Hype with fast tires?
manougian
What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
Quarterly? Is this all hype?
We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
Berfore this study, no one complained about the Rivendell offerings as
being slow, and some people even said they were even very nice. I
have both the Maxy Fasty and Col d. Vie tires and find both of them
very nice - the Col. d. Vie feels like riding on marshmellows and is
very smooth.
In addition, how much time will the average person gain with these
"fast" tires. The study claims 20-30%. But c'mon, that doesn't mean
a 30 minute bicycle commute is going to only take 25 minutes.
Maybe these "fast" tires might be helpful for a marathon event, but it
seems like hype for rides around town. Don't you think?
I think we need several studies before anyone can say that one tire is
definitely better than another. However, I do like the idea of many
different offerings of tires.
James Manou (Menlo Park, Calif.)
Bruce
manougian <jnm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rivendellers,
What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
Quarterly? Is this all hype?
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Joe Bernard
Most of us here are riding some version of a "country bike" which, by
definition, is fighting the if-I-don't-go-real-fast-I'm-not-really-
riding mentallity. All of my bikes - and their tires - are faster than
me.
On Jun 16, 10:01 am, Bruce <fullylug...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've only used Panaracer Pasela TGs on my 26" wheeled Rambouillet. They max at 80 lbs, and are every bit as fast as the Vittoria Rubino Pros 700 x 23s at 110 psi on the race bike. The Pasela is what the smaller Rams come with. Just for my own info, I have ordered a pair of Contis to try and will report back later on them. The Paselas have about 1,700 miles on them (I swapped positions at 1,500) and still have tread. They have never (knocking wood here) had a flat.
>
> manougian <jnma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Rivendellers,
>
> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> ---------------------------------
clyde canter
C Canter..."clink clink for my two Lincolns"
Tim McNamara
On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:54 AM, manougian wrote:
> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
> the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
> tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
> that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
I have concerns that there may be too much noise in the data
introduced by a number of factors, including the test being outdoors
(wind effects), not being mechanically timed, etc. Jan and Mark did
publish a discussion of the statistical analysis, though, which did
suggest that there was significance to the findings.
> Berfore this study, no one complained about the Rivendell offerings as
> being slow, and some people even said they were even very nice.
Actually, I thought that my Rolly Polys were slow as I saw a drop in
average speed by about 1 mph with an increased subjective impression
of effort compared to the 700 x 28 Continental Ultra 2000s they
replaced (I calibrate my cycle computers using a loaded roll-out, and
recalibrated for the RPs as they were about 2 mm larger). I thought
it was just me, maybe I was just getting slower, maybe it was the
wind, etc. But it was noticeable. I rode them for a thousand miles
or so but never really liked them. I think it's important to note
that Jan identified the Rolly-Polys as his tire of choice for 700C
wheels, even after the tests.
I have changed all my bikes over to Panaracer Paselas (700 x 25 and
26 x 1.25) and have been very pleased with them, although the casing
did fail on one of my 26 x 1.25s. The tread design seems to have
been changed on all sizes, being a bit thinner and feeling a bit
faster. But they won't probably last as long as a Rolly-Poly. I
still have enough racer boy in me for speed to seem important even
though I haven't raced in nearly seven years and am waaaaay slower
than I used to be (I couldn't average 20 miles an hour on a rolling
50 mile ride on a bet, now. 17 mph would thrill me. That used to be
an "easy spin." :-P)
> In addition, how much time will the average person gain with these
> "fast" tires. The study claims 20-30%. But c'mon, that doesn't mean
> a 30 minute bicycle commute is going to only take 25 minutes.
No, since there are other factors such as wind resistance. But maybe
1-2 minutes faster. Enough to be significant? Probably not.
> Maybe these "fast" tires might be helpful for a marathon event, but it
> seems like hype for rides around town. Don't you think?
I think that choice of tires is a balance of trade-offs. The fastest
tires on their test were also probably the least puncture resistant
and would last the fewest miles. For running errands, commuting to
work, etc. that's probably not the best trade-off. For a century
ride or a brevet, the trade-offs are different.
> I think we need several studies before anyone can say that one tire is
> definitely better than another. However, I do like the idea of many
> different offerings of tires.
