skinny tires. I'm not telling you whether you can feel it or not. I'm not telling you what you should prefer. If I did any of that I'd be a bigger jerk than I already am. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Even though I don't recall specific weights being previously mentioned, it's probably not perceptible. The acceleration of a bicyclist is very low to the extent that such differences are negligible. Do you notice a difference in acceleration when your water bottles are full compared to when they are empty? That difference is 600 gm per 20 oz water bottle, yet I have never heard anyone complain about two full water bottles slowing them down. Think about rims. Most current high end bike rims are significantly heavier than they were 40 years ago in the days of 330 and 280 gm rims and silk tubulars. ~500 gm rims are normal now due to the fad for aero and the cost-cutting of eliminating spoke nipple ferrules (which requires thicker rim walls to stave off failure at the spoke holes, resulting in higher rim weight). No one squawks about how much harder those rims are to accelerate, even though increased mass in the rim is exactly the same as increased mass in the tires. Even pro racers use rims that are heavier than used to be the norm without complaint (mainly due to the beliefs about aero now being more important than the beliefs about weight, post-Greg Lemond's victory over Fignon). Think about us Riv riders whose bikes tend to be well over 20 lbs before accessorizing. We tend to poo-poo the weight penalty compared to 15 lb CFRP bikes as being unimportant. Weight is weight, whether it's on the tires, the frame, in the saddlebag, in the accessories or on our bellies. Indeed, some of the more popular tires in the group have been the Rolly Polys, Ruffy Tuffys and Jack Browns, Schwalble Marathons, etc., even though those tires tend towards higher mass (and higher rolling resistance) due to having thicker rubber tread and being fatter. Fatter tires require more material and will therefore be heavier than similarly constructed skinnier tires, and yet we also believe those heavier tires are just as fast or barely slower on the road because of being wider. Our perceptions of these things is primarily the result of our beliefs rather than physics, not unlike the gap between political beliefs and reality. On Jan 5, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Ron Mc bulldog...@gmail.com wrote: no one here has been talking about the difference between a 230g and a 250g tire. What we're talking about is the difference between a 200g tire and 500g tire, and it is without question a perceptible difference in acceleration. On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:52:14 AM UTC-6, Tim McNamara wrote: Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
my daughter is riding on a new 1400g wheelset, and it made a huge difference in her riding - especially tackling hills - there is no question lighter rims and tires spin up easier On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:14:32 AM UTC-6, Tim McNamara wrote: Even though I don't recall specific weights being previously mentioned, it's probably not perceptible. The acceleration of a bicyclist is very low to the extent that such differences are negligible. Do you notice a difference in acceleration when your water bottles are full compared to when they are empty? That difference is 600 gm per 20 oz water bottle, yet I have never heard anyone complain about two full water bottles slowing them down. Think about rims. Most current high end bike rims are significantly heavier than they were 40 years ago in the days of 330 and 280 gm rims and silk tubulars. ~500 gm rims are normal now due to the fad for aero and the cost-cutting of eliminating spoke nipple ferrules (which requires thicker rim walls to stave off failure at the spoke holes, resulting in higher rim weight). No one squawks about how much harder those rims are to accelerate, even though increased mass in the rim is exactly the same as increased mass in the tires. Even pro racers use rims that are heavier than used to be the norm without complaint (mainly due to the beliefs about aero now being more important than the beliefs about weight, post-Greg Lemond's victory over Fignon). Think about us Riv riders whose bikes tend to be well over 20 lbs before accessorizing. We tend to poo-poo the weight penalty compared to 15 lb CFRP bikes as being unimportant. Weight is weight, whether it's on the tires, the frame, in the saddlebag, in the accessories or on our bellies. Indeed, some of the more popular tires in the group have been the Rolly Polys, Ruffy Tuffys and Jack Browns, Schwalble Marathons, etc., even though those tires tend towards higher mass (and higher rolling resistance) due to having thicker rubber tread and being fatter. Fatter tires require more material and will therefore be heavier than similarly constructed skinnier tires, and yet we also believe those heavier tires are just as fast or barely slower on the road because of being wider. Our perceptions of these things is primarily the result of our beliefs rather than physics, not unlike the gap between political beliefs and reality. On Jan 5, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: no one here has been talking about the difference between a 230g and a 250g tire. What we're talking about is the difference between a 200g tire and 500g tire, and it is without question a perceptible difference in acceleration. On Saturday, January 4, 2014 11:52:14 AM UTC-6, Tim McNamara wrote: Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I don't think that this statement is accurate as stated, or at least it hasn't been proved. Honking* light wheels up a hill feels very different from honking heavy wheels up a hill. I don't know what makes them feel different, and so consistently over a long period, if not something in the wheels. * http://www.perfectcondition.ltd.uk/Articles/honking/Honking.htm (Actually, I wonder if honking really does refer to the same thing as danser ie, sur les pedales. Jan? Honking is grunting, danser is to stand and pedal lightly -- no?) On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: [...] Weight is weight, whether it's on the tires, the frame, in the saddlebag, in the accessories or on our bellies. -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Forgot to add: if you are riding a derailleur bike and wish to honk, it is customary and polite to shift to a higher gear, perhaps even two, before you stand. One must maintain the proprieties. To be perfectly stylish, you then glance behind you at your nearest follower with a look mingled of infinite disdain and pity, then honk away. (I've heard that story about Bartali, and Lance-the-discredited did that to Ulrich. I've had it done to me ...) On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Patrick Moore bertin...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think that this statement is accurate as stated, or at least it hasn't been proved. Honking* light wheels up a hill feels very different from honking heavy wheels up a hill. I don't know what makes them feel different, and so consistently over a long period, if not something in the wheels. * http://www.perfectcondition.ltd.uk/Articles/honking/Honking.htm (Actually, I wonder if honking really does refer to the same thing as danser ie, sur les pedales. Jan? Honking is grunting, danser is to stand and pedal lightly -- no?) On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: [...] Weight is weight, whether it's on the tires, the frame, in the saddlebag, in the accessories or on our bellies. -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
On Jan 5, 2014, at 12:42 PM, ted ted.ke...@comcast.net wrote: Does anybody else remember Jobst asserting back in the early 90s that tubulars were slower than clinchers because of the glue? I think the ... flattening was more pronounced in tubulars than clinchers. that Tim mentions was part of his reasoning. Back in rec.bicycles.tech years ago, Jobst noted the different shape of the curve for tubulars and came to the conclusion that the tubulars were squirming on the glue bed, road tubular glue being somewhat soft to allow the tire to be removed and put back on or replaced without having to put more glue on the rim. Track riders long used shellac to adhere the tubular to the rim, which forms a hard bond with no flex; once the tire is removed (with difficulty) new shellac has to be applied to glue the new tire on the rim; Jobst thought that a hard glue like shellac would eliminate the losses and that tubulars would then show the same curve. I don’t know if that was tested. FWIW, IIRC the Avocet tire tests were done with an asphalt covered drum instead of a smooth steel drum. IIRC Jobst also did slip angle tests by riding on an asphalt covered wood platform, finding that bike tires slip out at a 45 degree angle to the ground. I wonder if there is a difference in the slip angle based on tire width and/or inflation pressure. Racing motorcycles appear at times to get below 45 degrees, although as I am looking at head-on photos of cornering racing motorcycles that may be an illusion of camera angle. I have been reading Jan’s book on Rene Herse, which my wife gave me for Christmas. There is a great photo (one among many) of a tandem (Prestat/Herse, I think) rounding a downhill corner with another immediately behind. While they do not appear to be at the cornering limit, the bike is on the inside of the turn on rough and perhaps gravelly pavement and yet appears quite sure footed- at least the riders don’t look at all alarmed. It appears to have 650B x 42 tires or thereabouts. I have felt that wider, softer tires seem more secure in corners (although consistent with my earlier posts I don’t know if that is actually true versus an assumption) than skinny hard tires. I had a demonstration of this back in my track racing days when I punctured my front wheel (track tubular at 110 psi, maybe 20-21 mm wide) and borrowed a front wheel from another competitor. His wheel had a 700 x 19 or so Continental Grand Prix pumped up to 140 psi or something like that. It felt incredibly unstable, like it was on ball bearings so there was no resistance to the handlebar swinging back and forth, really quite unsettling although it didn’t slip or do anything untoward on the boards. I was glad to give him his wheel back at the end of the night. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
