How did we delude ourselves about 23mm?

[The utility cyclist]

We've had this debate before,so I'll ask again.Have you tried big 32 or heaven forbid 38mm quality supple tyres such as Hypers or Compass?
.

I've used fast quality slicks from 42mm folders downwards, I've pumped up the 42mmm to its max 85psi as an experiment and it was fast but not faster than my 23/25 mm land a similar ride feel. I tried it around 50psi and it was noticeably slower, no matter what surface I rode it on, including dual carriageways and bypass single lane plus back country lanes. Was it more comfortable at 50psi, maybe, but that's not something i think about too much, did it make me think my god what have i been missing out on, no, the effect would maybe be felt on longer much harsher roads, roads where you wouldn't ride narrow tyres particularly or would drop the pressures somewhat noticeably anyways.

It's impossible to measure how much 'more comfortable' equates to anything, particularly effort and/or maintainable speed. I do appreciate comfort can be a factor to fatigue but humans tend to overcome that obstacle so it's not as relevant as some make it out to be, not when sacrificing more effort at the pedal first up and increased energy used.

I also use lightish 32mm folders circa 350g as they have a lot of meat in the centre tread, I've also got some ultra light 40mm tyres ive just started using recently (with lightweight tubes). At the pressures you would normally use them at they aren't faster than my top quality 25mm tyres and despite the fact I've started using a 27mm tubular on the rear of my carbon bike at 100-105psi it's impossible to tell if it's actually faster and if so as a consequence of being wider as it's a different construction to the outgoing tyre. It's got a latex inner and is 300g. Would I go faster with 30, 32 or 35mm tyres fitted instead, IME no.

[The utility cyclist]

Er, do you think testers just spin the tyre with no load? It has a 42.5kg load for testing purposes

Is that a human load able to measure feelings?

Doesn't matter, the same load is applied to tyres narrow and wide so the outcome of what is measured is an accurate way to compare, just like any road, any bike and any rider, you cannot compare 100%, it's impossible, sometimes a road may be smooth, sometimes middling, sometimes rough, sometimes a rider rides in a more aggressive way, sometimes you don't have the most efficient pressures, sometimes your body position causes more drag than other times you're riding. There are so many variables but in the testing it is constant for ALL tyres and from that when you compare a narrow tyre at the higher pressures you would expect to use them at and the lower pressures you would expect to ride a wider tyre at the wider tyres are simply not faster/lower rolling resistance. This is science FACT, not how you feel which measures nothing at all, it can't tell you how fast or slow you are.

[The utility cyclist]

It's a load of cobblers because the wider tyres are only better in the rolling resistance dept IF they are blown up to the same pressure as their narrower counterpart, which they aren't going to be in real world use,

If you've tried the bigger tyres you'll have all the facts and figures to back that claim up.

and then you get to the elephant in the room ... aero, wider is less aero and consumes more power to push through the air

.
The aero arguement only real begins to count when you ride at consistently high speeds above 20mph,you must be a prey quick cyclist,mos people aren't.

You only need look at the bicycle rolling resistance web page and you'll see that the fastest tyres are also the narrowest 23mm tyres, though on modern wider rims (a 17mm in the test rim on BRR) they come up to about 25mm. This is tested on a rough rolling drum, so sadly the wider tyre is faster nonsense is just that.

According to that website they are but by how much and how were the tested?
Mike Burrows did some roll down tests on some tyres way back and the faster tyre on that test was a Marathon Plus compared to lighter ans sometimes more supple tyre,good luck riding M+ everywhere.

That said, ride whatever one wants to ride, I don't care, but when the proof of wider tyres being faster is absolute tosh and only in an extreme scenario which virtually no-one would do then I call BS.

Come off the fence.
EDITED for typos.

Aero, even chris boardman states that aero counts even at slower speeds going uphill, he stated this last at the commonwealth games, maybe you should have a word with him and the secret squirrel club and enlighten them as to where they are going wrong
As per my previous post,I've ridden plenty of wide tyres, they aren't faster IME
Re the testing, go do some reading, it won't take a few minutes to figure out what the testing was and it's constant for all tyres.
Show me the data on Mike Burrows roll down tests, was it outside so wind vairables which even with a small changhe have a big difference in measuring rolling resistance, was there other variables like body position (that will be a yes btw), were the tyres pumped up to out the ordinary for the wider tyres? There is no consistancy with testing and I've not seen what tyres or pressures or the environment he tested them in.

[pwa]

I'm a bit old school and I've not ridden a carbon frame. But I wonder if race frames are now stiffer than they used to be in the days of 753, and the suspension now has to be transferred more to the tyres. Just a thought. Any truth in this?

I think we have to be careful not to run away with the idea that we think or ride like pro athletes who are capable of extreme hardship on the bike and who's primary function is to go faster than other pro athletes.
This article on tyres in Paris Roubaix was an eye opener for me,yes these are pro athletes and yes they ride tubular tyres but they're riding some very rough terrain but check out tyre size and TP's of some of the tops riders:- http://www.velonews.com/2012/04/bikes-a ... ing_212925
Some will say there's no comparison to real world riding of an ordinary mortal but it's the nearest comparison I can find.