Yes!
Philip Williamson
Paselas. Paselas were pretty good, but the Riv tires (Roly Poly, etc)
were slow. I only read the follow-up test in vBQ, but it included some
tires from the earlier test as a baseline in its graphs. Also, I'm
operating from memory here.
It seemed like tires stratified into three tiers, with a couple of
narrow tires as the speediest, a group of tires that were pretty
quick, and a third group of slugs. There was a spread within each
tier, a gap, then another tier with a spread of speeds.
I think the new Grand Bois was the fastest of the 'decent' group,
which included the Paselas. The Riv tires fell into the third tier,
with a couple of them being at the slower end of the pack.
I concluded that the Paselas were far and away the best tire _for the
price_. They were only a little slower than the leaders of their tier,
but much cheaper.
There was a conclusion drawn that the fastest tires would be even
faster at larger volumes, but the data looked to me like there might a
be a nonlinear effect in play, since the two(?) tires in the fastest
tier were much narrow than most of the tested tires.
Philip
charlie
and road surfaces. There are too many variables to make an accurate
evaluation unless you keep very accurate records over several months
and note wind conditions and even your own condition. It all gets very
anal and keeps you from enjoying the ride. My fastest bike, plus me
combo, on my normal 9 mile route so far is, my old 21 pound single
speed with 27x1 1/4 inch tires (TG Paselas 28mm wide) at 95 psi. Where
I lose speed on the flats, I gain it back on the climb but can't ride
this bike for too many miles of hills because of the gearing. My best
combo is my old sport tour bike with broad gearing and 32mm 700c
Urbanmax tires at 95 psi. I have a race bike with 25 mm tires and that
short wheelbase bike and tires at 125 psi just rattle my kidneys.
Except on smooth pavement its not faster than my tour bike.
Sometimes I wish for a younger more fit body and one of those 15 pound
wonder bikes but soon realize I would not be comfortable on one, nor
would my average be much of an improvement. What are we talking about
in the real world? Tires that might gain you 1 mph still only give you
1 mph. That matters in a race but otherwise I can't see it making a
huge difference. I'd rather have a tire that holds up to alot of
abuse, doesn't flat and corners well. If I really want to go fast I'll
fire up a harley and maybe get some chicks interested. Wait.....I'm
married, that won't work!
On Jun 16, 10:14 am, "clyde canter" <clyde.can...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hype...like u said....sounds like to me anyways. I did a loop this morning
> that usually takes about 3 hrs for me and it did this morning as well. If
> changing my Paselas for Grand Bois got me a 30% faster ride I could have
> done that loop in 2hr 6mins.... Smells fishy to me. Besides that if you are
> in that big a hurry why would you be on a bicycle anyway?
> C Canter..."clink clink for my two Lincolns"
>
> On 6/16/07, manougian <jnma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rivendellers,
>
> > What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> > Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> > We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
> > the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
> > tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
> > that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
>
> > Berfore this study, no one complained about the Rivendell offerings as
> > being slow, and some people even said they were even very nice. I
> > have both the Maxy Fasty and Col d. Vie tires and find both of them
> > very nice - the Col. d. Vie feels like riding on marshmellows and is
> > very smooth.
>
> > In addition, how much time will the average person gain with these
> > "fast" tires. The study claims 20-30%. But c'mon, that doesn't mean
> > a 30 minute bicycle commute is going to only take 25 minutes.
>
> > Maybe these "fast" tires might be helpful for a marathon event, but it
> > seems like hype for rides around town. Don't you think?
>
> > I think we need several studies before anyone can say that one tire is
> > definitely better than another. However, I do like the idea of many
> > different offerings of tires.
>
> > James Manou (Menlo Park, Calif.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Murray Love
I don't think the study showed Grand Boises being 30% faster than
Paselas. Paselas were pretty good, but the Riv tires (Roly Poly, etc)
were slow. I only read the follow-up test in vBQ, but it included some
tires from the earlier test as a baseline in its graphs. Also, I'm
operating from memory here.