If anyone is interested, a quick google search turns up http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html Racing motorcycle tires (or even street legal sport bike tires) have nearly nothing in common with bicycle tires. Which doesn't mean they cant both provide reduced traction when overinflated. The motorcycle tires get part of their stick from practically melting and bonding to the road as they deposit rubber on the track. Traction tends to increase as tire pressure is reduced until the tire really melts and the ride feels a bit like you'r on a liquid film. An under inflated tire will overhead and can be ruined in very short order (expensive mistake, ouch). Tire pressure and temperature are very big deals for race bikes. I think I recall reading of a bike that had IR temperature sensors on it to get tire temperature data while doing laps. I once saw a real (non DOT legal) front race tire. It had a nearly triangular cross section in the tread area, distinctly not round, though the exact center was kinda circular with a fairly small radius. I guess that was done to make it turn in quicker, but the thought of riding such a thing didn't appeal to me in the least. Since a tandem with riders is on the order of twice the weight of a single, I find it really surprising there isn't more difference between the tires used on tandems and singles. Is a ~40mm tire on a tandem really wide? Surely its not as far from the mainstream as using a ~40mm tire on a single road bike is, is it? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:01:02 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 5, 2014, at 12:42 PM, ted ted@comcast.net javascript: wrote: Does anybody else remember Jobst asserting back in the early 90s that tubulars were slower than clinchers because of the glue? I think the ... flattening was more pronounced in tubulars than clinchers. that Tim mentions was part of his reasoning. Back in rec.bicycles.tech years ago, Jobst noted the different shape of the curve for tubulars and came to the conclusion that the tubulars were squirming on the glue bed, road tubular glue being somewhat soft to allow the tire to be removed and put back on or replaced without having to put more glue on the rim. Track riders long used shellac to adhere the tubular to the rim, which forms a hard bond with no flex; once the tire is removed (with difficulty) new shellac has to be applied to glue the new tire on the rim; Jobst thought that a hard glue like shellac would eliminate the losses and that tubulars would then show the same curve. I don’t know if that was tested. FWIW, IIRC the Avocet tire tests were done with an asphalt covered drum instead of a smooth steel drum. IIRC Jobst also did slip angle tests by riding on an asphalt covered wood platform, finding that bike tires slip out at a 45 degree angle to the ground. I wonder if there is a difference in the slip angle based on tire width and/or inflation pressure. Racing motorcycles appear at times to get below 45 degrees, although as I am looking at head-on photos of cornering racing motorcycles that may be an illusion of camera angle. I have been reading Jan’s book on Rene Herse, which my wife gave me for Christmas. There is a great photo (one among many) of a tandem (Prestat/Herse, I think) rounding a downhill corner with another immediately behind. While they do not appear to be at the cornering limit, the bike is on the inside of the turn on rough and perhaps gravelly pavement and yet appears quite sure footed- at least the riders don’t look at all alarmed. It appears to have 650B x 42 tires or thereabouts. I have felt that wider, softer tires seem more secure in corners (although consistent with my earlier posts I don’t know if that is actually true versus an assumption) than skinny hard tires. I had a demonstration of this back in my track racing days when I punctured my front wheel (track tubular at 110 psi, maybe 20-21 mm wide) and borrowed a front wheel from another competitor. His wheel had a 700 x 19 or so Continental Grand Prix pumped up to 140 psi or something like that. It felt incredibly unstable, like it was on ball bearings so there was no resistance to the handlebar swinging back and forth, really quite unsettling although it didn’t slip or do anything untoward on the boards. I was glad to give him his wheel back at the end of the night. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
Back in the day, tipped off that Tandems East still stocked the old, very narrow, very light, very supple 559X1 (more like 22-23 mm) Specialized Turbo tire, I called to order some, and one of the owners told me that tandem teams, looking for a speed edge, were fond of these. Barely 200 grams and smooth, smooth, smooth once you learned not to pump them to 120 psi (for a single). I still have some. On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, ted ted.ke...@comcast.net wrote: Since a tandem with riders is on the order of twice the weight of a single, I find it really surprising there isn't more difference between the tires used on tandems and singles. Is a ~40mm tire on a tandem really wide? Surely its not as far from the mainstream as using a ~40mm tire on a single road bike is, is it? -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
I've had three 700C tandems, and only my current one will fit a true 40mm tire. I can't understand running a tandem with anything less, but apparently tandem purchasers have succumbed to the same marketing that accompanies single bikes. I would eventually like to get one of the new Co-Motion 29er Javas just so I could run 60mm tires on it (probably Big Apples). Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:52 PM, ted ted.ke...@comcast.net wrote: If anyone is interested, a quick google search turns up http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html Racing motorcycle tires (or even street legal sport bike tires) have nearly nothing in common with bicycle tires. Which doesn't mean they cant both provide reduced traction when overinflated. The motorcycle tires get part of their stick from practically melting and bonding to the road as they deposit rubber on the track. Traction tends to increase as tire pressure is reduced until the tire really melts and the ride feels a bit like you'r on a liquid film. An under inflated tire will overhead and can be ruined in very short order (expensive mistake, ouch). Tire pressure and temperature are very big deals for race bikes. I think I recall reading of a bike that had IR temperature sensors on it to get tire temperature data while doing laps. I once saw a real (non DOT legal) front race tire. It had a nearly triangular cross section in the tread area, distinctly not round, though the exact center was kinda circular with a fairly small radius. I guess that was done to make it turn in quicker, but the thought of riding such a thing didn't appeal to me in the least. Since a tandem with riders is on the order of twice the weight of a single, I find it really surprising there isn't more difference between the tires used on tandems and singles. Is a ~40mm tire on a tandem really wide? Surely its not as far from the mainstream as using a ~40mm tire on a single road bike is, is it? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:01:02 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 5, 2014, at 12:42 PM, ted ted@comcast.net wrote: Does anybody else remember Jobst asserting back in the early 90s that tubulars were slower than clinchers because of the glue? I think the ... flattening was more pronounced in tubulars than clinchers. that Tim mentions was part of his reasoning. Back in rec.bicycles.tech years ago, Jobst noted the different shape of the curve for tubulars and came to the conclusion that the tubulars were squirming on the glue bed, road tubular glue being somewhat soft to allow the tire to be removed and put back on or replaced without having to put more glue on the rim. Track riders long used shellac to adhere the tubular to the rim, which forms a hard bond with no flex; once the tire is removed (with difficulty) new shellac has to be applied to glue the new tire on the rim; Jobst thought that a hard glue like shellac would eliminate the losses and that tubulars would then show the same curve. I don’t know if that was tested. FWIW, IIRC the Avocet tire tests were done with an asphalt covered drum instead of a smooth steel drum. IIRC Jobst also did slip angle tests by riding on an asphalt covered wood platform, finding that bike tires slip out at a 45 degree angle to the ground. I wonder if there is a difference in the slip angle based on tire width and/or inflation pressure. Racing motorcycles appear at times to get below 45 degrees, although as I am looking at head-on photos of cornering racing motorcycles that may be an illusion of camera angle. I have been reading Jan’s book on Rene Herse, which my wife gave me for Christmas. There is a great photo (one among many) of a tandem (Prestat/Herse, I think) rounding a downhill corner with another immediately behind. While they do not appear to be at the cornering limit, the bike is on the inside of the turn on rough and perhaps gravelly pavement and yet appears quite sure footed- at least the riders don’t look at all alarmed. It appears to have 650B x 42 tires or thereabouts. I have felt that wider, softer tires seem more secure in corners (although consistent with my earlier posts I don’t know if that is actually true versus an assumption) than skinny hard tires. I had a demonstration of this back in my track racing days when I punctured my front wheel (track tubular at 110 psi, maybe 20-21 mm wide) and borrowed a front wheel from another competitor. His wheel had a 700 x 19 or so Continental Grand Prix pumped up to 140 psi or something like that. It felt incredibly unstable, like it was on ball bearings so there was no resistance to the handlebar swinging back and forth, really quite unsettling although it didn’t slip or do anything untoward on the boards. I was glad to give him his wheel back at the end of the night. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
