Road Tires: Width vs Speed Penalties?

[(PeteCresswell)]

My rear Schwalbe LandCruiser 40x700 is worn out and I am shopping a
replacement and looking at CompassCycle's slicks.

I always run mild knobs on the front wheel since going "Splat" on a wet
grassy slope a few years ago, and would probably replace my current el-cheapo
Forte 40 with a Compass knobbie if somebody says they roll that much better.

Looking at
https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/700c/compass-700cx38-barlow-pass/
where they go on-and-on about how well their tires roll, but don't say
anything about width-vs-speed penalties.

I have a set of 28mm slicks that I ride occasionally, but usually avoid
because they beat me up too much and lose control in gravel/soft dirt.

The diff in cruising speed between 40's and 28's looks like 1-1.5 mph.

Fully-rigid bike.

Does this sound reasonable?

For me, the relevant Compass slick widths are 35, 38, and 44 with two case
options: Regular and Lightweight. I'm thinking that anything below
35 would defeat my purpose, which is a tire that:

- Does not beat me up on the bumps
- Floats enough to maintain control through gravel and loose dirt

In addition, it looks like their only relevant knobbie is a 38.

Has anybody ridden different sizes of Compass tires and compared cruising
speeds and floatation?

--
Pete Cresswell

[avag...@gmail.com]

Pete,

here we use Conti's/HD Messengers rear depending on touring load or not on rear with a wider front currently a circumferentially ribbed English tire like a front end 9N corn planter. On a late 70's Raleigh. Fooling with tire pressures improves front skid from there. Large improvement going to a fork with longer trail and/or extending chain stay length adding a link n moving rear axle back. 35 is a good size.

Or buy a bike like JB's new frame. But JB is adaptable. Try the fat front n tire pressures first. Then longer wheelbase less fork gain Spend bucks on top end tires. Conti had a multi knobbed tire like a auto snow rear Contact. Or go with a very round carcass sticky tire F/R with longer fork.

[Joerg]

On 2017-12-11 08:54, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> My rear Schwalbe LandCruiser 40x700 is worn out and I am shopping a
> replacement and looking at CompassCycle's slicks.
>
> I always run mild knobs on the front wheel since going "Splat" on a wet
> grassy slope a few years ago, and would probably replace my current el-cheapo
> Forte 40 with a Compass knobbie if somebody says they roll that much better.
>
> Looking at
> https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/700c/compass-700cx38-barlow-pass/
> where they go on-and-on about how well their tires roll, but don't say
> anything about width-vs-speed penalties.
>
> I have a set of 28mm slicks that I ride occasionally, but usually avoid
> because they beat me up too much and lose control in gravel/soft dirt.
>
> The diff in cruising speed between 40's and 28's looks like 1-1.5 mph.
>
> Fully-rigid bike.
>
> Does this sound reasonable?
>

That sounds about right. I see that difference between my MTB (2.2"
knobby tires) and road bike (25mm slicks) when on the same roads.
Pressure makes a lot of difference and I keep my MTB close to max
allowed, around 55psi. The road bike is usually at about 105psi.

The reason became apparent a few year ago during a stop where I touched
the rear tire of the MTB. It was considerably warmer than the front
tire. Tried same with the road bike the week after in similar weather
and found hardly any noticeable temperature rise.

> For me, the relevant Compass slick widths are 35, 38, and 44 with two case
> options: Regular and Lightweight. I'm thinking that anything below
> 35 would defeat my purpose, which is a tire that:
>
> - Does not beat me up on the bumps
> - Floats enough to maintain control through gravel and loose dirt
>
> In addition, it looks like their only relevant knobbie is a 38.
>
> Has anybody ridden different sizes of Compass tires and compared cruising
> speeds and floatation?
>

Can't comment on that. What I (and dirt bike friends) noticed though was
that knobbies wear down much faster when riding on pavement. I get 800mi
out of a good MTB knobby tire on dirt but only about 500mi on roads.
Road bike slicks last 1100-2500mi depending on type and brand. If the
sidewalls hold out that long which isn't always the case.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Joerg:

>Road bike slicks last 1100-2500mi depending on type and brand. If the
>sidewalls hold out that long which isn't always the case.

Would you feel comfortable buying tires with "Extra-Light" sidewalls?

Seems to me like "No way Jose'" on the front due to the severe consequences
of a front blowout.... But the rear?
--
Pete Cresswell

[avag...@gmail.com]

But the rear?

is not necessary. 'ultimate' performance claims are not required for riding around the block. a good touring tire is enough. a good commuting tire goes too a bit too heavy unless your road surfaces are covered with debris

important that each category has a bottom n top end. Is not well all touring tires are inferior to road racers...

