Live data from Hacker News

Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

renehersecycles.com

401–410 of 419 posts

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#401
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing is a fashion show with very narrow limits of what the UCI wants people to do. The rules that ban e.g. the famous Lotus bike were explicitly stated as being meant to discourage wind tunnel testing. Fairings and recumbents have been banned for nearly 100 years because they're too much faster than UCI-style bikes.

It's not about fashion, it's about maintaining an enjoyable and popular sport. 4D chess is probably more "interesting" than regular chess, but people play regular chess because it's a good game that people know and understand. They could start allowing funny looking bikes, maybe off-road sections and, heck, why not an army style assault course? But at that point it's just not the Tour de France any more.

> 4D chess is probably more "interesting" than regular chess, but people play regular chess because it's a good game that people know and understand. They could start allowing funny looking bikes, maybe off-road sections and, heck, why not an army style assault course?

That's an absurd comparison - it's not like we're talking about changing the course or the rules, and it's not like the UCI rules have people consistently using historical-style bikes (they rapidly adopted electric shifting, or novel frame materials, for example). In the world of fencing we have both sport fencing (try to win by whatever means within the rules) and historical fencing (trying to match historical materials, styles etc.) and both those are distinct and interesting disciplines. But adding ad-hoc rules to exclude some innovations but not others, as the UCI does, is the worst of both worlds.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#402
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The annoying thing is that the industry still tweaks those perfectly functional gravel bikes for "performance" cycling adding useless features like an aggresive low stack geometry, 1x only drivetrain compatibility, nonsense suspension. Jan Heine gave us some of the best advice through Bicycle Quaterly, his books and the Rene Herse website.

The 1-by drivetrain is something I sought out when looking for my Wife's bike ( or last new bike purchase several years ago ). The advances in the range you can stack in a single cassette totally outweigh the upside of a second ring up front. She has no plans to take that bike up HWY 80 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and apart from that, she gets by just fine even pulling a kid trailer around town. My experience with 1-b…

One by drivetrains certainly have their advantages, but many new gravel bikes sacrifice 2x drivetrain compatibility for ultra short chainstays and only accept 1x. Notable examples are Marin Headlands and the Gestalt X10 and X11. Others models that also accept 2x have their whole lineup equipped with 1x. If you also want to use the bike as a road bike, good luck with that. It's either climb hills or go fast with current gravel 1x drivetrains, depending on the size of your chainring. For me the new GRX gravel drivetrain from Shimano has been a godsend: a no nonsense subcompact 46/30 crank and a deraileur usable with up to 11-34(36) casettes or a 1x option usable with up to 11-42(46) casettes. If it wasn't for the gravel/all road bike I would have probably never gotten a proper road bike with skinny tires because it's only usable on roads that one shares with other motorized vehicles.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#403
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…

Is that different from a "hybrid" bike?

It isn't.

Gravel bike is just a new marketing term.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#404
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rim breaking on deep dish tempo wheels sounds horrifying.

They are certainly not the kind of wheels you'd want to use on steep roads with unpredictable weather (e.g. because the trip was planned months in advance and the bike), anybody into that kind of toy usually keeps a set of low section wheels for those occasions (or bike/bikes, if the looks just don't match). Disc brake doesn't change that by the way, because crosswinds can be brutal in the mountains.

Discs solve my issue because 40mm deep is enough to not suffer from terrible crosswinds, if the wheels are made well.

The worst problem is after a few minutes of constant breaking, which you have to do if you're descending a mountain carefully and care for your life, the rim brakes on carbon start to squeal and you lose a lot of braking power. You also used to risk delamination but that isn't that big of an issue on the newer wheels.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#405
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about fashion, it's about maintaining an enjoyable and popular sport. 4D chess is probably more "interesting" than regular chess, but people play regular chess because it's a good game that people know and understand. They could start allowing funny looking bikes, maybe off-road sections and, heck, why not an army style assault course? But at that point it's just not the Tour de France any more.

> 4D chess is probably more "interesting" than regular chess, but people play regular chess because it's a good game that people know and understand. They could start allowing funny looking bikes, maybe off-road sections and, heck, why not an army style assault course? That's an absurd comparison - it's not like we're talking about changing the course or the rules, and it's not like the UCI rules have people consiste…

You mentioned recumbent bikes. These would massively change the game as drafting wouldn't work any more. Riding in a peloton wasn't always a thing, of course, but it has been in recent years and it works well. The UCI do change the rules, but they are very conservative and that's a good thing, I think.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#406
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been on a touring bike with a total weight of 130kg down massive hills in Japan

They why would you comment on what it's like to go downhill on a tandem? I've got a Koga TwintySix, a trekking tandem, fully loaded it gets up to 180-200 Kg (two adults+camping gear, the 200 Kg is the maximum allowed load), the brakes are super good and yet, by the time you reach 70 kph downhill they are no longer capable of stopping the bike, safely or even at all. A drag brake is a must in a situation like that or…

My comment was around experience of a reasonably heavy bike and braking down steep hills.