Both of my tandems, a Terry Osell custom (made for someone else and it never did fit me very well, way too short in the cockpit) and a Burley, were shod with 700 x 28s. Terry recommended Conts at 120 psi, which we did use with reasonably good success. No pinch flats, not noticeably uncomfortable on most of the surfaces that we ride on, but perhaps could have been a nicer ride with cushier tires. We have sold the Osell but still have the Burley; I will have to look to see if wider tires would be feasible. I have a pair of Roll-y Polys I was planning to put on the Burley; IIRC those are 700 x 29. The Burley has a Softride beam and my wife never complains about discomfort on it; it also has V-brakes which barely open wide enough to allow the 700 x 28s to get through. I dislike V-brakes, they are a solution in search of a problem (well, the problem was cable routing on suspension bikes where a cable hanger for cantis was difficult to place). On Jan 5, 2014, at 4:55 PM, cyclotourist cyclotour...@gmail.com wrote: I've had three 700C tandems, and only my current one will fit a true 40mm tire. I can't understand running a tandem with anything less, but apparently tandem purchasers have succumbed to the same marketing that accompanies single bikes. I would eventually like to get one of the new Co-Motion 29er Javas just so I could run 60mm tires on it (probably Big Apples). Cheers, David it isn't a contest. Just enjoy the ride. - Seth Vidal On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:52 PM, ted ted.ke...@comcast.net wrote: If anyone is interested, a quick google search turns up http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html Racing motorcycle tires (or even street legal sport bike tires) have nearly nothing in common with bicycle tires. Which doesn't mean they cant both provide reduced traction when overinflated. The motorcycle tires get part of their stick from practically melting and bonding to the road as they deposit rubber on the track. Traction tends to increase as tire pressure is reduced until the tire really melts and the ride feels a bit like you'r on a liquid film. An under inflated tire will overhead and can be ruined in very short order (expensive mistake, ouch). Tire pressure and temperature are very big deals for race bikes. I think I recall reading of a bike that had IR temperature sensors on it to get tire temperature data while doing laps. I once saw a real (non DOT legal) front race tire. It had a nearly triangular cross section in the tread area, distinctly not round, though the exact center was kinda circular with a fairly small radius. I guess that was done to make it turn in quicker, but the thought of riding such a thing didn't appeal to me in the least. Since a tandem with riders is on the order of twice the weight of a single, I find it really surprising there isn't more difference between the tires used on tandems and singles. Is a ~40mm tire on a tandem really wide? Surely its not as far from the mainstream as using a ~40mm tire on a single road bike is, is it? On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:01:02 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: On Jan 5, 2014, at 12:42 PM, ted ted@comcast.net wrote: Does anybody else remember Jobst asserting back in the early 90s that tubulars were slower than clinchers because of the glue? I think the ... flattening was more pronounced in tubulars than clinchers. that Tim mentions was part of his reasoning. Back in rec.bicycles.tech years ago, Jobst noted the different shape of the curve for tubulars and came to the conclusion that the tubulars were squirming on the glue bed, road tubular glue being somewhat soft to allow the tire to be removed and put back on or replaced without having to put more glue on the rim. Track riders long used shellac to adhere the tubular to the rim, which forms a hard bond with no flex; once the tire is removed (with difficulty) new shellac has to be applied to glue the new tire on the rim; Jobst thought that a hard glue like shellac would eliminate the losses and that tubulars would then show the same curve. I don’t know if that was tested. FWIW, IIRC the Avocet tire tests were done with an asphalt covered drum instead of a smooth steel drum. IIRC Jobst also did slip angle tests by riding on an asphalt covered wood platform, finding that bike tires slip out at a 45 degree angle to the ground. I wonder if there is a difference in the slip angle based on tire width and/or inflation pressure. Racing motorcycles appear at times to get below 45 degrees, although as I am looking at head-on photos of cornering racing motorcycles that may be an illusion of camera angle. I have been reading Jan’s book on Rene Herse, which my wife gave me for Christmas. There is a great photo (one among many) of a tandem (Prestat/Herse, I think) rounding a downhill corner with another immediately behind. While they
[RBW] Tire Width and Performance from SCHWALBE
http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance#why Another view on tire performance. Guess they do not use the same hill that Mr. Heine uses, or the same type of testing. Charlie Petry Snow riding today in Jennersville PA -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they *feel*different, and sometimes I prefer to do it. I *feel* like it. Sometimes I decide to run 700x25, sometimes 700x28 and sometimes 700x35. They feel different and I run what I feel like running. Feeling is a big deal I remember a similar back and forth when a vendor made a crankset in 170 and 175 and refused to offer it in 172.5mm. He emphatically stated that the reason he wouldn't do it was because it is impossible for a rider to feel the difference between 170 and 172.5. A lot of people (including me) got kind of miffed about it. I sure as heck can feel the difference. Could I get used to a 170? Sure. But I've got 6 bikes and they all have 172.5s. I'm not switching cranks on all my bikes, and I don't want to RE-get-used-to the bike every time I ride it. I can feel the difference and I prefer to run 172.5. I doubt there's a measurable performance benefit, but if somebody told me NOT to run 172.5s because it's impossible to feel the difference, I'd inform them that they are wrong. Similarly, I am not telling you, Ron, NOT to run skinny tires. I'm not telling you whether you can feel it or not. I'm not telling you what you should prefer. If I did any of that I'd be a bigger jerk than I already am. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulldog...@gmail.com wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they feel different, and sometimes I prefer to do it. I feel like it. Sometimes I decide to run 700x25, sometimes 700x28 and sometimes 700x35. They feel different and I run what I feel like running. Feeling is a big deal I remember a similar back and forth when a vendor made a crankset in 170 and 175 and refused to offer it in 172.5mm. He emphatically stated that the reason he wouldn't do it was because it is impossible for a rider to feel the difference between 170 and 172.5. A lot of people (including me) got kind of miffed about it. I sure as heck can feel the difference. Could I get used to a 170? Sure. But I've got 6 bikes and they all have 172.5s. I'm not switching cranks on all my bikes, and I don't want to RE-get-used-to the bike every time I ride it. I can feel the difference and I prefer to run 172.5. I doubt there's a measurable performance benefit, but if somebody told me NOT to run 172.5s because it's impossible to feel the difference, I'd inform them that they are wrong. Similarly, I am not telling you, Ron, NOT to run skinny tires. I'm not telling you whether you can feel it or not. I'm not telling you what you should prefer. If I did any of that I'd be a bigger jerk than I already am. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
That's * laterally* stiff and *vertically* compliant. (Or is it the reverse?) On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net wrote: How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Here's the plan: We test our perceptive abilities after drinking wine. HOWEVER it will be a blind wine tasting. Which will affect our perception more??? -J, Snowdrunk in Philly -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
stiff, performance... Are we talking tires here or have some snowed in readers seen one too many Cialis commercials? On 1/4/2014 12:03 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: That's / laterally/ stiff and /vertically/ compliant. (Or is it the reverse?) On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.net mailto:tim...@bitstream.net wrote: How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I doubt ABQ is snowed in. With abandon, the other Patrick On Saturday, January 4, 2014 1:19:23 PM UTC-7, Fullylugged wrote: stiff, performance... Are we talking tires here or have some snowed in readers seen one too many Cialis commercials? On 1/4/2014 12:03 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: That's * laterally* stiff and *vertically* compliant. (Or is it the reverse?) On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Tim McNamara tim...@bitstream.netjavascript: wrote: How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Bruce: let's hope it's not *vertically* compliant. Patrick Moore, back from a brief 11 mile ride in 62*F, sunny, and gusty Rio Rancho, NM. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Bruce Herbitter bruce.herbit...@gmail.comwrote: stiff, performance... Are we talking tires here or have some snowed in readers seen one too many Cialis commercials? -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