[Joerg]

On 2017-12-11 14:39, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Joerg:
>> Road bike slicks last 1100-2500mi depending on type and brand. If the
>> sidewalls hold out that long which isn't always the case.
>
> Would you feel comfortable buying tires with "Extra-Light" sidewalls?
>

Never, no way. Sidewalls are the #1 problem areas on "modern" bicycle tires.

> Seems to me like "No way Jose'" on the front due to the severe consequences
> of a front blowout.... But the rear?
>

Same there. I had a very violent blow-out on a rear MTB tire. The kind
where a piece of tire is missing afterwards. KABOOM. Some cows panicked
and ran away. It obliterated the rear light, bent metal, destroyed the
charge controller circuit board and ripped some lighting wires. Yeah, I
got the bike stopped without crashing but it was a long walk home.
Especially since the bike could barely be rolled anymore due to the fact
that part of the tire was gone.

For the MTB I found the best tires to be from Asia, in particular from
Thailand. For the road bike I am still looking. The CST Conquistare 25mm
wire bead tire has great sidewalls but absolutely miserable service life
(was through at 1100mi). So that's out. When the last one is used up
I'll try a Vittoria Zaffira 25mm I bought from Jenson. Only single-ply
but looks sturdy. 2-ply or 3-ply would be better. Weight does not matter
at all to me, getting there without a flat or blown tire matters.

If I can't find anything I'll just buy a stack of Conquistare tires if I
find them on sale for under $15 and just throw them out at 1000mi.
Environmentally a poor choice but sometimes there ain't no other way.

My dream would be a 700*25mm downhill tire :-)

[Lars Lehtonen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.invalid> wrote:

> Has anybody ridden different sizes of Compass tires and compared cruising
> speeds and floatation?

I've only ridden the Rat Trap Pass, which I have on a rigid mountain
bike. I didn't like them at first, but I discovered that the pressure
gauge on my pump was bad and that I was running them dramatically
under-inflated.

I ride Southern California fire roads, which can be rocky and rutted.
I've had no problems with the slicks.

- ---
Lars Lehtonen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEvvKqsf7DSishcEgngTfUdOvLBPIFAlowrfsACgkQgTfUdOvL
BPJqSgf/R1awl++NXeMzhobbSzWDPz7sfvfmXsKGU3rbNEBZ6ScdqS17r4HDOoE7
zZUBzHC0WSobJ0Skrg6w/yk/nC+bVpf0LCYRjmPlO9jwHZyvIhk29MoRwkWVPWdm
3PguvRztsbRh3xdMPwpVEahyALUVyzsQNkZ18xwufM81abNqmJB16NQMK61sUVfz
DRNUFdi2C7YmSvXcuI0ifqaFs8tfJxSDx8N4otloCVXAKoSCUF71XM4PtgB55Kn6
f5BZTecda6k452CooNuKuhVv0WKEn7JEAcotkFaCkxW/8jqJ8rT8ThDj51cuHxOJ
hMJI0pZVMyq5LRgDX7KOH4RItcIEzA==
=rNQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:54:52 -0500, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> For me, the relevant Compass slick widths are 35, 38, and 44 with two case
> options: Regular and Lightweight. I'm thinking that anything below
> 35 would defeat my purpose, which is a tire that:

<snip>

I have a pair of Compass 26 x 1.8s that I bought for my birthday, which
was the only way I could justify such extravagant tire prices. I'm
sorry but nearly $90 for a g*****n bike tire is just too damn much
money. Compass is by no means the most expensive tire on the market,
indeed they seem to be in the middle of the spectrum these days. My
baseline comparison on that bike is Panaracer Pasela 27 x 1.75, which
were about $25 each.

I will also say up front that I am delberately skeptical about Jan's
various tests and claims. My tastes in bikes are somewhat similar to
his- with the primary exception of not liking very low trail bikes- and
I am suspicious of confirmation bias on my part as a result.

Conclusions:

1. If you run at Jan Heine's recommended pressures and weigh 230 lbs
ike me, handling will be unstable. The tire starts to collapse as you
lean it into corners. I run 50 psi in the front and about 55 ps in the
back and that solved that problem. The threshold of this phenomenon is
pretty sharp.

2. Jan makes various claims about the tires. The ones that I can say
are true my experience are (a) the tires are very, very quiet on the
road; (b) rolling resistance seems a bit lower but I find this only
noticeable at low speeds and while climbing, where it really does seem
noticeable. At least the feel of the tires is different. The quietness
is my favorite feature, actually- the Pasela tread gives a little
buzzing noise. They are a pleasant tire to ride and I would say I enjoy
the bike a more than I did with the Paselas.