No, that number is off by an order of magnitude: The Nifty Swifty had an average time of 30.6s, the Maxy-Fasty was 29.8s, while the Grand Bois was 28.9s. So the GB was 3.1% faster than the NS, and 2.7% faster than the MF. That was the "white label" GB, and apparently the new "green label" version is faster. The real winner in the 650B category was the Mitsuboshi Trimline, with an average time of 27.3s.
Though 2-3% makes almost no difference to instantaneous speed, it does add up over rides of more than a couple of hours, and I believe that was Jan's point.
In 700C tires, the fastest tire was the 24mm Deda Tre Giro D'Italia, at 25.3s, while the 35mm Pasela was 27.3s, the 28mm Avocet Duro at 27.9s, while the Rolly-Polly was 28.5s.
Murray
Murray Love
Compared to what you'll read pretty much anywhere else in cycling periodicals, the BQ tire tests are downright scientific. The methodology is all laid out, some possible objections anticipated, and different parameters (hub resistance, heat, tire wear) at least somewhat accounted for.
Murray
charlie
ride depending on the road surfaces. But it seems to me that a more
aerodynamic position would have more effect on speed. Of course thats
not the point of the article I'd imagine. These types of tests are
interesting and might even be helpfull to certain cyclists but I
wonder if a comfort and reliabiltiy factor was figured into the
equation. Sorry........I'm just thinking how much I hate flatting.
On Jun 16, 11:22 am, "Murray Love" <murray.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruce
My point was that a Rambouillet with fatter lower pressure Paselas is as fast as a lighter race bike with skinnier tires. It's the same legs pushing both. The Ram is way more comfortable, and easy on the yes to boot. And I feel right at ease on it in loose shorts and sandals instead of a bib and SIDIs.
Joe Bernard <josephr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
All of my bikes - and their tires - are faster than
me.
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
MichaelH
Tires may have more or less rolling resistance and do better or worse
on a given suface while rolling downhill. But the faster tire going
down the ramp might also be heavier and feel slower while constantly
trying to re-accelerate going uphill. I ride 28mm Ruffy Tuffy on my
Rambouilet and 32 mm Pasellas on my nearly identical Trek 620 frame
and frankly I can't tell the difference between these tires. The 32s
might be a tad more comfortable but I wouldn't want to swear to that.
I love BQ, look forward to every issue, and read the reviews, product
tests and historical articles with enthusiasm. But...., I also have a
sense that there is a lot of hair splitting going on. For example, I
will quickly adjust to front end handling differences and unless the
bike is off the chart unstable will instinctively meld with the bike.
I don't believe that I am more fatigued by a faster handling front end
or need to contstantly adjust my line of travel. I'm sure the bike
testers are finding real differences but I'm not sure that most riders
would be much aware of them after 15 minutes on a bike. I can always
adjust my style to the bikes cornering & stability preferences, and
wind resistance will overwhelm rolling resistance going downhill, but
there isn't much I can do about a bike that bogs down on every rise in
the road. It's easy to get caught up trying to buy perfect stuff -
the perfect frame, the perfect shifter, the perfect tire - but we need
to keep in mind that it's all subject to the laws of diminishing
return. Happiness isn't wrapped up in the next thing I buy.
Ride, enjoy, be grateful, and keep the rubber side down,
Michael
Westford, Vt
manougian
In fairness to the BQ test crew who took the time to test tires
without pay, I think research is good. Besides, in the bicycle corner
of the world not a whole lot of research by non-BOBers is taking place
and every little bit is good for us. Frankly, I enjoy the BQ
magazines more so than Bicycling or even Cycling Plus (this, by the
way, is a decent magazine).
However, I think more research needs to be done before we poo-poo
(sorry, I got kids at home) good tires from Rivendell. What's good
about them:
1. relatively inexpensive
2. last a long time
3. ride nicely
4. helped start the interest in 650B
5. give us other alternatives than Michelin or Grand Bois
Last, I'm enjoying this new Riv chatboard and the intelligent
postings! I just wish there was more postings by the RBW crew.
charlie
on my favorites. I should subscribe since it looks like something I
would rather read than most of the other mags out there. For anyone
into timed events, having reliable and swift machines, that alow
decent comfort and versatility, is important, I'd imagine.
Hairsplitting reviews are unavoidable since things are generally so
well made these days. I agree totally with your view on the buying of
things and happiness.