There was a test like that in Bicycle Guide, and it was very poorly done. There was only one tester, and he rode a bunch of bikes, each of them just once. So there was no back-to-back comparison, no going back to firm up impressions. When we did a similar test, double blind, two of our testers could tell a relatively small difference in tubing wall thickness (0.7-0.4-0.7 instead of 0.9-0.6-0.9 mm) with 100% reliability. One tester could not. The tested frames were all on the flexible end of the range you see today in bicycle frames, so we didn't test a Surly LHT vs. an Alan or something like that. The full test was published in *Bicycle Quarterly* Vol. 6, No. 4http://www.bikequarterly.com/contents.html, but you can find some details here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/a-journey-of-discovery-part-5-frame-stiffness/ The conclusion is that small differences can be very noticeable. However, I also doubt that you'd be able to tell a 20 g difference in tire weight. Somebody who believes they can tell this difference should do a double-blind test. It would be easy to do (you could just use some weights on the inside of the rim, underneath the rim tape). Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/ On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:52:14 AM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they *feel*different, and sometimes I prefer to do it. I *feel* like it. Sometimes I decide to run 700x25, sometimes 700x28 and sometimes 700x35. They feel different and I run what I feel like running. Feeling is a big deal I remember a similar back and forth when a vendor made a crankset in 170 and 175 and refused to offer it in 172.5mm. He emphatically stated that the reason he wouldn't do it was because it is impossible for a rider to feel the difference between 170 and 172.5. A lot of people (including me) got kind of miffed about it. I sure as heck can feel the difference. Could I get used to a 170? Sure. But I've got 6 bikes and they all have 172.5s. I'm not switching cranks on all my bikes,
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Here is a link to a bunch of Rivendell related articles but also includes the Bicycle Guide blind Mondonico steel frame test. Just called Mondotest.pdf on the site. https://sites.google.com/site/renorambler/system/app/pages/recentChanges Addison Wilhite, M.A. Academy of Arts, Careers and Technologyhttp://www.washoecountyschools.org/aact/ *“Blazing the Trail to College and Career Success”* Educator: Professional Portfolio http://addisonwilhite.blogspot.com/ Blogger: Reno Rambler http://reno-rambler.blogspot.com/ Bicycle Advocate: Regional Transportation Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committeehttp://www.rtcwashoe.com/public-transportation-22-124.html On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote: There was a test like that in Bicycle Guide, and it was very poorly done. There was only one tester, and he rode a bunch of bikes, each of them just once. So there was no back-to-back comparison, no going back to firm up impressions. When we did a similar test, double blind, two of our testers could tell a relatively small difference in tubing wall thickness (0.7-0.4-0.7 instead of 0.9-0.6-0.9 mm) with 100% reliability. One tester could not. The tested frames were all on the flexible end of the range you see today in bicycle frames, so we didn't test a Surly LHT vs. an Alan or something like that. The full test was published in *Bicycle Quarterly* Vol. 6, No. 4http://www.bikequarterly.com/contents.html, but you can find some details here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/a-journey-of-discovery-part-5-frame-stiffness/ The conclusion is that small differences can be very noticeable. However, I also doubt that you'd be able to tell a 20 g difference in tire weight. Somebody who believes they can tell this difference should do a double-blind test. It would be easy to do (you could just use some weights on the inside of the rim, underneath the rim tape). Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/ On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:52:14 AM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote: Unfortunately there is a boatload of contradictory scientific evidence about these sorts of thing. Most of the differences we think we perceive are based on the beliefs and assumptions we have about the equipment on our bikes, rather than differences we can actually perceive. The felt difference in performance between a 230 gm tire and a 250 gm tire is primarily placebo effect (whereas the difference between a 230 gm tire and an 800 gm tire might fall above the threshold of perceivable difference), but many people will adamantly tell you they can clearly feel the difference. In a double blind test they couldn't. I remember a number of years ago when a bike magazine had a bunch of otherwise identical steel frames built from a range of tubing from low end to high end. When the riders did not know which was which, they couldn't tell them apart- yet thousands of published bike reviews have extolled the superiority of one tube set over another, claiming dramatic differences in performance. Those difference were perceived based on the expectations of the reviewer. How many time have we read reviews composed of complete nonsense like a frame being stiff yet compliant? Tim On Jan 4, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Ron Mc bulld...@gmail.com wrote: Bill, again, I'm telling you it's not a personal thing - it's in our wiring to recognize slight changes, especially where work is concerned. We don't feel the baseline work, what we feel is the change from the baseline work. Bike riders feel weight difference in wheels more than anything else, because we feel the responsiveness it produces. For racers, total weight, aerodynamics (i.e. skinny tires) all add up for the slight edge that may nose them ahead by the finish line. But the rest of us know if we have light wheels when we start up the hill and we know if we have efficient rolling tires when we crest it. On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:28:45 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they *feel*different, and
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Anton has it exactly right, on significant climbs each pedal stroke creates an acceleration and each complete rotation has two dead spots where power is not transmitted. On flats inertia masks this phenomenon but on a hill gravity magnifies it. I get numbers, in an earlier part of life I was a corporate financial guy. A long time ago I accumulated 24 graduate credits in statistics and calculus. I really like numbers and its often the first thing I look at when making a purchase. But numbers can never answer this question because riding a bicycle is a subjective experience. My bikes have 29, 33, and 38 mm tires on them. I doubt I can measure the performance difference but I experience them differently and choose them to create a different kind of experience for different kinds of riding. Michael Westford VT, where it has barely broken -10 in the last 36 hours and is headed for -30 tonight. (and I need a new furnace!) On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:05:31 PM UTC-5, Anton Tutter wrote: When you're climbing a steep grade, you're not maintaining a constant speed. If you graphed your speed over time, with time on the x-axis, you'd see something resembling a sine wave. But your speedometer may not register a change in speed because its averaging the speed over an integration interval of probably several seconds. In this case I would agree that rotational weight can clearly be felt, much more than static weight. Anton On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:45:13 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: Really? If you are maintaining a constant speed (i.e., velocity) then the rate of change of the velocity (which is the definition of accelleration) must be zero, right? I don't see any measure of slope in the equation or the definition. I think the real questions here are: can you actually feel a 1 lb difference, and does a 1 lb difference in weight make a measurable difference in climbing performance. A rough way to test this would be to do the ride with, and without, a full water bottle. Now this may be just that I make a poor princess, not being able to notice the pea and all, but I've never felt the bike to ride any different when I have full vs empty water bottles, and that's considerably more than a 1 lb weight difference; and I suspect that there's enough natural variation in my power level that adding or removing 1 lb would be unnoticeable among the random fluctuation. But then, perhaps my proprioception isn't any better than my pea-detecting skills, and other more refined, better-bred and highly tuned observers might notice things that I do not... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Bill, do the same thing on a mag trainer instead of a workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:43:06 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: We're talking about two components of momentum that are orders of magnitude different from one another. Imagine a cyclist starting from a dead stop and spinning up to 30kph. How much effort does it take to do that? Let's call it a lot. He did two things: 1. He got his whole mass moving to the velocity of 30kph 2. He got his wheels spinning to the right speed Whatever a lot is, it is the sum of 1 and 2. With me so far? OK, now here's the thought experiment. Put his bike in the stand. Grab a pedal and spin up to 30kph. How much effort did that take? A small child could do it with one hand. You just did #2 above (to the rear wheel) and reduced #1 above to zero. Whatever force it took, It's not a lot. It's not even 1/10th of a lot. It's tiny. Put on the brakes. Does the wheel gradually slow down? Or does it stop almost instantly? Why is that? Because it doesn't weigh anything. Comparing 200g of tire weight difference is comparing two miniscule forces. Anybody with a powertap rear hub can do that thought experiment in real life. Measure the power it takes to spin up to 30kph. Then do it again with a tire that's 200g heavier. How much difference is it? I don't even know if powertap hubs can measure forces that small. Does the lighter wheel spin up faster and easier? Of course! Could you feel it? Maybe. But both were ridiculously easy in comparison to getting that 100kg mass moving up to speed. Math can't tell you the whole story, but it can get you into the ballpark. The rotational momentum of bicycle wheels is tiny in comparison to the linear momentum of a cyclist in motion. Orders of magnitude. Tell me you've worked up a sweat pedalling a race bike on the workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