3. The claims I can't confirm are (a) that the tires are faster than my
Paselas- my average speeds over my usual routes are within .1-.2 mph of
each other. Nothing else on the bike is different other than the tires-
even the same inner tubes were used; (b) tread longevity as I only have
about 400-500 miles on them so far.

4. The tires (I bought the extralights) are noticeably lighter than the
Panaracers. I don't have a suitable scale to weigh them. This is not
apples to apples as the Compass tires have folding beads and the Paselas
do not. But the tread is obviously thinner and the casing feels
thinner. There are testamonials of getting 5000 or more miles on a set
of these tires- if that works out for me, probably about 5 years of
riding on that bike, I will withdraw my complaint about price and buy
another set.

5. The tire casings seem more consistent than the Paselas- the Compass
tires don't have a wobble or distortion at the joint whereas every
Pasela I have ever used does. They fit well to the rims; mounting on
Sun CR18s was about par for the course with folding beads. I have old
school fabric rim strips on those rims and that makes mounting just a
smidge more difficult. I have not had any flats and have not tried to
remove them yet.

[jbeattie]

I found the Paselas were prone to sidewall damage. I also had a problems mounting Gatorskins on a CR18s because of the shallow rim well, so choosing a tire that fits that rim is important.

I'm still amazed at the $90 on price tag. What about all the Schwalbe tires?

My complaints about tires typically involve tires that are sluggish. I've rarely felt like a well made 25/28mm tire was beating me to death on the road, although I've had some larger hard-case tires that rode like wagon wheels. Tire dimensions are no guaranty of comfort. I've got some 35mm studs that ride like tank tracks. I'm riding 32mm tires on my commuter for better footing in the rain, which has gone away for the last few weeks (bad news for snow at the resorts). They're fine, but nothing special in terms of comfort. They really feel no different than my 28mm Gatorskins except they're heavier and a little more sluggish.

-- Jay Beattie.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per (PeteCresswell):

>My rear Schwalbe LandCruiser 40x700 is worn out and I am shopping a
>replacement and looking at CompassCycle's slicks.

I settled on one of Schwalbe's offerings:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdlqf4d
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XMFVW34/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Am now looking for something in a 35mm for the front that will cut down on
the face plants compared to a slick when, for instance, negotiating a wet
grass-covered slope.

I find Schwalbe's web site difficult to use.... *Looks* sophisticated, but
the functionality needs work.

Anybody got a 700c x 35, slightly knobby that they like?
--
Pete Cresswell

[avag...@gmail.com]

Try a conti cyclo-cross tirefrom bike tires direct or universalcycles

[Joerg]

Do you know any 25mm that ride like wagon wheels? If that makes them
more sturdy and maybe longer lasting I want wagon wheels.


> ... Tire dimensions are no guaranty of comfort.

> I've got some 35mm studs that ride like tank tracks. I'm riding 32mm
> tires on my commuter for better footing in the rain, which has gone
> away for the last few weeks (bad news for snow at the resorts).
> They're fine, but nothing special in terms of comfort. They really
> feel no different than my 28mm Gatorskins except they're heavier and
> a little more sluggish.
>

The knobby tires on my MTB (currently trying Geax Saguaro) ride like a
tank. On the road and MUP they are so loud that people hear me coming.
They sound like an approaching light rail train.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:14:50 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

>
> I found the Paselas were prone to sidewall damage. I also had a
> problems mounting Gatorskins on a CR18s because of the shallow rim
> well, so choosing a tire that fits that rim is important.

I have had several Paselas fail due to casing separation where the ends
of the carcass overlap (also every Ritchey Tom Slick I ever used had a
casing failure). Most of them have just worn out. I've neved
specifically had sidewall damage with the Paselas. Generally I run
tires at the maximum rated pressure, unlike Jan Heine. I've just too
heavy for lower pressures at 230 lbs. The Compass tires are rated to 75
PSI, though, and I find 50-55 works very well so they are the exception
so far. I think lower pressures increase the risk of sidewall damage.

> I'm still amazed at the $90 on price tag. What about all the Schwalbe
> tires?

Bike component makers have figured out that we will pay stupid amounts
of money for products that wear out and have to be replaced relatively
often- $200 chains, $150 cassettes, $100 tires, etc. Repeat customers
are where the cash is...

> My complaints about tires typically involve tires that are sluggish.

The Compass tires feel less sluggish than the Paselas, althouogh as
noted that is most noticeable at slow speeds and climbing. When rolling
along on flat ground, wind drag overwhelms the signal from the tires
pretty quickly. At the same pressures I would say the two sets of tires
are similar in comfort.

All that being said, I know a couple of people who have switched to
Compass tires and sing their praises loudly and enthusiastically. I am
reasonably satisfied with them but am a bit more muted about it.

