is it the end of 23mm tyres???

[Cugel]

A reluctance to accept change and a deep suspicion of it is not uncommon amongst a sector of the cycling community.

It's a broad church and we can welcome all

It's not a broad church when some are telling you x doesn't/can't work or people taking potshots at others choices
it's not about suspicion or a reluctance to accept change, it's about being happy with what you have in some cases and as being pointed out, not needing to change because what you have works very well indeed, no matter what weight you are.
OPINIONS and the very scant 'evidence' as to what works better say, that in some very particular circumstances a wider tyre is a tiny, tiny bit quicker(which in any case ignores air resistance on the wider tyres), there's no evidence other than 'feel' as to comfort and how that effects performance during or at the end of a ride or physical fatigue post ride.

What too many people are saying is that x does not work, or does not work "very well" and then come up with zero factual evidence of that, my personal decades long 'evidence' in real world use suggested that a previous comment was incorrect as an absolute statement. Some posters make claims simply by saying it is so on a forum and repeating it ad-nausea as if that is somehow firming up their beliefs to be accepted as fact, there's maybe a link to some in lab/narrow field of testing and say 'ta-dah', then ignore other factors/circumstances, the very tiny benefit if any as well as ignoring real world use of others.
In my opinion wider tyres for many are a placebo and it wouldn't make any significant difference for most road riding on a good 23mm tyre at the correct pressures than it would on a good 25mm or a 28mm.

Are some older narrower tyres significantly worse (in all aspects) than modern tyres, absolutely, but then that should come as no surprise, in fact a fair few modern tyres aren't great comparatively (in any width). Are all narrower tyres 'worse' or lack something over all wider tyres, absolutely not and indeed that's also vice-versa.

But has you rid nice fat 28mm on the same bike as you've rid with 23mm of the same ilk, on similar routes for similar times? If not, you have no means of comparison whereas we lads who've ridden all sorts do have a means of comparison. See?

This is not to say that we can't be kidding ourselves that wider is better 'cos we want it to be. But hang on! Why would we want it to be? Personally I try not to listen to my head (it may have been advert-infected) and so listen to my nether and other bits that are unthinking but good at detecting, amongst other things, discomfort or the lack of it.

I should also mention that I'm personally a Class 1A Luddite and reject a great deal of modern stuff. In the domain of cycling, I have no computer, GPS, power meter, aero frame, concealed cables or a host of other modern gubbins that're of no use to me personally for improving my cycling experience. But better tyres and one or two other new things are functionally better at the fundamentals of cycling, in my experience.

By the way, who is telling you your 23mms are rubbish? No one, really. Those of us with more experience than you are just remarking that we have found wider tyres more comfortable and better at sticking to the road, all other things being equal. There is theory to explain it but this is just a dressing on our experience. If 23mm suits you, no need to change. We'll let you have them for as long as you like. Yes. Don't come 'round trying to borrow my nether-soothing cream, though!

*****
You, on the other hand, are keen to tell us that we are kidding ourselves about wider tyre benefits. How would you know if you've never ridden them? Are you quite sure your opinions concerning the tyre are not a teeny bit infected with an inclination not to change your habits or mind because this is somehow a virtue? Some lads feel that any change of mind is somehow a demonstration that they have been "wrong". This is a daft mode of thinking as mind-change is fundamental to survival, let alone a more comfortable erse.

I know - introspection is very hard to do, since the bloke doing it is the same one who already harbours what might just be a mere prejudice or habit. I ask the ladywife, who is merciless in her exposure of my stubborns. addictions and old-doggisms. She can spot an olde wifey tale or urban myth at a hundred paces!

Cugel

[100%JR]

Those of us with more experience than you are just remarking that we have found wider tyres more comfortable and better at sticking to the road, all other things being equal.
Cugel

There seems to be assumption from certain members on here that they are somehow more experienced than others.How do you know this for sure?What actually constitutes “more experience”?
One of our CC members rides around 12,000miles a year and is 40.Would you consider him to be less experienced than someone who is 60 who rides 5000 miles per year?

[meic]

One of our CC members rides around 12,000miles a year and is 40.Would you consider him to be less experienced than someone who is 60 who rides 5000 miles per year?

That depends on whether one of them had only ever ridden on one size of tyre and the other had tried them all on a regular basis.
Out of my 70,000 miles of riding, less than 70 have been with one emergency 23mm tyre on the rear, so I am not much experienced with them.

[The utility cyclist]

A reluctance to accept change and a deep suspicion of it is not uncommon amongst a sector of the cycling community.