if riding a bike was the same effort as spinning a wheel on a workstand, there would be no cars on the road. On Friday, January 3, 2014 8:51:19 AM UTC-6, Ron Mc wrote: Bill, do the same thing on a mag trainer instead of a workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:43:06 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: We're talking about two components of momentum that are orders of magnitude different from one another. Imagine a cyclist starting from a dead stop and spinning up to 30kph. How much effort does it take to do that? Let's call it a lot. He did two things: 1. He got his whole mass moving to the velocity of 30kph 2. He got his wheels spinning to the right speed Whatever a lot is, it is the sum of 1 and 2. With me so far? OK, now here's the thought experiment. Put his bike in the stand. Grab a pedal and spin up to 30kph. How much effort did that take? A small child could do it with one hand. You just did #2 above (to the rear wheel) and reduced #1 above to zero. Whatever force it took, It's not a lot. It's not even 1/10th of a lot. It's tiny. Put on the brakes. Does the wheel gradually slow down? Or does it stop almost instantly? Why is that? Because it doesn't weigh anything. Comparing 200g of tire weight difference is comparing two miniscule forces. Anybody with a powertap rear hub can do that thought experiment in real life. Measure the power it takes to spin up to 30kph. Then do it again with a tire that's 200g heavier. How much difference is it? I don't even know if powertap hubs can measure forces that small. Does the lighter wheel spin up faster and easier? Of course! Could you feel it? Maybe. But both were ridiculously easy in comparison to getting that 100kg mass moving up to speed. Math can't tell you the whole story, but it can get you into the ballpark. The rotational momentum of bicycle wheels is tiny in comparison to the linear momentum of a cyclist in motion. Orders of magnitude. Tell me you've worked up a sweat pedalling a race bike on the workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
we also don't feel linear - we feel logarithmic. Our eyes are tuned to very subtle differences in light. You can feel amazingly fine surface disparities with your fingernail. We become numb to the baseline spin - we're doing work but it doesn't feel like. It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. On Friday, January 3, 2014 9:11:59 AM UTC-6, Ron Mc wrote: if riding a bike was the same effort as spinning a wheel on a workstand, there would be no cars on the road. On Friday, January 3, 2014 8:51:19 AM UTC-6, Ron Mc wrote: Bill, do the same thing on a mag trainer instead of a workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:43:06 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: We're talking about two components of momentum that are orders of magnitude different from one another. Imagine a cyclist starting from a dead stop and spinning up to 30kph. How much effort does it take to do that? Let's call it a lot. He did two things: 1. He got his whole mass moving to the velocity of 30kph 2. He got his wheels spinning to the right speed Whatever a lot is, it is the sum of 1 and 2. With me so far? OK, now here's the thought experiment. Put his bike in the stand. Grab a pedal and spin up to 30kph. How much effort did that take? A small child could do it with one hand. You just did #2 above (to the rear wheel) and reduced #1 above to zero. Whatever force it took, It's not a lot. It's not even 1/10th of a lot. It's tiny. Put on the brakes. Does the wheel gradually slow down? Or does it stop almost instantly? Why is that? Because it doesn't weigh anything. Comparing 200g of tire weight difference is comparing two miniscule forces. Anybody with a powertap rear hub can do that thought experiment in real life. Measure the power it takes to spin up to 30kph. Then do it again with a tire that's 200g heavier. How much difference is it? I don't even know if powertap hubs can measure forces that small. Does the lighter wheel spin up faster and easier? Of course! Could you feel it? Maybe. But both were ridiculously easy in comparison to getting that 100kg mass moving up to speed. Math can't tell you the whole story, but it can get you into the ballpark. The rotational momentum of bicycle wheels is tiny in comparison to the linear momentum of a cyclist in motion. Orders of magnitude. Tell me you've worked up a sweat pedalling a race bike on the workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Ron, Great idea, let's do that. Get on the mag trainer and pedal up from 0 to 30kph over some appropriate number of seconds. Say, 10. Capture the power from your power tap hub and plot it. So far so good? That's power trace A Next put 200grams of lead weights on your rear rim, a little 25 gram blob between every 4th spoke hole. Repeat the test. Spin up to 30kph over the same period of time. Grab that power trace. That's power trace B The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. On Friday, January 3, 2014 6:51:19 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Bill, do the same thing on a mag trainer instead of a workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:43:06 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: We're talking about two components of momentum that are orders of magnitude different from one another. Imagine a cyclist starting from a dead stop and spinning up to 30kph. How much effort does it take to do that? Let's call it a lot. He did two things: 1. He got his whole mass moving to the velocity of 30kph 2. He got his wheels spinning to the right speed Whatever a lot is, it is the sum of 1 and 2. With me so far? OK, now here's the thought experiment. Put his bike in the stand. Grab a pedal and spin up to 30kph. How much effort did that take? A small child could do it with one hand. You just did #2 above (to the rear wheel) and reduced #1 above to zero. Whatever force it took, It's not a lot. It's not even 1/10th of a lot. It's tiny. Put on the brakes. Does the wheel gradually slow down? Or does it stop almost instantly? Why is that? Because it doesn't weigh anything. Comparing 200g of tire weight difference is comparing two miniscule forces. Anybody with a powertap rear hub can do that thought experiment in real life. Measure the power it takes to spin up to 30kph. Then do it again with a tire that's 200g heavier. How much difference is it? I don't even know if powertap hubs can measure forces that small. Does the lighter wheel spin up faster and easier? Of course! Could you feel it? Maybe. But both were ridiculously easy in comparison to getting that 100kg mass moving up to speed. Math can't tell you the whole story, but it can get you into the ballpark. The rotational momentum of bicycle wheels is tiny in comparison to the linear momentum of a cyclist in motion. Orders of magnitude. Tell me you've worked up a sweat pedalling a race bike on the workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
It's the next subtle increment that we feel. So yes, subtle differences in wheel inertia are more significant to us than adding mass to the bike frame. and I never once said you can't feel it. If the small difference is a big deal to you, that's perfectly fine. Do lighter wheels spin up faster? Yes! How much faster? A tiny bit faster. Is that tiny bit a big deal to some riders? Absolutely If you can feel the difference and if you like it better then do it. It's great. None of us are racing or timing ourselves. If it feels a lot faster, who cares if it isn't actually measurably a lot faster? If it feels MUCH easier to pedal, who cares if it isn't actually measurably much easier to pedal? Trust me, I'm a tires guy. I've got ~30 pairs of spare tires in my parts bins. Sometimes I run skinnier tires. Why? Because they *feel*different, and sometimes I prefer to do it. I *feel* like it. Sometimes I decide to run 700x25, sometimes 700x28 and sometimes 700x35. They feel different and I run what I feel like running. Feeling is a big deal I remember a similar back and forth when a vendor made a crankset in 170 and 175 and refused to offer it in 172.5mm. He emphatically stated that the reason he wouldn't do it was because it is impossible for a rider to feel the difference between 170 and 172.5. A lot of people (including me) got kind of miffed about it. I sure as heck can feel the difference. Could I get used to a 170? Sure. But I've got 6 bikes and they all have 172.5s. I'm not switching cranks on all my bikes, and I don't want to RE-get-used-to the bike every time I ride it. I can feel the difference and I prefer to run 172.5. I doubt there's a measurable performance benefit, but if somebody told me NOT to run 172.5s because it's impossible to feel the difference, I'd inform them that they are wrong. Similarly, I am not telling you, Ron, NOT to run skinny tires. I'm not telling you whether you can feel it or not. I'm not telling you what you should prefer. If I did any of that I'd be a bigger jerk than I already am. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
On 01/03/2014 01:02 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: The difference between A and B will be the extra work the rider had to do to spin up the extra 200g of rolling weight. I'm saying that difference will be small. The heavier wheel is harder to spin up, but the magnitude of the difference is small. If the total power output of the rider is ~100 Watts, then the difference between the two will be 1 or 2 Watts. Less than the difference we suffer by running a dynamo. And the additional weight will act as a flywheel, and help keep the rotation more nearly constant. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
So far no one I have ridden with has been intrigued about wider tires. Maybe I need to find people with more curiosity! :-) Your blog mentions the shorter contact patch of wider tires. A decade or so ago, one of the participants on rec.bicycles.tech made images of the contact patches of various width tires. What was striking was that he showed little difference in the shape or size of the contact patch, although perhaps his range of tire sizes was too small. It would be interesting to repeat this with good scientific rigor. Many wider tires, of course, do roll slower compared to skinny tires. Tire manufacturers tend to put thicker rubber on wider tires for some reason, perhaps marketing assumptions about the buyers of wider tires, which increases hysteresis; casings for wider tires tend to be made with heavier thread for reasons due to physics, which may increase hysteresis; and of course wider tires with heavier casings and thicker tread will weigh more and may affect the responsiveness of the bike to rider input. High quality performance oriented wide tires, such as the ones Jan promotes, are a much different product. Even my wide-ish mid-level 26 x 1.25 Paselas roll very well compared to my 700 x 25s. P.S.- my wife gave me the Rene Herse book for Christmas. I am 100 pages in and enjoying it very much, although perhaps the title should have been Rene Herse and most of the history of French cyclotourisme. I have always enjoyed the historical articles in BQ and this book has that in spades. It is big enough that reading it in bed is self-limiting! Tim On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