[Tim McNamara]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:48:24 -0500, (PeteCresswell) <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
> Am now looking for something in a 35mm for the front that will cut
> down on the face plants compared to a slick when, for instance,
> negotiating a wet grass-covered slope.

Vibram.

[HaloTupolev]

> but don't say
> anything about width-vs-speed penalties.

Compass generally claims that width itself doesn't cause significant differences in net performance.

I can't remember which issue it was (43 maybe?), but one of the editions of Bicycle Quarterly included testing on the apron of Marymoor Velodrome where the entire range of Compass tire widths performed identically, within the precision of their measurement methodology.

> The diff in cruising speed between 40's and 28's looks like 1-1.5 mph.
>
> Fully-rigid bike.
>
> Does this sound reasonable?

I haven't done a rigorous study attempting to only change tire width on the same bike. But when I run Rat Trap Pass ELs (53mm) on my gravel bike, on flat ground, I can't distinguish a cruising performance difference between it and my skinny-tired road bikes (assuming they're also equipped with high-performance tires).
This confuses my riding buddies to no end; there have been group rides when I've ridden my Emonda where people asked me if I was having a bad day, because my pulls weren't hurting them any more than when I previously rode my huge-tired bike.

What I *do* notice having a big effect on paved performance is the style of tire. There was a small period of time last year when I had ThickSlicks (which have a coarser casing and a bunch of puncture protection) rather than Rat Trap Pass ELs on the gravel bike, and it was seemingly around 1mph slower. Knobby MTB tires tend to have an even bigger hit.

[HaloTupolev]

> Road bike slicks last 1100-2500mi depending on type and brand. If the
> sidewalls hold out that long which isn't always the case.

My current rear Compass Rat Trap Pass Extralight has about 2,000 miles on it, and based on the wear indicators, has over half its life left. The sidewalls are doing fine.

[HaloTupolev]

> 1. If you run at Jan Heine's recommended pressures and weigh 230 lbs
> ike me, handling will be unstable. The tire starts to collapse as you
> lean it into corners. I run 50 psi in the front and about 55 ps in the
> back and that solved that problem. The threshold of this phenomenon is
> pretty sharp.

Are you sure that you're running his recommended pressures? I thought he's posted before that he runs higher pressures on pavement-only rides than gravel due to this phenomenon, and he definitely recommends experimenting with wide tires because of how sensitive their behavior is with tire pressure changes.

For what it's worth, when I ride good roads, I ride my Rat Trap Pass ELs (measure 2.1") at 40r/35f, and I weigh 170lbs. Considering your added weight and the reduced width of your tires, I'm not surprised you'd like running your rear at 55PSI for pavement, especially given that you've got narrower rims than I do (CR18 has 18mm internal width, my rims have 24mm internal width).
I often ride 30PSI or lower on gravel rides, where foldover is less of an issue because the riding surface breaks away when you corner hard. When I have them set up like that, they definitely feel squirmy in paved cornering.

> 2. Jan makes various claims about the tires. The ones that I can say
> are true my experience are (a) the tires are very, very quiet on the
> road

I'm not familiar with that particular claim, but I'd actually strongly disagree with it. My Rat Trap Pass ELs absolutely roar on good roads. Road hum is a pretty common thing with supple road tire setups.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 3:14:56 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

> What about all the Schwalbe tires?

You have to choose your Schwalbe right, too. Horses for courses. Schwalbe's Marathon Plus beat the hell out of my back, in return for exceptional freedom from flats and huge mileages. The American workalike (and pretty much lookalike -- to me it looked like they were made in the same mold) is the Bontrager Elite Hardcase, which I also have and would describe as ditto.

Compare to my fave Big Apples with the soft sidewall: same puncture proofing or better, huge comfort, sticks to the road like shit to a baby's blanket, very, very modest rolling resistance, a genuine high-speed tire if you have the legs and the lungs for it on the flat, or the brass balls on the downhill, and really exceptional longevity -- all for a tyre that isn't expensive at all. I consider it a huge allrounder, but note that we get no snow here and I don't ride when the roads are frozen.

> My complaints about tires typically involve tires that are sluggish. I've rarely felt like a well made 25/28mm tire was beating me to death on the road, although I've had some larger hard-case tires that rode like wagon wheels. Tire dimensions are no guaranty of comfort. I've got some 35mm studs that ride like tank tracks. I'm riding 32mm tires on my commuter for better footing in the rain, which has gone away for the last few weeks (bad news for snow at the resorts). They're fine, but nothing special in terms of comfort. They really feel no different than my 28mm Gatorskins except they're heavier and a little more sluggish.

It's not the dimensions by themselves that make the difference. If you want comfort, you gotta take the soft sidewall, and knobbles are a no-no too. I don't understand why bicyclists insist on treaded tyres at all: all the nasties you complain of find their root in stiff sidewalls and treads, the chunkier the nastier.

