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

191–200 of 419 posts

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#191

Post by jmilloy »

jiscariot wrote: post #137
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…

My only complaint about the gravel trend is that at the entry (and mid) level they are often using pretty crappy disc brakes when rim brakes would have been a better choice in 90% of cases. When they are hydraulic, they are a dream to use, but with a cable you really lose the brake feel.

Indeed! In the same series: Myth: disc brakes work better than rim brakes[0]. The rim is the rotor of a bit disc brake rotor that cools better and doesn't add any weight. But the wider tires make disc brakes a necessary choice.

[0] https://www.renehersecycles.com/myth-12-disc-brakes-work-bet...

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#192

Post by usrusr »

loeg wrote: post #153
mantas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty big when you take into account whole context. Stuck up "socks size is a rule" UCI, historical norms, technical limitations (25mm is a limit for caliper brakes), tire tech (wider tires used to be heavy).... My prediction is 27mm being the norm in next 5 years. Currently I'm riding a decade-old road bike. It was fancy at the time because it fit 25mm tires without issues. People would give me shit for "slow"…

25mm is not a limit for caliper brakes? No idea why you claim that. One of my bikes has calipers and can fit 33mm tires. Also 28mm is extremely common; 27mm doesn't exist.

There are definitely calipers that can't take a 28. And the mounting bolt position isn't a precise norm, there are frames that put the brake considerably closer to the rim than others. And not without reason, the effective length of the caliper arms has an obvious influence in brake leverage.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#193

Post by ptmcc »

haswell wrote: post #181
pmontra wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally my gravel bike is faster with 28 mm slick tires than with 42 mm sawtooth tires. Of course sawtooth vs slick makes a difference in friction. The hubs in the wheels could make a difference too. I use the 28 mm wheels when I go on asphalt roads in the mountains because I don't want the extra weight and friction. 42 mm for everything else.

> Anecdotally my gravel bike is faster with 28 mm slick tires than with 42 mm sawtooth tires. Out of curiosity, do you know this to be true, or believe this to be true? I ask because the perception of speed with skinnier tires is one of the things the article touches on. I felt similarly when I put GP5000 28mm slicks on the gravel bike, but when I looked at my ride history, I couldn’t really back that feeling of spee…

My experience is the same as yours.

When I rode the same regular routes on my gravel bike on slick 38s vs my road bike on slick 25s (up from 23s, as big as I could fit!), the road bike felt faster but GPS data didn't really back it up over the course of a whole ride.

The road bike is a bit more nimble with twitchier handling sure, but the more jarring ride of the skinny tires gives the illusion of speed. But in the real, non-racing world the data tells a different story. At the limit I have no doubt the road bike is ultimately faster, but that's not most of my riding.

I'm not a racer but am an avid and reasonably fit recreational rider, so I ditched the road bike entirely and enjoy my more comfortable and practical gravel bike, with minimal speed penalty. Plus I can ride on dirt roads and broken pavement with ease and comfort, to boot.

I think most riders are better served by gravel/endurance bikes than pure road bikes.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#194

Post by jmilloy »

pmontra wrote: post #151
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…

Anecdotally my gravel bike is faster with 28 mm slick tires than with 42 mm sawtooth tires. Of course sawtooth vs slick makes a difference in friction. The hubs in the wheels could make a difference too. I use the 28 mm wheels when I go on asphalt roads in the mountains because I don't want the extra weight and friction. 42 mm for everything else.

Another big difference is simply the quality of the tire. A supple 48mm knobby could be faster than a stiff slick (and we know the width doesn't matter). The Rene Herse Oracle Ridge knobbies are 48mm, quite supple and corner well on the road, plus they are noise cancelling!

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#195

Post by jmilloy »

jaypeg25 wrote: post #48
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…

I bought a Specialized Diverge over a year ago. It was mostly to commute to and from work, but also to have the ability to take gravel paths and trails on the weekends. It's been awesome but friends have suggested I take off the stock tires and add some new ones. Is it really worth it? The tires are already fairly fat already, at least compared to road bike tires.

I think tires affect the ride quality and comfort and speed more than any other easy to replace component. Even if you don't go any wider, the supple tires from Rene Herse really blew me away. I think it's worth it, or just waint until you have to replace the tires anyways.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#196

Post by devb »

rukuu001 wrote: post #187
auxym wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many ways, modern gravel bikes are a comeback of the "sport touring" road bikes that were popular from roughly the mid 70s to the mid 90s, then became mostly absent from market. Compared with "racing" bikes, they had wider tires, a more relaxed geometry, and various conveniences such as mounting points for fenders and racks. Thus, they were a much better option for the majority of riders who did not participate in…

Surly made a couple bike you could put fat tires on - their touring bike and a cyclocross bike. I don’t know if they’re still available but they were selling them in the mid-2000s

Every Surly bike takes wide tires. Their Pugsley was the first mass-produced fat bike, starting back in 2005.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#197

Post by usrusr »

mijamo wrote: post #126
outside1234 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they have higher raw weight, so thinner is better uphill.

This is actually not really true. Competition bikes have a minimum weight nowadays, and technology is that advanced that it wouldn't be a problem to add some weight here or there because the bike would stay the same weight in total as they have so much margin else to keep in track with the minimum weight. This is why most teams have switched to disk brakes btw, and that they can have all the electronics onboard with…

Technology was advanced to routinely end up with bikes beneath the minimum, but those days are over. With wider tires, disc brakes, excessive focus on aerodynamics and even wider gear ranges they are usually racing considerably above the limit. These days you'll find bikes in the range of 5000 euros advertised that are considerably heavier than what you would have got for 1500 ten years ago.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#199

Post by Sleepytime »

taneq wrote: post #185
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 see those dual sports all the time and I don't see the attraction other than image. They're less agile on-road which is where they spend their time. At least they're not as silly as the trend of sticking knobbly tyres on road bikes for that "scrambler" look. If anything the opposite trend makes more sense, the motard / supermotard style where a competent off-road bike is retrofitted with road tyres and suspension t…

Dual sports can usually withstand a few drops with nothing more than new levers, parts are cheap, and maintenance is usually easier than street bikes. I almost always recommend a small dual sport as a first bike. If you get a used one for a decent price you can almost always sell it for what you paid for it even if it takes a couple of tumbles, and you can see if you like off-road too.

>At least they're not as silly as the trend of sticking knobbly tyres on road bikes for that "scrambler" look.

FWIW I've got a mid-weight streetfighter that I'd love to put some 50/50 tires and a skid plate on. But I already take it into the dirt so it would be an improvement.

And yes, supermotos might be the ultimate motorcycle.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#200

Post by Sleepytime »

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…

Even on a street only trip I'd prefer an adventure bike to most street bikes, the rugged factor shouldn't be discounted when you're 1000+ miles away from home and outside of cell signal.
Post reply on HN