The one time my TaiwanColnago-riding friend was intrigued by wider tires, he got some new 700x25's right before our ride, and 1 minute after putting them on, he found that they cleared the seatstay bridge by about 0.2 mm! But he otherwise likes his bike and likes to be fast and connects the fastness to the bike frame and components, and so much for caring about wider tires. On Jan 2, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: So far no one I have ridden with has been intrigued about wider tires. Maybe I need to find people with more curiosity! :-) Your blog mentions the shorter contact patch of wider tires. A decade or so ago, one of the participants on rec.bicycles.tech made images of the contact patches of various width tires. What was striking was that he showed little difference in the shape or size of the contact patch, although perhaps his range of tire sizes was too small. It would be interesting to repeat this with good scientific rigor. Many wider tires, of course, do roll slower compared to skinny tires. Tire manufacturers tend to put thicker rubber on wider tires for some reason, perhaps marketing assumptions about the buyers of wider tires, which increases hysteresis; casings for wider tires tend to be made with heavier thread for reasons due to physics, which may increase hysteresis; and of course wider tires with heavier casings and thicker tread will weigh more and may affect the responsiveness of the bike to rider input. High quality performance oriented wide tires, such as the ones Jan promotes, are a much different product. Even my wide-ish mid-level 26 x 1.25 Paselas roll very well compared to my 700 x 25s. P.S.- my wife gave me the Rene Herse book for Christmas. I am 100 pages in and enjoying it very much, although perhaps the title should have been Rene Herse and most of the history of French cyclotourisme. I have always enjoyed the historical articles in BQ and this book has that in spades. It is big enough that reading it in bed is self-limiting! Tim On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. James Warren jimcwar...@earthlink.net - 700x55 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.netjavascript: wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
excuse me - Jan - I knew that On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:48:35 AM UTC-6, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Well, that’s the thing I brought up in response to Jan, although as I have tried finding that information on the Internet I have come up blank. Maybe I am remembering it incorrectly. As I recalled it, a guy named Carl Fogel used sheets of paper on the floor and a stamp pad to create an image of the tires’ contact patch. However, what I have turned up is discussion of different pressures in the same tire rather than different width tires; the image of the contact patches is no longer available: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/374655/contact-patch-size-versus-tire-inflation There may be something relevant in the following, I have not had time to read the article closely; the variable seems to be rim width rather than tire width. The differences in the graphics seem to be rather highly exaggerated in an effort to justify buying expensive rims: http://flocycling.blogspot.com/2011/11/flo-cyling-contact-patch-why-wider-is.html It’d be interesting to compare different width tires, possibly also at different pressures. On Jan 2, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Ron Mc bulldog...@gmail.com wrote: A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:20:28 AM UTC-8, James Warren wrote: The one time my TaiwanColnago-riding friend was intrigued by wider tires, he got some new 700x25's right before our ride, and 1 minute after putting them on, he found that they cleared the seatstay bridge by about 0.2 mm! But he otherwise likes his bike and likes to be fast and connects the fastness to the bike frame and components, and so much for caring about wider tires. Yeah, I've been riding 700x25s at about 80-85psi for about 5 years now and love it! At first, I actually got alot of grief from my buddies for riding such *fat* tires! When you compared them to others who were on 700x20-23, my tires did look fat. Interestingly, I noticed no loss in performance and routinely coast by in my aero tuck pass my skinny buddies on the downhills as they furiously try to pedal to go faster. Unfortunately, like most people with carbon forks, 700x25 and crud fenders is the fattest tire I can fit. I suppose I could try a 700x28, but don't want to give up the fenders. Good Luck! On Jan 2, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Tim McNamara wrote: So far no one I have ridden with has been intrigued about wider tires. Maybe I need to find people with more curiosity! :-) Your blog mentions the shorter contact patch of wider tires. A decade or so ago, one of the participants on rec.bicycles.tech made images of the contact patches of various width tires. What was striking was that he showed little difference in the shape or size of the contact patch, although perhaps his range of tire sizes was too small. It would be interesting to repeat this with good scientific rigor. Many wider tires, of course, do roll slower compared to skinny tires. Tire manufacturers tend to put thicker rubber on wider tires for some reason, perhaps marketing assumptions about the buyers of wider tires, which increases hysteresis; casings for wider tires tend to be made with heavier thread for reasons due to physics, which may increase hysteresis; and of course wider tires with heavier casings and thicker tread will weigh more and may affect the responsiveness of the bike to rider input. High quality performance oriented wide tires, such as the ones Jan promotes, are a much different product. Even my wide-ish mid-level 26 x 1.25 Paselas roll very well compared to my 700 x 25s. P.S.- my wife gave me the Rene Herse book for Christmas. I am 100 pages in and enjoying it very much, although perhaps the title should have been Rene Herse and most of the history of French cyclotourisme. I have always enjoyed the historical articles in BQ and this book has that in spades. It is big enough that reading it in bed is self-limiting! Tim On Jan 2, 2014, at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.net javascript: wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. James Warren jimcw...@earthlink.net javascript: - 700x55 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
it's a little more than that - of course lighter wheels and tires accelerate more efficiently - it takes less effort to make the bike get up and go On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:54:29 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I agree with you that it feels that way. The math says that it's a tiny difference, though. For example, accelerate from 0 to 30kph. Do that with light wheels and calculate the energy it takes to get your body+bike moving that speed, and add the energy it takes to spin up those light wheels. Then do the same calculation for heavy wheels, say 1000g heavier. The math says it's about 2% easier to spin up light wheels from 0 to 30kph than it would if your wheel were a full 1kg heavier. That's cold hard math. You and I both know that wheels a full 1000g lighter FEEL way faster than 1 or 2%, but there you are. Try and measure it in a test scenario and it would be extremely difficult to do. If you have a reference to measurements of improved braking distance as a function of wheel weight I'd be really interested to see it. Here's a site that does the accelleration calculations for dozens of wheels, if you are curious. http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15988284.html The author is making the point that lighter wheels are absolutely necessary to win at racing, particularly because of the ~2% improvement. The math would suggest that decelleration during braking would have exactly the same ~2% improvement. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:09:00 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: it's a little more than that - of course lighter wheels and tires accelerate more efficiently - it takes less effort to make the bike get up and go On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:54:29 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
How does one like me account for rocks in the head, which I suspect more than negates any advantages of a lighter tire? Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:25:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: I agree with you that it feels that way. The math says that it's a tiny difference, though. For example, accelerate from 0 to 30kph. Do that with light wheels and calculate the energy it takes to get your body+bike moving that speed, and add the energy it takes to spin up those light wheels. Then do the same calculation for heavy wheels, say 1000g heavier. The math says it's about 2% easier to spin up light wheels from 0 to 30kph than it would if your wheel were a full 1kg heavier. That's cold hard math. You and I both know that wheels a full 1000g lighter FEEL way faster than 1 or 2%, but there you are. Try and measure it in a test scenario and it would be extremely difficult to do. If you have a reference to measurements of improved braking distance as a function of wheel weight I'd be really interested to see it. Here's a site that does the accelleration calculations for dozens of wheels, if you are curious. http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15988284.html The author is making the point that lighter wheels are absolutely necessary to win at racing, particularly because of the ~2% improvement. The math would suggest that decelleration during braking would have exactly the same ~2% improvement. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:09:00 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: it's a little more than that - of course lighter wheels and tires accelerate more efficiently - it takes less effort to make the bike get up and go On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:54:29 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.netwrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down! -- You received