> > Murray- Hide quoted text -
Philip Williamson
Philip
JoelMatthews
it, but as I recall, BQ made clear that being less fast did not make
the Rivendell tires less good. Unless you are racing (and if you are,
you probably would not be using a Riv tire anyway) there are a lot of
factors to consider when rating the quality of a tire. Fast is near
the bottom.
Case in point: My work bike has Schwalbe Big Apples on them. No one
is going to be putting these fatties on any race bike any time soon -
heck, they wouldn't fit. But I cannot think of a more perfect tire for
a bike carrying a load of newspapers and bottles to the recycling
station.
And speaking of Schwalbe. I decided to go all Riv when I got my
Hilsen and bought Riv tires. There are nothing wrong with them. I
certainly do not think of them as slow. But in all honesty, I don't
like them as much as Schwalbes. Hard to pin point exactly why. I
just feel a little less connected to the road with them.
David Estes
Now that, was well said........I checked out the BQ page and have it
on my favorites. I should subscribe since it looks like something I
would rather read than most of the other mags out there.
--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Bill Gibson
the Bicycle Quarterly pays off. I don't regret buying all the back
issues, and there is progress in their thought. The tire tests did
rank-order a range of tires but that wasn't the main purpose. I think
they are trying to identify the factors that matter in the real world,
and provide guidance for tire designers.
I also think they'd agree that there are many factors involved in
selecting a tire for a bicycle, although they have been focussing on
rolling resistance. Durability and puncture resistance in different
conditions, not to mention handling, aren't their focus right now,
even though they make some observations. One of the most interesting
observations is that how the tire feels doesn't really tell you much
about how it tests on the hillside.
Rivendell's tires might last much longer and be less prone to damage
than the kind of tire they are identifying as especially "fast", and
that might matter a lot when touring on back roads...I'm just enjoying
the investigation!
On 6/16/07, Philip Williamson <philip.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
--
Bill Gibson
Tempe, Arizona, USA
Tim McNamara
On Jun 16, 2007, at 2:37 PM, charlie wrote:
> Now that, was well said........I checked out the BQ page and have it
> on my favorites. I should subscribe since it looks like something I
> would rather read than most of the other mags out there. For anyone
> into timed events, having reliable and swift machines, that alow
> decent comfort and versatility, is important, I'd imagine.
> Hairsplitting reviews are unavoidable since things are generally so
> well made these days.
BQ is the best cycling magazine I have subscribed to in 30 years of
reading bike mags. While the tire tests may look like hairsplitting
Jan mentioned that he switched to the fastest tires in the test and
set record times on brevets. And then he seems to have gone back to
the Rolly-Polys; it's all about balancing compromises. I like the
mix of articles, especially the interviews with pioneering
randonneurs and the history of the development of randonneuses and of
the sport of randonneuring. The next BQ focuses on British
lightweights, a fascinating subject, and will even mention a local-to-
me event: the Three Speed Tour of Lake Pepin. Jan has had a strong
French focus for the most part, while my personal predilections are
probably more in line with the English approach. I enjoy the English
tolerance of individuality and even downright oddness.
Other cycling magazines that I think are good are "A to B Magazine"
published by David and Jane Henshaw in England and "Velovision",
published by Peter Eland also in England. Of the mass-market
magazines, the best is Cycling Plus... erm, also English. I really
used to like "On The Wheel" but that has gone away a long time ago,
which tended to focus on the English approach to riding including
reprints of stuff out of British magazines. There's a trend here.
And of course there is the Rivendell Reader which is not really a
magazine, yet much more than a catalog, and I don't know how to
categorize it- but who cares, anyway?
eddi...@gmail.com
in part:
> Rivendellers,
>
> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
> the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
> tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
> that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
I just came off three long, dry brevets on my Bleriot and had a chance
to compare the Nifty Swifty and Grand Bois. I rode Nifty Swifty's on a
400K fleche in Oregon and a 400K brevet here in the Washington, D.C.
area. I rode the GB green label wire version for a 600K in relatively
hot temperatures here as well. All were pumped fairly firm -- 70
p.s.i. ofr the NS and 65 for the GB. The NS's ride much like a
Pasela, which in my book is great; wonderful. No argument!