You ever hear that little British sports cars from Lotus had exceptional handling (handling being the recovery potential when you exceed the car's roadholding capability or your own driving capability)? They were crap little cars that fell apart at the end of the assembly line, with chassis none too stiff, but they handled exceptionally well, and for little English sports cars they even rode almost acceptably. (Muzi probably, despite knowing better, still dreams of finding a cherry Elan or Elite that a little old lady drove only to church on Sundays, and only when the weather was fine.) What gave the Lotus both its comfort (in its class) and its exceptional handling (in any class) was that, contrary to type and expectation, Colin Chapman didn't give his cars the short springs and firm dampers of other little English sports cars, and even German autobahn bullies, but long springs with long travel between the stops, firmly damped. Thus, as my late chum LJK Setright once joked, Chapman turned the necessity of McPherson struts (included because they were cheap from the Ford and Vauxhall/Opel -- European baby Chevies --parts bins, despite being generally frowned on in the sporting community as inferior to properly arranged short and long A arms) into the chief characteristics of his road cars, next to their intolerable unreliability, of course.

There's nothing that damps as smoothly as air, and the more of it the better in bicycle tyres. But it doesn't help if you're such a fashion victim that you then wreck the fatter tyre's main advantages by insisting on a chunky tread and stiff sidewalls.

Andre Jute
As usual, Jobst got it right first time

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:07:29 -0800 (PST), HaloTupolev
<htup...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> but don't say anything about width-vs-speed penalties.
>
> Compass generally claims that width itself doesn't cause significant
> differences in net performance.
>
> I can't remember which issue it was (43 maybe?), but one of the
> editions of Bicycle Quarterly included testing on the apron of
> Marymoor Velodrome where the entire range of Compass tire widths
> performed identically, within the precision of their measurement
> methodology.

I haven't read that one, but their earlier ones involved roll-down
testing and (from one of the photos in the article) timing with a
wristwatch. I put little credence into that article because if the
likelihood of noise in the data.

They later did some interesting testing using a power meter, which
struck me as a better way to assess performance.

That said, I think that Compass is correct in that given identical
construction (casing, tread thickness, rubber compound) the effects of
width as a variable would be small. The more traditional drum tests
suggested (e.g. the ones done for Avocet). For as long as I can
remember, most wider tires also feature heavier casings and much thicker
rubber- wide high performance tires were rare. Compass has pushed in
that direction quite aggressively and good for them.

Compass's assertion that inflation pressure has little impact on
performance is out of keeping with that testing, although when
real-world road textures/roughness are included there may be relatively
little adverse impact from lower pressures. Jim Papadopoulos wrote
about that in this forum many years ago under the rubric of suspension
losses, and his thinking had a direct impact on Compass's tire design
philosophy.

My bike with 26 x 1.8 Compass tires seems as fast as my bikes with 700 x
25 or 700 x 28 Paselas. At least based on average speeds on my cycle
computer and similar subjective effort. That is of course far from a
scientific approach!

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:37:04 -0800 (PST), HaloTupolev
<htup...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. If you run at Jan Heine's recommended pressures and weigh 230 lbs
>> ike me, handling will be unstable. The tire starts to collapse as
>> you lean it into corners. I run 50 psi in the front and about 55 ps
>> in the back and that solved that problem. The threshold of this
>> phenomenon is pretty sharp.
>
> Are you sure that you're running his recommended pressures? I thought
> he's posted before that he runs higher pressures on pavement-only
> rides than gravel due to this phenomenon, and he definitely recommends
> experimenting with wide tires because of how sensitive their behavior
> is with tire pressure changes.

Well, as noted the slope for revealing the effect is sharp- just a few
PSI makes a huge difference. I expect to run higher pressures than Jan
writes about because I am probably 60+ pounds heavier than he is. I am
still fine tuning my inflation pressures with those tires, having only
400-500 miles on them.

> For what it's worth, when I ride good roads, I ride my Rat Trap Pass
> ELs (measure 2.1") at 40r/35f, and I weigh 170lbs. Considering your
> added weight and the reduced width of your tires, I'm not surprised
> you'd like running your rear at 55PSI for pavement, especially given
> that you've got narrower rims than I do (CR18 has 18mm internal width,
> my rims have 24mm internal width). I often ride 30PSI or lower on
> gravel rides, where foldover is less of an issue because the riding
> surface breaks away when you corner hard. When I have them set up like
> that, they definitely feel squirmy in paved cornering.

"Squirmy" is a good descriptor of the phenomenon. The oversteer
characteristic that he attributed to tread pattern is, in my experience,
solely due to underinflation.