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
People like you, Patrick, who are apt to lighten your mind with light and playful thoughts, more than counteract the cargo. I bet you hardly notice. Grinly grin. Bill On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:37:36 AM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: How does one like me account for rocks in the head, which I suspect more than negates any advantages of a lighter tire? Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:25:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: I agree with you that it feels that way. The math says that it's a tiny difference, though. For example, accelerate from 0 to 30kph. Do that with light wheels and calculate the energy it takes to get your body+bike moving that speed, and add the energy it takes to spin up those light wheels. Then do the same calculation for heavy wheels, say 1000g heavier. The math says it's about 2% easier to spin up light wheels from 0 to 30kph than it would if your wheel were a full 1kg heavier. That's cold hard math. You and I both know that wheels a full 1000g lighter FEEL way faster than 1 or 2%, but there you are. Try and measure it in a test scenario and it would be extremely difficult to do. If you have a reference to measurements of improved braking distance as a function of wheel weight I'd be really interested to see it. Here's a site that does the accelleration calculations for dozens of wheels, if you are curious. http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15988284.html The author is making the point that lighter wheels are absolutely necessary to win at racing, particularly because of the ~2% improvement. The math would suggest that decelleration during braking would have exactly the same ~2% improvement. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:09:00 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: it's a little more than that - of course lighter wheels and tires accelerate more efficiently - it takes less effort to make the bike get up and go On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:54:29 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.netwrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Helium filled tires! Great idea, Bill! Grinly grin. I like that too. Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:43:19 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: People like you, Patrick, who are apt to lighten your mind with light and playful thoughts, more than counteract the cargo. I bet you hardly notice. Grinly grin. Bill On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:37:36 AM UTC-8, Deacon Patrick wrote: How does one like me account for rocks in the head, which I suspect more than negates any advantages of a lighter tire? Grin. With abandon, Patrick On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:25:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Lindsay wrote: I agree with you that it feels that way. The math says that it's a tiny difference, though. For example, accelerate from 0 to 30kph. Do that with light wheels and calculate the energy it takes to get your body+bike moving that speed, and add the energy it takes to spin up those light wheels. Then do the same calculation for heavy wheels, say 1000g heavier. The math says it's about 2% easier to spin up light wheels from 0 to 30kph than it would if your wheel were a full 1kg heavier. That's cold hard math. You and I both know that wheels a full 1000g lighter FEEL way faster than 1 or 2%, but there you are. Try and measure it in a test scenario and it would be extremely difficult to do. If you have a reference to measurements of improved braking distance as a function of wheel weight I'd be really interested to see it. Here's a site that does the accelleration calculations for dozens of wheels, if you are curious. http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15988284.html The author is making the point that lighter wheels are absolutely necessary to win at racing, particularly because of the ~2% improvement. The math would suggest that decelleration during braking would have exactly the same ~2% improvement. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:09:00 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: it's a little more than that - of course lighter wheels and tires accelerate more efficiently - it takes less effort to make the bike get up and go On Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:54:29 PM UTC-6, Bill Lindsay wrote: the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. Yes, many riders agree with you that you can feel a difference. The testing has shown that you can't measure it, though. Lighter tires feel faster without actually being faster, according to the data. Since most of us ride for enjoyment, and many of us enjoy feeling fast, then it's probably good enough to feel faster on lighter tires, even though we'd actually be faster on wider tires. Jan admitted the same effect. Even he is fooled into 'feeling' faster on skinnier tires. He can't leave it at that, though. He has to go measure it, and found his feelings deceived him. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:48:35 AM UTC-8, Ron Mc wrote: Jim has done a very good job here by comparing different widths in essentially the same high-quality tire - there is no significant weight difference here. Throwing out a data point, my buddy's Tournado on Dahon-specific 35mm Schalwalbe's rolls every bit as efficiently as my Moser on 27-rear/ 25-front Challenge tubies (both bikes on American Classic hubs). A good soft tire with high tpi casing will have a spherical contact patch, while a skinny hard high pressure tire will have an oval contact patch of essentially the same area, so there is little difference in that effect on rolling resistance. There is a good argument that a heavier tire with low rolling resistance will go just as fast a lighter tire - while that's true, the lighter tire/wheel has less inertia, so it accelerates easier and brakes much better - these things you can feel. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:12:10 AM UTC-6, Jim Bronson wrote: Where does tire weight factor in to all this? I personally find lighter tires to be faster for the most part, whether they're 23mm or 38mm (the widths I am running on my Paul Taylor and Rivendell respectively). On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Jan Heine hei...@earthlink.netwrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Jan: I see analogues to the logic behind wider tires and the logic behind making that leap to dynamo lighting (which I think is something you've said before). And of course nothing I say will be particularly controversial to readers of this list, so: I want to go as fast as anyone else, but I also want to go more places more times. Dynamo lighting opens up the night, so I get more time to ride without worrying about being stranded somewhere with a dead battery. Fatter tires opens up the space, so I get more places to ride without thinking, hrm, this is a bit rough and unpleasant. I particularly like this passage: Most of all, you’ll be enticed to go on small roads that have great scenery and little traffic – roads you might have avoided with narrow tires because the pavement tends to be rough. With more comfortable tires, you can even enjoy roads with no pavement at all! cc On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Jan Heine hein...@earthlink.net wrote: Even though most RBW folks may not care all that much about going fast, it's still nice to know that a wider tire doesn't roll any slower. We summarized the data in our blog here: http://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/ If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Happy New Year! Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly www.bikequarterly.com Follow our blog at www.janheine.wordpress.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- I want the kind of six pack you can't drink. -- Micah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Joy and liveliness both both exist in the imaginative realm - not readily subject to mathematical measurement. Michael BTW, still 10 below here. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
It's hard to say, Michael: You can't climb a fire road in 23mm tires no matter how quickly you accelerate. :) On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Hechmer mhech...@gmail.com wrote: For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Joy and liveliness both both exist in the imaginative realm - not readily subject to mathematical measurement. Michael BTW, still 10 below here. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- I want the kind of six pack you can't drink. -- Micah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
On 01/02/2014 05:20 PM, Michael Hechmer wrote: For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Really? If you are maintaining a constant speed (i.e., velocity) then the rate of change of the velocity (which is the definition of accelleration) must be zero, right? I don't see any measure of slope in the equation or the definition. I think the real questions here are: can you actually feel a 1 lb difference, and does a 1 lb difference in weight make a measurable difference in climbing performance. A rough way to test this would be to do the ride with, and without, a full water bottle. Now this may be just that I make a poor princess, not being able to notice the pea and all, but I've never felt the bike to ride any different when I have full vs empty water bottles, and that's considerably more than a 1 lb weight difference; and I suspect that there's enough natural variation in my power level that adding or removing 1 lb would be unnoticeable among the random fluctuation. But then, perhaps my proprioception isn't any better than my pea-detecting skills, and other more refined, better-bred and highly tuned observers might notice things that I do not... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