The GB's ride feel too me was better, though it might have been the 5
p.s.i. differnence, but I don't think so. Over those distances any
time I can save is worthwhile, though for the price of the GB's I'm
going to save them for centuries and brevets and PBP. I have no way to
calculate whether the GB's made me faster, but they feel slightly
faster. I felt I could cruise along on them on flat roads at a few
tenths faster for the same perceived effort.
Ed Felker
Arlington, VA
Lynne Fitz
My old bike, a Sekai 2400 (27" wheels folks, OLD), was running
Schwalbe Marathons at the time of its untimely demise. I commuted on
that bike daily for years. Same route.
My new Bleriot (which did not get ready soon enough to replace Sekai :-
( ) is running Nifty Swifties. My commute has not changed. 3.65
miles, uphill both ways. My on-bike time is consistently a minute
faster. I'm not sure the Bleriot is appreciably lighter, either.
I can do it about 5 minutes faster on my Lemond, but I can't carry
anything :-)
One of my rando buddies just switched from Nifty Swifties to Grand
Bois tires. He says they feel more efficient. But he'll swap back to
the NS for non-rando season.
I'll expect I'll give the GB tires a try when I need new ones. I need
all the help on brevets I can get...
Jeff Loomis
commuting, or shorter rides you might want to consider other factors
besides speed. For example, on a year round commute puncture
resistance might be the most important factor. If a 10 mile commute
takes 1 minute longer but I have to change a flat zero times over a
year vs. several times, I'll ride the extra minute. That's just a
minute of extra exercise and fun anyway.
The interesting thing I took away from the BQ article was how much
difference tire choice can make for longer brevets. I always assumed
that tire choice was pretty much inconsequential compared to other
factors. The article pointed out that slower riders like me are the
ones who benefit most from improved tires, since rolling resistance is
a greater percentage of our power output. I just finished my first
600K brevet last weekend in 38:18 which is not exactly a speedy
performance. Of course I will be working to improve my speed and
fitness through training before future events, but if I can take two
hours off that time simply by switching to a different tire, that's a
no-brainer. Two hours less riding at the end of a 36 hour ride (or
two hours extra sleep) would feel like a gift from the gods.
So, in my opinion, if it matters to you, then it matters. For lots of
people, lots of the time, it doesn't. For some people, some of the
time, it matters a great deal. I'm really happy the BQ staff took the
time to do careful testing. I just wish that they had been able to
test even more tires, because they found that objective testing is
really the only way to tell which tires are faster. I also wish there
were more 700x28 tires in the fast category.
Jeff Loomis
Arlington, MA
CycloFiend
and my hat is off to Jan and the BQ crew for the efforts.
A couple things I didn't notice in other's comments:
One of the core issues giving rise to the tests is the reliance of most
major tire manufacturers to cite laboratory drum tests as definitive with
respect to rolling resistance. The unquestioned assumption was that harder,
thinner tires roll faster, and that everything else was less efficient. The
BQ test questioned that assumption, and seems to indicate that the larger
volume tires with appropriate casings in fact may be more efficient in the
real world.
The BQ tests (and it _is_ worth ordering the back issues) were very up front
about methods used and encouraged readers to test tires themselves under
similar conditions. The tests did seem to take weather and temperature into
account, as well as deal with the whole aerodynamics aspect. It's a
difficult balance to construct a real world test which does not introduce
too many other variables.
One other thing that came up was that rider impressions of which tires felt
"fast" did not reliably correlate with the test data.
Now, when the heck are those Jack Brown Tires gonna show up? ;^)
-- Jim
--
Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes
Workshops of the iBob's
Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines
Steve Palincsar
> I don't believe that I am more fatigued by a faster handling front end
> or need to contstantly adjust my line of travel. I'm sure the bike
> testers are finding real differences but I'm not sure that most riders
> would be much aware of them after 15 minutes on a bike
I don't think they ever said a fast handling front end would fatigue the
rider; rather, I think, they've concentrated on the sort of handling
that would be easy for a very fatigued rider to manage.
Steve Palincsar
> Rivendellers,
>
> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
> the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
> tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
> that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
These are not accuracte characterizations of the articles. I think it
would be worth reading the articles rather than relying on second-hand
reports.