>> 2. Jan makes various claims about the tires. The ones that I can
>> say are true my experience are (a) the tires are very, very quiet on
>> the road
>
> I'm not familiar with that particular claim, but I'd actually strongly
> disagree with it. My Rat Trap Pass ELs absolutely roar on good roads.
> Road hum is a pretty common thing with supple road tire setups.

Compared to my Paselas the 1.8s are very very quiet. But yes, there is
a beach-ball-noise effect with wide tires. It's even more pronounced
IME wth latex tubes.

[John B.]

On the other hand if you go out and ride your 50 km loop with the wide
26" tires and then go out the next day and ride the same loop with
your 700c x 28 tires in the same time, can science tell you any more
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Science would tell you that your 700C X 28mm bike sucks or that you live in a place with absolutely no elevation gain.

Most of the uber-fat tire stories start with "I need fat tires because narrow tires beat me up." To me, that is a tire casing and quality issue and not so much about super-fat tires. I've ridden some Clement silk 22.5mm tubulars that were far more cushy than the el cheap-o 32mm Vittoria tires on my commuter. On dirt and gravel, you need more float and some tread pattern -- which produces a somewhat swampy road feel, which is a reasonable trade off. I also can see going fat to get a larger contact patch for rain or snow riding, but I don't see a need to go super fat on smooth dry road. YMMV.

What I love are the stories about fat tires being as "fast" as 25mm on a full-on race bike. The deal is that a 26" bike is typically a whole other type of bike with long stays, more trail and generally less stiff. A Compass mega-fat tire weighs twice as much as a reasonable 25mm tire. If your full-on racing bike is not producing better times on a 50km loop with varied terrain, then there is a problem with your race bike -- or you're having a bad day.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2017-12-14 18:01, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:14:50 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I found the Paselas were prone to sidewall damage. I also had a
>> problems mounting Gatorskins on a CR18s because of the shallow rim
>> well, so choosing a tire that fits that rim is important.
>
> I have had several Paselas fail due to casing separation where the ends
> of the carcass overlap (also every Ritchey Tom Slick I ever used had a
> casing failure). Most of them have just worn out. I've neved
> specifically had sidewall damage with the Paselas. Generally I run
> tires at the maximum rated pressure, unlike Jan Heine. I've just too
> heavy for lower pressures at 230 lbs. The Compass tires are rated to 75
> PSI, though, and I find 50-55 works very well so they are the exception
> so far. I think lower pressures increase the risk of sidewall damage.
>

Similar experience here, less the Compass tires because I would never
plunk down that much money for a bicycle tire unless it lasts at least
3x of the usual.

>> I'm still amazed at the $90 on price tag. What about all the Schwalbe
>> tires?
>
> Bike component makers have figured out that we will pay stupid amounts
> of money for products that wear out and have to be replaced relatively
> often- $200 chains, $150 cassettes, $100 tires, etc. Repeat customers
> are where the cash is...
>

Then there are the customers like me who don't and in consequence walk
away. To online sources overseas.

>> My complaints about tires typically involve tires that are sluggish.
>
> The Compass tires feel less sluggish than the Paselas, althouogh as
> noted that is most noticeable at slow speeds and climbing. When rolling
> along on flat ground, wind drag overwhelms the signal from the tires
> pretty quickly. At the same pressures I would say the two sets of tires
> are similar in comfort.
>
> All that being said, I know a couple of people who have switched to
> Compass tires and sing their praises loudly and enthusiastically. I am
> reasonably satisfied with them but am a bit more muted about it.
>

Must be rich guys :-)

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/16/2017 11:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> What I love are the stories about fat tires being as "fast" as 25mm on a full-on race bike. The deal is that a 26" bike is typically a whole other type of bike with long stays, more trail and generally less stiff. A Compass mega-fat tire weighs twice as much as a reasonable 25mm tire. If your full-on racing bike is not producing better times on a 50km loop with varied terrain, then there is a problem with your race bike -- or you're having a bad day.

I think coasting downhill next to another rider gives at least some
information. I say this because I have 28mm Paselas on my touring bike,
which is the bike I use for most non-tandem club rides. Most people I
ride with have bikes tending more toward racing, and almost all use
narrower tires (mostly 25s). Yet I consistently out-coast most of them.

It could be excess weight on my part, but at 180 lb. I'm not unusually
heavy for this club. It could be aerodynamics, but my touring bike
always carries a handlebar bag and usually a Carrimor saddlebag, plus
fenders. There's also a bottle dynamo and a headlight hanging out in the
wind.