It's a broad church and we can welcome all

It's not a broad church when some are telling you x doesn't/can't work or people taking potshots at others choices
it's not about suspicion or a reluctance to accept change, it's about being happy with what you have in some cases and as being pointed out, not needing to change because what you have works very well indeed, no matter what weight you are.
OPINIONS and the very scant 'evidence' as to what works better say, that in some very particular circumstances a wider tyre is a tiny, tiny bit quicker(which in any case ignores air resistance on the wider tyres), there's no evidence other than 'feel' as to comfort and how that effects performance during or at the end of a ride or physical fatigue post ride.

What too many people are saying is that x does not work, or does not work "very well" and then come up with zero factual evidence of that, my personal decades long 'evidence' in real world use suggested that a previous comment was incorrect as an absolute statement. Some posters make claims simply by saying it is so on a forum and repeating it ad-nausea as if that is somehow firming up their beliefs to be accepted as fact, there's maybe a link to some in lab/narrow field of testing and say 'ta-dah', then ignore other factors/circumstances, the very tiny benefit if any as well as ignoring real world use of others.
In my opinion wider tyres for many are a placebo and it wouldn't make any significant difference for most road riding on a good 23mm tyre at the correct pressures than it would on a good 25mm or a 28mm.

Are some older narrower tyres significantly worse (in all aspects) than modern tyres, absolutely, but then that should come as no surprise, in fact a fair few modern tyres aren't great comparatively (in any width). Are all narrower tyres 'worse' or lack something over all wider tyres, absolutely not and indeed that's also vice-versa.

But has you rid nice fat 28mm on the same bike as you've rid with 23mm of the same ilk, on similar routes for similar times? If not, you have no means of comparison whereas we lads who've ridden all sorts do have a means of comparison. See?

This is not to say that we can't be kidding ourselves that wider is better 'cos we want it to be. But hang on! Why would we want it to be? Personally I try not to listen to my head (it may have been advert-infected) and so listen to my nether and other bits that are unthinking but good at detecting, amongst other things, discomfort or the lack of it.

I should also mention that I'm personally a Class 1A Luddite and reject a great deal of modern stuff. In the domain of cycling, I have no computer, GPS, power meter, aero frame, concealed cables or a host of other modern gubbins that're of no use to me personally for improving my cycling experience. But better tyres and one or two other new things are functionally better at the fundamentals of cycling, in my experience.

By the way, who is telling you your 23mms are rubbish? No one, really. Those of us with more experience than you are just remarking that we have found wider tyres more comfortable and better at sticking to the road, all other things being equal. There is theory to explain it but this is just a dressing on our experience. If 23mm suits you, no need to change. We'll let you have them for as long as you like. Yes. Don't come 'round trying to borrow my nether-soothing cream, though!

*****
You, on the other hand, are keen to tell us that we are kidding ourselves about wider tyre benefits. How would you know if you've never ridden them? Are you quite sure your opinions concerning the tyre are not a teeny bit infected with an inclination not to change your habits or mind because this is somehow a virtue? Some lads feel that any change of mind is somehow a demonstration that they have been "wrong". This is a daft mode of thinking as mind-change is fundamental to survival, let alone a more comfortable erse.

I know - introspection is very hard to do, since the bloke doing it is the same one who already harbours what might just be a mere prejudice or habit. I ask the ladywife, who is merciless in her exposure of my stubborns. addictions and old-doggisms. She can spot an olde wifey tale or urban myth at a hundred paces!

Cugel

I started riding a bit more than just to school and to potter around in 1985/86, I've never not ridden a bike since, even when I was a car commuter for several years I'd still end up riding to the shops, friends, weekend rides etc

In the last 9.5 years since I bought a replacement daily I've used a range of tyre widths for varying reasons - buying more bikes for differing ride type/collecting, opportunist clearance sales purchases and curiosity amongst others. These include 22/25/27mm tubs, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 32mm clinchers and since spring a 42mm folding slick on the rear of my tourer/winter racer/utility. I've fitted all of the clinchers on my daily at some point or another on same and differing wheelsets and ridden over same routes and loads from just me and bike to 15kg ish.

So I think I have plenty enough experience of tyre use, different conditions, different times of year etc to form an opinion of real world use.

MY OPINION says ... anything over 25mm is a compromise with regards to outright performance/speed with any load though that's up to 122kg max excl bike), anything over 25mm is a nod toward improved puncture resistance, durability and theoretical mileage longevity, anything over 23mm offers no noticeable comfort advantage whether that be the 0.3 mile trip to the post office or a long slog with/without a load.

