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

211–220 of 419 posts

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#211

Post by fsckboy »

soperj wrote: post #133
fsckboy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should actively pull up your leg so the down leg is not working extra to lift it, and the pull up muscles are different muscles so your idle down muscles are still getting a rest. The pulling up of your leg results in easier pedaling overall, and it is relatively as if you are pulling up on the pedal. Should you actually then pull up? You should go for the most natural sustainable pedal motion for you. When I ped…

Honestly, go try biking by only pulling up. You don't pull up.

Honestly, I pull up. I'm not pulling the pedal up, I'm lifting the leg and pulling my foot up, getting it into postion to push again, same as I would do for running.

you should try it, you can feel the relief in the pushing leg.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#213

Post by jmilloy »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #101

Cheap tires are slower. Reliable tires are slower. It's obvious from the pictures that the fatties they're testing are special, with paper thin skinwalls. I can totally see that a high performance fattie would be just as good as a high performance narrow tire. It's the inelastic deformation of the tire casing (and inner tube) that eats power. Unfortunately thin-walled high performance tires are also delicate. I've se…

Yeah, these supple tires are faster but less delicate than you think.

I do think replacing your stock tire with a supple tire at the same width will be a huge upgrade, and wider would just give you a little bit more.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#214

Post by jmilloy »

et-al wrote: post #158
wiredfool wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They (Jan and the RH crew) have done several versions of this over the years, and the takeaway is that some gravel bikes feel slower due to geometry, rider position, Q factor, and so on, but the tire width isn’t a factor. (I think one was testing the open vs firefly, with similar riding positions but drastically different wheels)

Don't forget Jan's signature word: planing . This is prob the Open vs Firefly test you're thinking of: https://www.renehersecycles.com/what-makes-a-bike-fast/ In the test, they apparently isolated the wheel weight by swapping out wheels on the slower-on-paper Firefly and the bike didn't ride up the hill significantly faster. However Jan Heine's experiments are often pseudo-sciencey and subject to rider effort. In thi…

Yeah, the lack of power meter data in their tests is really frustrating.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#215

Post by analog31 »

auxym wrote: post #175
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…

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…

Amusingly, here in the Midwest we refer to the skis that we use for poor snow conditions, where there's a lot of mud and muck, as "gravel skis."

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#216

Post by analog31 »

jmilloy wrote: post #191
jiscariot wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

While I don't dispute this, and I have both kinds of bikes, when I talk to "casual" cyclists who have tried disc brakes, they almost unanimously describe the difference as being like night and day. Perhaps the issue is that they are comparing new disc brakes on good bikes, to old crappy neglected rim brakes on cheap bikes. Still, the difference in popularity is unmistakable.

Myself, I'm not getting rid of my rim brake bikes any time soon, but it's interesting to observe how different people experience cycling.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#217

Post by lmm »

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.

Cable-pull disc brakes are still a huge improvement over rim brakes in the ways that matter, especially in the wet.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#218

Post by jmilloy »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #58

Is the data available somewhere ? It doesn’t match my experience at all. I have a road bike and a gravel bike - same quality range (gravel slightly higher). At low speeds, that may be true - the difference is negligible. But at higher speeds / power outputs, the road bike beats the gravel hands down - by a significant margin (big enough to be felt, without a power meter)

This article is really a summary, as part of a series on myths in cycling. Here's a pair of much more recent article with more data and methodology and nuance specifically about testing and speed:

https://www.renehersecycles.com/how-we-test-tires/

https://www.renehersecycles.com/bq-tire-test-results/

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#219

Post by jmilloy »

I think folks might be interested to consider some of the other myths and tests in the series, such as:

* Titanium is ligther than steel

* Fenders slow you down

* Stiffer frames are faster

* Disc brakes work better than rim brakes

* Higher tire pressure is faster

* Bigger wheels roll faster

https://www.renehersecycles.com/category/myths-in-cycling/

For more nuanced tire testing and results, check out these two more recent articles

* https://www.renehersecycles.com/how-we-test-tires/

* https://www.renehersecycles.com/bq-tire-test-results/

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#220

Post by jmilloy »

analog31 wrote: post #216
jmilloy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

While I don't dispute this, and I have both kinds of bikes, when I talk to "casual" cyclists who have tried disc brakes, they almost unanimously describe the difference as being like night and day. Perhaps the issue is that they are comparing new disc brakes on good bikes, to old crappy neglected rim brakes on cheap bikes. Still, the difference in popularity is unmistakable. Myself, I'm not getting rid of my rim brak…

Yeah, I guess component quality matters, the condiditions matter, rider style and goals matter. It seems like there are plenty of reasons to prefer disc brakes (especially hydraulic), but plenty of others to prefer rim brakes, depending on all of these factors.
Post reply on HN