I'm not claiming 28mm Paselas are magic, low-resistance tires. But I
don't see evidence that they're slowing me much, if at all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

28mm is svelte compared to the Compass tires under discussion -- like the 26" 54mm rat trap pass. Also, I think a fat tire takes more time to get up to speed on a downhill, but slick versus slick with a few mm difference (25 versus 28mm or even 32mm) probably makes little difference, particularly if the fatter tire is more positive in corners. Throw in some aggressive tread, and the calculus changes -- and stop, turn around and go up -- then it can make a lot of difference. Also, bikes make a difference. My gravel bike is a hoot, but its a slug up hill compared to my race bike. The Jan Heine "surfing" paradigm doesn't really cut it when you're slugging up hill trying to keep up with your cohorts.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

While I wasn't specifically thinking of hills and such but the fact
remains that if you ride your 50 km loop at the same speed with the
two bikes and you are happy with the ride... what else is there?

If one wants to get scientific, my guess is that the average guy
posting has well over 10% body weight as fat, in fact I read that the
*average* Usian is 23 lbs over his "ideal body weight" (which totally
ignores tissue make up).

(Note: I an excepting James from this as I believe that he is still
maintaining his lean body mass near optimum).

So, to be scientific, lets say, "You'd be far, far better off getting
rid of 15 - 20 lbs of that stuff hanging over your belt, before you
start buying new tires.... its cheaper too :-)

>Most of the uber-fat tire stories start with "I need fat tires because narrow tires beat me up." To me, that is a tire casing and quality issue and not so much about super-fat tires. I've ridden some Clement silk 22.5mm tubulars that were far more cushy than the el cheap-o 32mm Vittoria tires on my commuter. On dirt and gravel, you need more float and some tread pattern -- which produces a somewhat swampy road feel, which is a reasonable trade off. I also can see going fat to get a larger contact patch for rain or snow riding, but I don't see a need to go super fat on smooth dry road. YMMV.
>
>What I love are the stories about fat tires being as "fast" as 25mm on a full-on race bike. The deal is that a 26" bike is typically a whole other type of bike with long stays, more trail and generally less stiff. A Compass mega-fat tire weighs twice as much as a reasonable 25mm tire. If your full-on racing bike is not producing better times on a 50km loop with varied terrain, then there is a problem with your race bike -- or you're having a bad day.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
>

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The (probably) overriding factor in bicycle speed is wind resistance
so perhaps you are more streamlined :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/16/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> If one wants to get scientific, my guess is that the average guy
> posting has well over 10% body weight as fat, in fact I read that the
> *average* Usian is 23 lbs over his "ideal body weight" (which totally
> ignores tissue make up).
>
> (Note: I an excepting James from this as I believe that he is still
> maintaining his lean body mass near optimum).
>
> So, to be scientific, lets say, "You'd be far, far better off getting
> rid of 15 - 20 lbs of that stuff hanging over your belt, before you
> start buying new tires.... its cheaper too :-)

I think the difference is: For most of us here, buying new tires is
possible. In fact, it's easy.

Losing 20 pounds, on the other hand...

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 08:58:35 +0700, John B <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While I wasn't specifically thinking of hills and such but the fact
> remains that if you ride your 50 km loop at the same speed with the
> two bikes and you are happy with the ride... what else is there?

I raced from 1992-2000 and then stopped as I realized I was no longer
having fun riding a bike. 2003-2008 I did brevets and then stopped
because I realized I just wanna ride my bike, not follow a bunch of
organizational rules. So now I am more concerned with smiles per hor
than miles per hour. On the down side, I now resemble the following:

> If one wants to get scientific, my guess is that the average guy
> posting has well over 10% body weight as fat, in fact I read that the
> *average* Usian is 23 lbs over his "ideal body weight" (which totally
> ignores tissue make up).

Ayup. Saw bicycling photos of me tonight, I look like a shit brickhouse
on wheels. Time to lose some weight, yeek.

[jbeattie]

If I lost 20lbs, I'd look like a death camp survivor. Ten would be O.K. Anyway, even when I'm carrying a few extra pounds, I can feel the difference in effort needed to move different bikes and tires. I just switched out some OE Schwalbe Luganos for some Pro4 Endurance -- both 28mm. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/schwalbe-lugano-2015 I can feel the difference between the two, even though I was just slugging along today through the hills. I ride 6-7 days a week and ride three different bikes with regularity. They're all different. Tomorrow will be a group ride with guys I've been riding with weekly for years or decades -- racers and former racers, and although it won't be a death race this time of year . . . two guys a ride, three guys a race and more guys more race. I don't want to be flogging some touring bike with balloon tires up a hill when everyone else is on a racing bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

Geeze Frank, losing weight is probably the easiest thing that a person
can do..... Just keep your mouth closed :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

the peloton tried dragging taunting me along as they came past on my trip to Walmart. Tuned n lubed, was clear after 300 yards that the flow was not going my way.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per avag...@gmail.com:

>Try a conti cyclo-cross tirefrom bike tires direct or universalcycles

Pulled the trigger on one yesterday.