Obviously this cannot ever be an absolute across all tyres nor indeed any given individual, it simply can't, I don't care if it doesn't. What I care about is certain types on here always dismissing out of hand others experiences, their opinion and/or simply making blanket statements and making them out to be facts that cannot be challenged despite a lack of any hard evidence or very limited 'evidence' that in itself is often even narrower than real world use/experiences.

I think I might just pop my carbon tubulars with the 22mm contis on my daily later today and ride to the market, reckon I'm gonna need 160psi, should ride like a dream over the gravel

[multitool]

Was with you until you got to the bit about comfort...which is not quite so tangible...but seems to be a factor of tyre pressure, width, and tyre construction.

In fact, it's really the advent of tubeless and the ability to run lower pressure without grounding the rim and snakebiting that has improved comfort.

[Cugel]

I started riding a bit more than just to school and to potter around in 1985/86, I've never not ridden a bike since, even when I was a car commuter for several years I'd still end up riding to the shops, friends, weekend rides etc

In the last 9.5 years since I bought a replacement daily I've used a range of tyre widths for varying reasons - buying more bikes for differing ride type/collecting, opportunist clearance sales purchases and curiosity amongst others. These include 22/25/27mm tubs, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 32mm clinchers and since spring a 42mm folding slick on the rear of my tourer/winter racer/utility. I've fitted all of the clinchers on my daily at some point or another on same and differing wheelsets and ridden over same routes and loads from just me and bike to 15kg ish.

So I think I have plenty enough experience of tyre use, different conditions, different times of year etc to form an opinion of real world use.

MY OPINION says ... anything over 25mm is a compromise with regards to outright performance/speed with any load though that's up to 122kg max excl bike), anything over 25mm is a nod toward improved puncture resistance, durability and theoretical mileage longevity, anything over 23mm offers no noticeable comfort advantage whether that be the 0.3 mile trip to the post office or a long slog with/without a load.

Obviously this cannot ever can be an absolute across all tyres nor indeed any given individual, it simply can't, I don't care if it doesn't. What I care about is certain types on here always dismissing out of hand others experiences, their opinion and/or simply making blanket statements and making them out to be facts that cannot be challenged despite a lack of any hard evidence or very limited 'evidence' that in itself is often even narrower than real world use/experiences.

I think I might just pop my carbon tubulars with the 22mm contis on my daily later today and ride to the market, reckon I'm gonna need 160psi, should ride like a dream over the gravel

Bravo!

I have now revised my theory concerning your inability to detect the plush of the fat tyre - you are lacking in proper sensitivity! This may be due to a gradual murder of your nether nerves by doing thousands of miles on 160psi tyres whilst chewing your wasp, thus distracting yourself from the initial pain at your perch.

I, and many others hereabouts, are obviously more sensitive in every way. Should you ever wish to test for mattress-pea, I am your girlyman!

Cugel

[Cugel]

Was with you until you got to the bit about comfort...which is not quite so tangible...but seems to be a factor of tyre pressure, width, and tyre construction.

In fact, it's really the advent of tubeless and the ability to run lower pressure without grounding the rim and snakebiting that has improved comfort.

There are 28mm Schwalbe One with tube on the summer bike and 30mm Schwalbe G-One tubeless on the winter bike, both having the same model of frame and very similar wheels. The tubed tyres are at 70psi (front) and 75psi (rear). The tubeless are at 60psi (front) and 70 psi (rear). I can feel no real difference in comfort although the tubeless do lend a certain confidence when banging over evil-road as one is not a-feared of snakebite.

The G-Ones seem rather more stiff in the sidewall than are the Ones. Perhaps their lesser pressures compensate? But that's a guess.

Both stick to the road like glue, although the G-Ones are less inclined to spin or otherwise break loose on the steep & slime-covered winter roads. Their wee knobbles do seem to make a difference, in that respect, to the slick Ones.

Cugel

[multitool]

Your G-Ones are wider...They need about 7psi less than your 28mm tyres for equivalence, so of course they will feel the same.

Try taking another 5 psi off the 30s. Should feel a bit better...and you won't pinch flat

[Brucey]

there is a misconception or two at work here; it is not that the rims don't ground any more with tubeless, it is that you are less likely to get a puncture when you do this. You can still damage the tyre carcass and you can still damage the rim. Thus if you regularly exploit 'the lack of pinch flats' with tubeless you are almost certainly in for a load more trouble of an altogether different type. If you like, pinch flats with tubes in is nature's way of telling you that you are sailing too close to the wind.