The biggest factor in tire performance for me *is* me. If I'm feeling good and well rested and it's a beautiful day, I'm fast on $5 worth of swap meet rubber. If I'm grinding out the drudgery after my third flat in the rain, no amount of supple and plush can ever feel fast enough. Jeff Hagedorn Warragul, VIC Australia -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I have to say that, whether it be psychological or physical, I've consistently* found that my sub 18 lb gofast with very light wheels seems to let me turn the cranks more easily in a higher gear (75) on the same hills where the same cadence feels slower or seems to require more effort in a lower gear (67 to 70) on bikes with heavier wheels, including, oddly, the Ram with Parigi Roubaix. The tires on the have been 650C 200 gram Grand Prixs and, recently, slighly sub 200 gram 23 mm Pro Race 3s. Smooth roads. *Consistently, ie over the almost 14 years I've owned the gofast, and measured against many different bikes. So much has this been so that, on the many, many times I've thought to convert the gofast to something more useful -- wider tires, rack, lights -- it takes only one more hilly ride to remind me that I love the way this bike feels on hills. (By the way, I have no desire to take this bike on dirt roads. I have three other bikes that can to varying degrees handle dirt roads.) It may well be only a feeling, but it is a very persistent and consistent feeling. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Michael Hechmer mhech...@gmail.com wrote: For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Joy and liveliness both both exist in the imaginative realm - not readily subject to mathematical measurement. Michael BTW, still 10 below here. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
Sure you can, though I personally don't care to do so. I know several people, including my brother, who take racing bikes with 23 mm tires on fire roads. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Christopher Chen cc...@nougat.org wrote: It's hard to say, Michael: You can't climb a fire road in 23mm tires no matter how quickly you accelerate. :) On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Hechmer mhech...@gmail.comwrote: For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Joy and liveliness both both exist in the imaginative realm - not readily subject to mathematical measurement. Michael BTW, still 10 below here. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- I want the kind of six pack you can't drink. -- Micah -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
On 01/02/2014 06:55 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: Sure you can, though I personally don't care to do so. I know several people, including my brother, who take racing bikes with 23 mm tires on fire roads. People have successfully completed the Deerfield Dirt Road Randonnee on 23mm tires. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
My brother is well north of 200 lb, too -- not fat, but 6'2 and muscular and bigger in build than I. He has very, very, *very* good bike handling skills -- I've tried keeping up with him on fast, twisting, very bumpy, gravel downhills, mountain bikes with the usual knobbies -- and doubtless that helps him avoid destroying tires and rims. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Steve Palincsar palin...@his.com wrote: On 01/02/2014 06:55 PM, Patrick Moore wrote: Sure you can, though I personally don't care to do so. I know several people, including my brother, who take racing bikes with 23 mm tires on fire roads. People have successfully completed the Deerfield Dirt Road Randonnee on 23mm tires. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
where you really feel the difference - and it doesn't have to be 23mm to get a 300-g tire, nor is a 35mm tire necessarily 550g - what I said, where you really feel the difference is spinning up before you tackle that hill On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:20:03 PM UTC-6, Michael Hechmer wrote: For me, climbing is the real difference. There may or may not be a significant (whatever that may be) difference in accelerating a 23mm tire vs a well made 38 (e.g pari moto) and there certainly is not a difference at cruising speeds; but on a long climb where every turn of the pedal is a form of acceleration, it is hard to believe that a 270 gram tire isn't going to feel better than a 540 gram tire. Joy and liveliness both both exist in the imaginative realm - not readily subject to mathematical measurement. Michael BTW, still 10 below here. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:34:33 AM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: On 01/02/2014 09:21 AM, Jan Heine wrote: If anything, it may help persuade those we meet on our rides, who look at our bikes and are intrigued by the idea of a more comfortable bike with wider tires, but are afraid they won't be able to keep up with their friends if they add 5 or 10 mm to their tire width. Or even 2mm (going from 23mm to 25). And then there are the ones who say of someone's 25 lb bike that riding it must be quite a workout -- even when the ride in question has less than 2000' of climbing for 50 miles, with no climbs greater than 10% grade and 120' elevation change. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
When you're climbing a steep grade, you're not maintaining a constant speed. If you graphed your speed over time, with time on the x-axis, you'd see something resembling a sine wave. But your speedometer may not register a change in speed because its averaging the speed over an integration interval of probably several seconds. In this case I would agree that rotational weight can clearly be felt, much more than static weight. Anton On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:45:13 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: Really? If you are maintaining a constant speed (i.e., velocity) then the rate of change of the velocity (which is the definition of accelleration) must be zero, right? I don't see any measure of slope in the equation or the definition. I think the real questions here are: can you actually feel a 1 lb difference, and does a 1 lb difference in weight make a measurable difference in climbing performance. A rough way to test this would be to do the ride with, and without, a full water bottle. Now this may be just that I make a poor princess, not being able to notice the pea and all, but I've never felt the bike to ride any different when I have full vs empty water bottles, and that's considerably more than a 1 lb weight difference; and I suspect that there's enough natural variation in my power level that adding or removing 1 lb would be unnoticeable among the random fluctuation. But then, perhaps my proprioception isn't any better than my pea-detecting skills, and other more refined, better-bred and highly tuned observers might notice things that I do not... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:05:31 PM UTC-8, Anton Tutter wrote: When you're climbing a steep grade, you're not maintaining a constant speed. If you graphed your speed over time, with time on the x-axis, you'd see something resembling a sine wave. But your speedometer may not register a change in speed because its averaging the speed over an integration interval of probably several seconds. In this case I would agree that rotational weight can clearly be felt, much more than static weight. Anton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [RBW] Tire Width and Performance
We're talking about two components of momentum that are orders of magnitude different from one another. Imagine a cyclist starting from a dead stop and spinning up to 30kph. How much effort does it take to do that? Let's call it a lot. He did two things: 1. He got his whole mass moving to the velocity of 30kph 2. He got his wheels spinning to the right speed Whatever a lot is, it is the sum of 1 and 2. With me so far? OK, now here's the thought experiment. Put his bike in the stand. Grab a pedal and spin up to 30kph. How much effort did that take? A small child could do it with one hand. You just did #2 above (to the rear wheel) and reduced #1 above to zero. Whatever force it took, It's not a lot. It's not even 1/10th of a lot. It's tiny. Put on the brakes. Does the wheel gradually slow down? Or does it stop almost instantly? Why is that? Because it doesn't weigh anything. Comparing 200g of tire weight difference is comparing two miniscule forces. Anybody with a powertap rear hub can do that thought experiment in real life. Measure the power it takes to spin up to 30kph. Then do it again with a tire that's 200g heavier. How much difference is it? I don't even know if powertap hubs can measure forces that small. Does the lighter wheel spin up faster and easier? Of course! Could you feel it? Maybe. But both were ridiculously easy in comparison to getting that 100kg mass moving up to speed. Math can't tell you the whole story, but it can get you into the ballpark. The rotational momentum of bicycle wheels is tiny in comparison to the linear momentum of a cyclist in motion. Orders of magnitude. Tell me you've worked up a sweat pedalling a race bike on the workstand. On Thursday, January 2, 2014 6:38:41 PM UTC-8, Benz, Sunnyvale, CA wrote: I don't know. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume that the wheels have a very high rotational inertia. Wouldn't that smooth out the sine wave you're talking about? The slowing down part is when rotational potential+kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy against gravity. Using a high rotational inertia will actually help in maintaining speed (to whatever extent it does) and thus create lower amplitude sine waves. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups RBW Owners Bunch group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