Thanks.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Ralph Barone]

This forum is often a shining example of exactly how hard it is to "just
keep your mouth closed".

[Tim McNamara]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:31:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/16/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If one wants to get scientific, my guess is that the average guy
>>>> posting has well over 10% body weight as fat, in fact I read that
>>>> the *average* Usian is 23 lbs over his "ideal body weight" (which
>>>> totally ignores tissue make up).
>>>>
>>>> (Note: I an excepting James from this as I believe that he is still
>>>> maintaining his lean body mass near optimum).
>>>>
>>>> So, to be scientific, lets say, "You'd be far, far better off
>>>> getting rid of 15 - 20 lbs of that stuff hanging over your belt,
>>>> before you start buying new tires.... its cheaper too :-)
>>>
>>> I think the difference is: For most of us here, buying new tires is
>>> possible. In fact, it's easy.
>>>
>>> Losing 20 pounds, on the other hand...
>>
>> Geeze Frank, losing weight is probably the easiest thing that a
>> person can do..... Just keep your mouth closed :-)
>

> This forum is often a shining example of exactly how hard it is to
> "just keep your mouth closed".

LOL! Well, the internet in general falls into that.

I am reminded of a quote attrinuted to Miles Davis in the mid 1950s.
John Coltrane was in the first great quintet of Miles's and famous for
playing on and on. At the end of one take, Miles chastized him and
Trane replied "Sorry, man, I couldn't figure out how to stop." Miles
replied "take the horn out of your mouth."

Speaking of weight loss and not meaning to shound like a shill, my wife
had great results with WeightWatchers. She started that in 1999 or 2000
and lost over 50#, which she has basically kept off since (+/- 10#).
That's in contrast to me; I hit 250 lbs in 1990 and got a severe lecture
from my doc (family history of diabetes, heart disease, etc.). Just by
eating less stupidly and resuming riding my bike, which I had left idle
for a year or two after moving to the Big City, I lost 55# in about a
year. I started racing in 1992 and maintained that weight until 2000
when I stopped racing. Even at 195# I was never competitive if the road
went uphil more than about 1/4 mile, bike racing is a sport for
flyweights. Indurain is my height and he raced at about 170 lbs; I'd
have had to have a leg amputated to get down to that weight. Gradually
my weight has crept up to 230# and it is now time to do something about
that. My IBW is up to 205# so I am 25# overweight- just about average
mild obesity. I may try the WW thing myself, since I am already
familiar with it and it's not very complicated.

[Frank Krygowski]

When I was a young faculty member, I went to a free faculty fitness
workshop put on by the Human Performance & Exercise Science faculty. One
lecturer said "The average American gains one pound per year." The
assembled professors showed no reaction. The guy said "No, think about
that. What are you going to weigh in 30 years?"

I've gained weight since then, but only about seven pounds, IIRC. For
me, one key was eating zero to minimum lunch. And lately, I try to
reduce the late-night snacks.

I say that as I type with greasy fingers from potato chips and drink a
beer. Hey, we just had friends over for a party. Can't waste the
leftover snacks!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I weigh about the same as I did 30 years ago, but my body fat percentage is way higher. Besides weight gain, loss of muscle mass is a big issue for old folks, unless you go for testosterone and HGH injections. I'm on the slow skid towards chicken legs. I'm looking for magic pills on the internet . . . or a time machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA

== Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 22:59:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski

The solution is quite simple. Energy in versus energy out.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

try whey

[Tim McNamara]

Not quite. The loss of muscle mass, especially after age 50, is
dramatic. No only are we gaining an averag eof a pound of fat a year,
we're probably also losing an average of a pound of muscle a year. Fo
most people that mass loss occurs in the legs, reducing strength and by
one's 80s adversely affecting the ability to walk, climb stairs, stand
up from a chair, get in and out of cars, prevent falls, etc. I've been
working in ursing homes since 1990 and have seen this as one of the most
common underlying causes of temporary and permanent placement- loss of
leg strength resulting in adverse outcomes.

Bicyclists probably have less leg strength and muscle mass loss than
most other people (skiers, hikers and runners probably maintain better,
too). Strength training is an important tool for preventing these
losses. If you want to improve your odds of staying out of the nursing
home in the future, keep those muscles strong! Instead of having half
the strength at 80 than you had at 30, aim to have 85% of that strength.
Your quality of life will be hugely better. Yoga can help with your
balance and flexibility. Cycling will help everything else.

[retrog...@gmail.com]

"take the horn out of your mouth."

"I like my cigars, too, but I take them out of my mouth once in awhile!" - Groucho Marx on his "You Bet Your Life" TV show.