--
Steve Palincsar
pali...@his.com
Alexandria, VA, USA
Randy Graves
manougian
I read the article and I own that BQ magazine. The gist of my message
is accurate.
We are relying on one research article. In medicine you'd never do
that - you'd have an independent party verify the results. Now,
certainly, the ramifications of having a bad tire study is not the
same as bad medicine, but some people are making decisions on this one
article.
What statement of mine was not accurate?
Ryan Watson
> manougian wrote:
>> Rivendellers,
>>
>> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
>> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
I originally set up a 650B bike, with the 38mm Trimlines, for the purpose
of riding unpaved mountain roads. I found that even on pavement, I
preferred the ride of the fat tires. However, I assumed that since the
tires were fat and comfy they must be slowing me down, so I bought the
Nifty Swifties in order to be faster* on the road.
What I learned from the BQ article was that I don't need hard, skinny
tires to be fast! I can keep the fat, comfy Trimlines or Col de la Vies
without losing speed or effeciency, and I don't need to switch back and forth
between "road" tires and "dirt" tires.
* the way I see it, if a tire is faster, then I should be able to go the
same speed with less effort, which means perhaps that I can go further
without fatigue. For "round town" rides it hardly matters, but maybe it's
an advantage on more ambitious endeavors?
Still, I ride for fun, so I wouldn't use a tire I don't like just because
it scored high on a test.
Ryan
Brewster Fong
On Jun 16, 9:54 am, manougian <jnma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rivendellers,
>
> What do you guys think with all the talk on "fast" tires and Bicycle
> Quarterly? Is this all hype?
>
> We have ONE (just one) study done by Bicycle Quarterly that determined
> the Rivendell offerings (Maxy Fasty, Ruffy Tuffy, etc.) as "slow"
> tires and the Grand Bois tires as "fast". The study also mentioned
> that the Grand Bois tires were "very nice riding tires".
>
> Berfore this study, no one complained about the Rivendell offerings as
> being slow, and some people even said they were even very nice. I
> have both the Maxy Fasty and Col d. Vie tires and find both of them
> very nice - the Col. d. Vie feels like riding on marshmellows and is
> very smooth.
>
> In addition, how much time will the average person gain with these
> "fast" tires. The study claims 20-30%. But c'mon, that doesn't mean
> a 30 minute bicycle commute is going to only take 25 minutes.
>
> Maybe these "fast" tires might be helpful for a marathon event, but it
> seems like hype for rides around town. Don't you think?
>
> I think we need several studies before anyone can say that one tire is
> definitely better than another. However, I do like the idea of many
> different offerings of tires.
>
I don't know, on wreck.bike.tech, there's a big following for Avocet
Fasgrip Road (700x25) tires based on Jobst Brandt's finding using a
steel drum:
http://bike.terrymorse.com/rolres.html
discussion of the above:
http://bike.terrymorse.com/rrdiscuss.html
Note - this test was done years ago (1998?), so most of the tires are
no longer available. Even the Avocet is different as it changed
production from Japan (black with tan sidewalls, listed as 700x28) to
Korea (all black tire listed as 700x25).
I haven't read the VBQ article, but I believe it may discuss Jobst's
finding.
Nevertheless, many people, including myself, have bought Avocet Road
tires to see if its true. I like Avocet tires alot as I find them to
be very comfortable (pumped up to about 90-95psi) and it doesn't seem
to slow me down.
Now if only I could corner like Jobst:
http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps/Gallery/tiretest.jpg
Bruce
Bruce
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
Tom Norwood
Okay, I'm new here. But can we move on past the brouhaha over a tire article in a magazine? I think that horse has taken all the beating it can.
Bruce
Ummm, I thought that's why this list existed. I think that BQ has published the most thought provoking articles in the industry and I'm really glad to have a place to discuss them further. As far as I'm concerned, keep beating that horse!
Brewster Fong
On Jun 18, 1:36 pm, "Tom Norwood" <tbnorw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruce,
Can you explain exactly how we have *moved on past the brouhaha?* Are
you saying that BQ is the one true tire test and nobody else should
question it?