Like I said, its about technique, if you are getting up to 70kmh with bad brakes then you have bad technique.

The braking energy dissipated goes up square vs speed, so in that case you brake earlier and keep the speed down.

With that said, I have no doubt a large rotor with out heat soak can easily stop a 200kg bike from 70kmh to zero.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#407
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?

> "If that were the case, surely Tour de France riders would..."

Apologies for appearing to pick you out here, but your comment is representative of a number of eminently "logical" comments made here (as well as many analagous comments on HN in general). So, modern professional cycling is a sport with a 100+ year history, and in 2021 represents a bizarre fusion of the sports entertainment industry, the romantisation/revival of the past, celebrity culture, global cycling manufacturers, the mid-life crises of Wonka-esque team owners, the aestheticisation/fetishisation of the working class, the 'Olympics industry', lurking labour disputes, the fast fashion sector, the ad-hoc application of modern sports psychology, a looming confrontation with its historical emphasis on (mostly horrifically underpaid) white males, neoliberal economics, petty and bountiful financial corruption, widespread pharmaceutical corruption, and the influence of petrochemical money from several ex-Soviet states... All mostly filtered through the celluloid lens of France and Italy, two European nations that have an extremely complicated relationship towards their own history which comes out as a muted pageant of lukewarm national pseudopopulism that is not only is confused within its own borders, but is more-or-less unintelligible to those in the Anglosphere. To imply in any way that a kind of efficient market analysis can apply to decisions made within this sport (that has, if I remember correctly, strict rules about sock length), suggests an insufficient engagement with the background.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#408
post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4D chess is probably more "interesting" than regular chess, but people play regular chess because it's a good game that people know and understand. They could start allowing funny looking bikes, maybe off-road sections and, heck, why not an army style assault course? That's an absurd comparison - it's not like we're talking about changing the course or the rules, and it's not like the UCI rules have people consiste…

You mentioned recumbent bikes. These would massively change the game as drafting wouldn't work any more. Riding in a peloton wasn't always a thing, of course, but it has been in recent years and it works well. The UCI do change the rules, but they are very conservative and that's a good thing, I think.

Drafting still helps for recumbents - less than for an upright since your drag is lower, but it's not like your drag is zero.

The UCI are conservative in some areas, but they're not conservative when it comes to something the big-name manufacturers want to sell (like electric shifting). It feels very artificial to me.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#409
post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1-by drivetrain is something I sought out when looking for my Wife's bike ( or last new bike purchase several years ago ). The advances in the range you can stack in a single cassette totally outweigh the upside of a second ring up front. She has no plans to take that bike up HWY 80 to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and apart from that, she gets by just fine even pulling a kid trailer around town. My experience with 1-b…

One by drivetrains certainly have their advantages, but many new gravel bikes sacrifice 2x drivetrain compatibility for ultra short chainstays and only accept 1x. Notable examples are Marin Headlands and the Gestalt X10 and X11. Others models that also accept 2x have their whole lineup equipped with 1x. If you also want to use the bike as a road bike, good luck with that. It's either climb hills or go fast with curre…

My first gravel bike came with 42t crank and 11-42 cassette. It's perfect for everyday use. You spin out at like 45km/h (or even higher if you can do high cadence) while the 1-1 gear allows you to climb pretty steep hills. Sure, it's not enough for a road race and I prefer 2x drivetrain these days as I do a lot of distance on pavement but I still think 1x is just a better option for most recreational cyclists.

Re: Myths in cycling: wider tires are slower

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disc brakes work better than rim brakes They really do though. Hydraulic disk breaks have way more stopping power, higher resistance to wet and dirt, don't weaken with each use, and are both lower maintenance in the long and short term, and easier to service and get correct. It's not out of ignorance the bike uses who need brakes the most 100% use disks (mountain biking). The argument made is that "rim breaks are d…

I think the myth is "all disc brakes are always better than all rim brakes". There are definitely reasons it y situations to prefer disc brakes, especially hydraulic, but also reasons to prefer rim brakes.

> but also reasons to prefer rim brakes

Like? I honestly can't think of any. They don't save enough on weight to be worth the hassle for all but the tour de france. They don't improve areo.

Why?

Post reply on HN