The primary influence on comfort is the 'spring rate' of the tyre. To a first approximation the spring rate is pro-rata with both tyre width and tyre pressure; very loosely if you have a 25mm tyre at 100psi it won't be that far different in feel over the bumps vs a 50mm tyre at 50psi.

There is a complication in that the way the contact patch increases in size as the tyre is squashed is fundamentally different between skinny tyres and fat tyres, i.e. both will have what is known as 'a rising spring rate' but it isn't the same characteristic at all.

However if you run skinny tyres at carefully selected tyre pressures on the right bike you can be comfortable on 'normal' roads. A main difference is that when you hit bigger bumps, the 'available suspension travel' before the rim starts getting knocked is less than with wider tyres.

If you examine the load carrying capacity of tyres vs pressure using the commonly accepted '15% drop' criterion
https://www.compasscycle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BQTireDrop.pdf

then it is clear that (assuming a 45:55 weight distribution) a ~100kg bike/rider needs to inflate 23mm tyres to over 125psi at the rear. In reality the weight distribution is likely to be more like 40:60 in which case the rear tyre needs more like 140psi. The tyre I mentioned upthread won't even go over 116psi without exceeding the manufacturer's limits, and nor will many others. Hence my 'works not very well' comment in relation to heavier loads on skinnier tyres.

This is not to say that a heavily loaded bike can't be ridden on 23mm tyres, it just requires even more care than normal and (needless to say) you almost certainly won't be getting the best out of either the tyres or the bike.

cheers

[multitool]

there is a misconception or two at work here; it is not that the rims don't ground any more with tubeless, it is that you are less likely to get a puncture when you do this.

cheers

Which is precisely what I said:

Your G-Ones are wider...They need about 7psi less than your 28mm tyres for equivalence, so of course they will feel the same.

Try taking another 5 psi off the 30s. Should feel a bit better...and you won't pinch flat

[Brucey]

there is a misconception or two at work here; it is not that the rims don't ground any more with tubeless, it is that you are less likely to get a puncture when you do this.

cheers

Which is precisely what I said:

Your G-Ones are wider...They need about 7psi less than your 28mm tyres for equivalence, so of course they will feel the same.

Try taking another 5 psi off the 30s. Should feel a bit better...and you won't pinch flat

I was of course thinking of this comment

Was with you until you got to the bit about comfort...which is not quite so tangible...but seems to be a factor of tyre pressure, width, and tyre construction.

In fact, it's really the advent of tubeless and the ability to run lower pressure without grounding the rim and snakebiting that has improved comfort

(my italics/underlining)

The rim grounds just the same as with a tube in; carcasses get damaged and rims get mangled too. Wider tyres stop this; tubeless has very little to do with it. Yes you get fewer pinch flats but the tyres and rims get wrecked just the same, pretty much.

Unconsciously or otherwise you appear to have misrepresented the facts.

cheers

[multitool]

I wasn't assuming stupidity on the part of other readers

Grounding and snakebiting as one occurrence rather than two. Of course you can ground any tyre other than solid.

[Brucey]

I obviously made the terrible mistake of thinking that you might have meant what you said rather than what you thought you said.... ....

-as I mentioned earlier 'there appear to be misconceptions at work'. This is an opportunity for you to clarify what you said rather than to leap down my throat, busily denying accusations that were never made......

[multitool]

Take this sentence:

"Wearing a helmet when cycling on ice may reduce the risk of falling off and injuring your head"

I dont think anybody is going to read that as implying that helmets prevent falling off. Except you, of course

Are you the person whose attitude Utilty Cyclist complains of upthread? Too many coffees this morning perchance?

[Brucey]

Take this sentence:

"Wearing a helmet when cycling on ice may reduce the risk of falling off and injuring your head"

I dont think anybody is going to read that as implying that helmets prevent falling off. Except you, of course

Are you the person whose attitude Utilty Cyclist complains of upthread? Too many coffees this morning perchance?

it is an ambiguous sentence in several respects. The second part of the sentence would be considerably clearer (if I take your meaning in the right way) if you said something like

"...reduce the risk of injuring your head should you fall off."

So why not just say that?

As written, your sentence may well mean that the risk of falling off is thought to be reduced. As a rule, the sentence has to make sense with or without the 'and....' bit, or if you swap the parts before and after the 'and' around.

You know what you meant to say (you may think it obvious too) but neither thing is actually clear. The English language is a precision instrument; no-one gets it right all the time (least of all myself) but if you write sentences like that you can expect to be misunderstood.

BTW people make all sorts of weird and wonderful claims for tubeless tyres; had you meant what you wrote it wouldn't be the most bizarre thing that had ever been said.....

cheers