If my regular routes involved long sections of cobbled surface I would already be riding a MTB, without any prompting from pro race mechanics. But my regular road surfaces are just chip n seal and a few cracks. Potholes to be avoided, naturally. And I find 25mm broadly okay on that, and better than okay on good surfaces. 28mm I find a bit slower for very little extra cushioning, which would put me off that size on a long ride. My current 35mm Hypers are good for not having to worry about preserving the wheel rims, but they definitely take more pushing around my regular routes than my 25mm GP4 seasons. I'd not use the 35mm tyres for an audax.

[amediasatex]

Except that we've both joined in the debate which negates your first paragraph

Well indeed!

The online discussions, when they don't descend to name calling (which thankfully they don't tend to on this forum) are always enlightening. In person it's often trickier as so many people don't seem to want to discuss, so much as tell you why you're wrong.

There's also a lot of situation transference that goes one, ie: peopl telling other rides that X is the right size to pick because it works for them, but completely missing the point where their use case is markedly different, hence the whole personal compromise aspect of it.

It's also often too easy when talking tyres to fall into the trap of talking only about size, when casing type and quality, and rubber compound have as much, if not more impact. A decent tyre can easily be both faster and more comfy than a mediocre one at the same or different size. eg: a decent 30mm+ can be faster and comfier than a mid range 25, and vice versa. It's not just about the size and we need to continually remind ourselves of that. It's not made any easier by the fact that larger tyres tend not to be of similar construction or intent as smaller ones, that is changing, but it was not always so and, statistically speaking at least, people equate large with overbuilt, thick, heavy tyres, and small with light racy tyres so they're not even comparing like for like intent, let alone size.

I'm a perpetual tyre tester/fiddler, I love trying things out and tyres are one place where you can easily experiment for yourself with tangible and easily recognised differences. My preferences have changed over time as well, some of that by changing conditions, and some of it through experiment and evaluation of (surprising) results.

FWIW, the experiments get really interesting when you throw a power meter into the mix. It's always hard to keep all other variables constant from day to day, but with enough runs and enough times trends appear through the data which can sometimes contradict your feelings.

[The utility cyclist]

I'm a bit old school and I've not ridden a carbon frame. But I wonder if race frames are now stiffer than they used to be in the days of 753, and the suspension now has to be transferred more to the tyres. Just a thought. Any truth in this?

Carbon fibre dampens vibration better than metals apparently, I don't give it much thought, as I've said previously, we tend to simply put up with what we have unless it's absolutely outrageously bad, we may tweek but mostly we adapt to what it is.
I have everything from a 1959 531 racing machine to a modern lightweight CF frame with 50mm deep carbon tubulars and all the goodies. I like all of them, they all ride differently and used for different reasons/tasks. Is the carbon bike less comfortable compared to old Carlton, or my audax/touring type bike or my flat bar/high end daily or my new build gravel bike or my old mountain bike or my 90s steel racer, I don't consider it much, each time I change something or hop onto another bike it will always be subtly different, some are more measureable than others.
Are wider tyres faster, IME I don't think they are at correct pressures on any given road surface and certainly not on smoother roads,I don't think the frame material matters an awful lot.
ATEOTD I think there's far too much being made of it in terms of negativity, of people attacking/challenging those who want to ride narrower tyres and yet won't, can't produce hard facts, choose your poison and ride, what someone else rides is immaterial.

[Mick F]

Trouble is, I don't think a bike that would take 32mm wouldn't be getting the best out of 23mm.

If by that you mean that it isn't possible to build such a bike,I think you're mistaken.
I can't see any reason why that can't be achieved with a leettle more clearance and say canti or V brakes if the frame is made from the right material.

Sorry, been outside doing some chain maintenance on Moulton and Mercian, plus measuring the chains against a brand new one. All ok.

I digress eh?

I'm sure a frame and fork set could be designed to take both 23mm and 32mm, but that frame wouldn't be ideal for either.
This is what I'm discussing. My Mercian was designed from the outset to take narrow 700c tyres and have close clearances (but still allow mudguards - just) and take shallow drop brakes too.

I had the choice of 700c or 27" back then. I went for 700c because I knew that 27" was on its way out. Had I gone for 27" clearances, no doubt by now, I'd have used 700c wheels - and therefore I could fit wider 700c tyres and maybe up to 32mm but braking would be compromised due to long drop brakes. The bike wouldn't look as good, and I'm fairly sure wouldn't ride as well. You could argue that the frame would have been even springier due to the longer stays and fork blades, but I'm not sure.

[iandriver]

I'm a bit old school and I've not ridden a carbon frame. But I wonder if race frames are now stiffer than they used to be in the days of 753, and the suspension now has to be transferred more to the tyres. Just a thought. Any truth in this?

Carbon fibre dampens vibration better than metals apparently

My experience is pretty limited, but my old Felt dampened vibration very well at 20mph plus. Below that, it did not seem to kick in as it were. Thats just me on one bike. But I do wonder if speed is also a factor on the perceived ride qualities. Is a higher speed allowing the tyre to deflect more over the same bump etc.? I personally don't know.

