meic wrote:The smallest Randonneur Cross Pro (or Randonneur Pro) is 32mm and very unlikely to fit on a "road bike".
I'm not sure what defines a "road bike"? My frame is a 1959 Carlton, I'd imagine it was originally sold as a tourer, I use 32mm tyres. I'd go a bit wider if I could as London's roads are far from smooth.
'interesting article here:http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/06/1 ... -of-tires/
I would say a road bike is any bike that cant take greater than 25mm tyres.
Thanks for the link, these always get my hopes up but the gains never materialise in real life. I cant see any flaw in their experiment, though we dont know how
rough their road surface was.
Possibly the sorts of wide tyres that they use are just too expensive for me and my wider tyres are ruined by their poor construction.
Another possible flaw is that they did the test on a downhill where the weight was more of a help than its normal hindrance. Also it was a simple continuous ride without real life accelerations and decelerations, not that my cycling has a lot of that anyway.
I also wonder about thinner and fatter tyres as ways of describing, if they were starting at ridiculously thin tyre sizes then improvement is to be expected. If I am moving from optimum to too fat them that could explain the lack of gains.