Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

renehersecycles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 419 posts

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#161

Post by et-al »

wolverine876 wrote: post #50
durkie wrote: post #27

wider tires also let you run lower pressures, which puts you more in the comfort zone of being able to convert to tubeless. not every rim/tire combination works with tubeless, but if you are able to pull it off, it's among my personal top 5 list of cycling innovations of the past 30 years.

I'm missing something: How do lower pressures lead to tubeless?

Folks want to run tires at lower pressures, but this increases the risk of pinch flats for inner tubes when the rim bottoms out against the ground. Tubeless setups don't have this risk.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#162

Post by bmj »

carl_dr wrote: post #15
louthy wrote: post #2

If that were the case, surely Tour de France riders would use wider tyres to gain more grip going around corners, especially in time-trials or stages with sprint finishes. Doesn’t a greater surface area touching the floor means more frictional effects when pushing against the road?

From TFA: “ We tested our tires on smooth pavement at 29.5 km/h (18.3 mph), and found no speed difference between narrow and wide tires.” A professional peloton rides at 28-30mph on the flat and significantly faster towards the end of a flat stage - I bet at higher speeds, for professionals where every percent matters, it does make a difference. Certainly for my level (and I have ridden for an hour at 18mph average)…

It is worth noting that tires used by the pros have used slightly wide tyres over the years, and for events like Paris-Roubaix and Flanders, they absolutely use wider rubber on frames with more clearance.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#164

Post by kazinator »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #144
kazinator wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is false; you might be thinking of figure skates on ice. Steel on road obeys coefficient of friction. (I promise I will keep that in mind the next time I attach skates to a bicycle frame.)

Steel on road obeys the coefficient of friction… until it starts cutting into the road. Unless you're very light, that's going to happen if you're going an appreciable speed wearing figure skates and then try to stop.

Yes; anything cuts into anything else if you concentrate enough weight into enough of a small area, or there are other extreme factors involved like things melting.

E.g. A carbide bit milling a stainless steel object is clearly not following carbide-on-stainless coefficient of friction.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#165

Post by dheera »

haswell wrote: post #12

This is one of the reasons I love the emergence of the "Gravel" category of bikes. They look and have geometry similar to a road bike, but they have enough clearance for nice fat gravel tires. I ride in Chicago (shitty roads, potholes & construction are everywhere), and love that I can put nice 38mm+ GravelKing Slick tires on the bike, and still have no problem keeping up with most road bikes. I've gotten funny looks…

TFA: "suspension losses"

Who the hell uses suspension on a road bike, or are they talking about something else?

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#166

Post by alisonkisk »

dheera wrote: post #165
haswell wrote: post #12

This is one of the reasons I love the emergence of the "Gravel" category of bikes. They look and have geometry similar to a road bike, but they have enough clearance for nice fat gravel tires. I ride in Chicago (shitty roads, potholes & construction are everywhere), and love that I can put nice 38mm+ GravelKing Slick tires on the bike, and still have no problem keeping up with most road bikes. I've gotten funny looks…

TFA: "suspension losses" Who the hell uses suspension on a road bike, or are they talking about something else?

They are talking about vibrations in the wheels, not a big ol suspension fork like on a mountain bike.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#167

Post by dropofwill »

carl_dr wrote: post #67
CalChris wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really rely on the Tour de France peloton for guidance. They're pretty conservative and, to a degree, ruled by fashion and sponsors.

I guarantee the masters of marginal gains, Sky (now Ineos Grenadiers), will have spent some resources on looking at which tyres are actually faster for them, regardless of fashion or sponsors. I think it’s safe to say that whatever they ride on are the fastest options - and every other team would follow - or that within a certain set of parameters, it doesn’t matter. I just tried to search to see if Ineos run differe…

According to eurosport commentary they do change wheels and tires based on the race. That said they use rim brakes so probably never go over 28m tires.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#169

Post by dnhz »

msandford wrote: post #154
dnhz wrote: post #152

I don't believe it. When I had a cheapo mountain bike, I could hear the tires on the road, especially at higher speeds. With my current road bike, the tires are a lot quieter. That noise translates into lost energy, including lost energy that can't be heard. Sure the bikes differ a lot, but the difference in rolling resistance is stark to me. The road bike also can roll for a lot longer a distance.

It sounds like you haven't read even a paragraph or two. They're talking about road slicks vs road slicks, not mtb tires vs road tires.

I read it. But I didn't think there would be a difference between knobby and non-knobby tires compared to the changing width.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#170

Post by LAC-Tech »

ultrarunner wrote: post #135
dharmab wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly in the motorcycle world, dual sport and adventure models originally designed for on road/off road mix are now quite popular as commuter machines. Their long suspension makes them quite comfortable over potholes, cracks, curbs and generally poor road surfaces. And many models are narrow enough to filter between lanes with ease.

I would argue that "designed for [off] road mix" is pretty charitable. A 500-pound dirt bike with a comfortable seating position wins the tough-aesthetics competition, but off road performance is meager at best. I built decent off-road skills on a DL1000, but the weight was always such a liability as to make it impracticable. I moved to a smaller and lighter bike and have more fun, but 99% of people I met in Arizona…

Well there's shades of grey between paved tarmac and proper off road.

Not a motorcyclists but I assume these adventure/dual sport bikes perform much better over say unsealed roads, and are at least workable on fire roads.

Post reply on HN