[hamster]

15 years ago the same argument was raging whether 23mm was faster than 18-20mm.

[andrew_s]

I'm sure a frame and fork set could be designed to take both 23mm and 32mm, but that frame wouldn't be ideal for either.

Look at Andy Wilkinson's bike

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/andy- ... bike-29431

It’s the bike that took him to the two competition records in the 12- and 24-hour events and to the second-fastest recorded 50 time.

The bike also doubles as his commuting and touring bike using a set of 700c cyclo cross rims shod with 30mm or 32mm touring or cyclo-cross tyres. The MTB type ’29er’ tyres can be fitted to the 700c CX rims too for those serious off road ventures.

Mountain bike 2.1-inch width tyre on the rear and a 1.8-inch width on the front offers more security on those longer off-road trails.

[horizon]

I generally try and stay out of tyre size discussions as it's one of the few topics that brings out the zealots on both sides and never reaches a consensus.

I have to say I prefer the zealots on here to the blandishments of marketing hype. I'm happy too that it doesn't reach a consensus - I find the strongly worded arguments on both sides refreshingly passionate and interesting.

I'm at a stage where I could (and probably will) contemplate using narrower tyres (than 32 mm) so I find this discussion particularly apposite.

However, I have to say amediasatex that I find your own summaries the most convincing.

[amediasatex]

I have to say I prefer the zealots on here to the blandishments of marketing hype. I'm happy too that it doesn't reach a consensus - I find the strongly worded arguments on both sides refreshingly passionate and interesting.

A good point, well made. There are valid points on both sides, some universal truths, some half truths, and some 'truths' which are only true under certain conditions. And a good deal of myth , accepted (but unchallenged) wisdom, and marketing BS too!

However, I have to say amediasatex that I find your own summaries the most convincing

Well, when my summary is essentially "do some experiments and work out what works for you" it's hard to argue with

I'm at a stage where I could (and probably will) contemplate using narrower tyres (than 32 mm) so I find this discussion particularly apposite.

I'd say crack on, try something different, you may find it a positive change, you may find it negative, or overall just different. Either way you'll have first hand experience and be armed with a little more knowledge* which is a win overall. I also think it's important to occasionally review past decisions and see if anything has changed in the current market to make re-evaluating worthwhile. There are some very very good tyres around these days, and some of them in sizes where previously that kind of tyre wasn't an option.

You might also consider, depending what you're actually wanting to gain/change, a different tyre of the same size. For example moving from a tough touring biased 32mm to a thin-casing supple performance 32mm might make a bigger difference to both speed/effort and comfort than dropping to a smaller size.

*I think people should be encouraged to gain knowledge like this, doing something wrong is often as useful as doing it right, because you can't recognise one without knowing the other. Ride to work on a knobbly tyred MTB to appreciate what it's actually like, ride a road bike offroad a bit, pump your tyres up too hard/soft one day and go for spin. You'll understand the factors at play better and you'll be more attuned to the differences. Obviously I'm not suggesting you go out of your way to ruin a ride, but a bit of experience, and even reminder of previously acquired experience is a good thing.

[Raleigh Steve]

Interesting article here on the topic of tyre testing.

https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/ ... isnt-easy/

Addresses the issues with testing on a drum, and the difficulty substituting a rider with a solid weight that doesn’t generate friction when jiggled.

The BQ testing methods seem more convincing to me than roller tests. This is subject to the limitation that they were conducted at moderate speed and so the aerodynamic impact of wide tyres may be understated, and don’t address the behaviour of wide tyres when climbing out of the saddle etc.

Steve

[amediasatex]

Indeed, I read most of JH's stuff as I find it interesting and thought provoking even when I don't agree on some of the details.

ALL tyre testing methods are flawed in some regard or antoher, and will always ignore some factor or another whether it's the jiggly human meatbag on top, driving loads Vs free-rolling, aero considteration, surface quality etc.

The only real test is real world use and evaluation, but not everyone has that option available to them, certainly not in advance of a purchase. The lab tests are useful as long as you keep in mind the conditions they were tested under and evaluate accordingly. I've had some real-world results that are definitely not in line with what some lab tests would suggest about a tyres performance, and I fear a great many people might base many of their decisions on isolated numbers printed in the comics and online cycling press.

I also like to put at least a few hundred on a tyre (any component in fact) when testing before I even start to form an opinion, and prefer 500-1000 before making a proper judgement as it gives you time to iron out setup niggles, test on a variety of surfaces and conditions, and get a feel for them in different scenarios. For some components things only make themselves apparent on longer rides too, what might be a minor thing you barely noticed on a 1hr ride can turn into an infuriating annoyance on an 8hr ride!

[Si]

Im going to come out with my usual responce...,.,,,,depends on what kind of 'fast' you want. Over a relitively short distance my hp 23mm tyres was fastest....i could putup with the bumps for a short while. Over a longer distance the fat tyres were faster as i didnt get worn down by road buzz. Also, up hill the 23mm tyres were quicker, down hill the fat tyres were quicker. Different tyres are suited to different uses.