Or perhaps you're saying the BQ article is full of it and we should
just ride whatever? Please explain?!
Bill Gibson
just ignore the thread! This is a good discussion, and I hope everyone
gets a copy of BQ and reads it well.
The counterintuitive finding that real world conditions mean that
narrow tires are not only uncomfortable but aren't as fast as wider
tires is unexpected, counter to common opinion, and therefore very
interesting to me.
Add to that the romance and the excitement of rediscovering buried
treasures (in the form of ancient and esoteric wisdom) is
irresistable. Not to mention the revival large volume, light,
flexible, high quality touring tires in a range of sizes, treads and
colors, what fun. Not much affects my bikes' ride more than the tires!
Bruce
You mis quote me. I didn't say THAT we had moved past, but rather asked if we COULD? The discussion of tires is great. Grip coefficient, rolling resistance, heat dissipation, comfort factors. I am good with all of that. The "he said, no you said, no I didn't say, you don't read well" stuff was the "brouhaha" I referred to, and which was wearisome.
Last night, I rode some hills with a buddy. He was on a Kestrel Carbon TT bike with 21 mm tires at 120 psi. I was on a Ram with 80 psi Paselas. He is a bigger guy than I am, so I would say he + bike = 200 lbs, and me + bike = 185 lbs. I rolled down every hill faster than he could. Why? Not the tires on either bike, but my getting a tighter tuck.
Bruce
Brewster Fong <bfd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Bruce,
Can you explain exactly how we have *moved on past the brouhaha?* Are
you saying that BQ is the one true tire test and nobody else should
question it?
Or perhaps you're saying the BQ article is full of it and we should
just ride whatever? Please explain?!
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
Tim McNamara
On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Bill Gibson wrote:
> The counterintuitive finding that real world conditions mean that
> narrow tires are not only uncomfortable but aren't as fast as wider
> tires is unexpected, counter to common opinion, and therefore very
> interesting to me.
It's not that unexpected. The old Avocet tests suggested that wider
tires have less rolling resistance, all other things being equal.
The problem is, of course, that all other things are not equal.
Wider tires generally have thicker casing due to higher casing
tension under inflation, which means that there are more losses in
flexing the casing; and wider tires almost always have thicker
rubber, which means more hysteresis losses. I did notice at Hiawatha
Cyclery that the current Paselas appear to use the same casing and
the same tread across all the 700C sizes and the 27" size, as well as
teh 26 x 1.25 size. I find them to be excellent tires thus far.
NickBull
might have expected this result, but for the other 99.999X percent of
us, it was surprising and counterintuitive, which I suspect is why
there is so much interest in this thread :-)
The BQ article made me switch from Conti GP4 700x28's to Panaracer
Pasela TourGuard 700x32's for this year's randonneuring season. I'm
consistently finishing brevets a little faster than the last couple of
years. Don't know how much of that owes to tires -- the Conti's seem
pretty fast, but I don't think this specific model was tested. Having
qualified for PBP, I decided to buy the Grand Bois tires, because
frankly I need every possible advantage to hope to finish PBP with
some sleep along the way. Supposedly, tires with kevlar belts are
noticeably slower than those without, so I'm hoping the GB's will be
noticeably faster than the Pasela TG's. Though rather pricy, they
represent a small fraction of the cost of training, qualifying, and
riding PBP.
Tim McNamara
On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:12 PM, NickBull wrote:
> The BQ article made me switch from Conti GP4 700x28's to Panaracer
> Pasela TourGuard 700x32's for this year's randonneuring season. I'm
> consistently finishing brevets a little faster than the last couple of
> years. Don't know how much of that owes to tires -- the Conti's seem
> pretty fast, but I don't think this specific model was tested. Having
> qualified for PBP, I decided to buy the Grand Bois tires, because
> frankly I need every possible advantage to hope to finish PBP with
> some sleep along the way. Supposedly, tires with kevlar belts are
> noticeably slower than those without, so I'm hoping the GB's will be
> noticeably faster than the Pasela TG's. Though rather pricy, they
> represent a small fraction of the cost of training, qualifying, and
> riding PBP.
I switched from 700 x 23 to 700 x 28s due to the old Avocet tests. I
did use to do road races and crits on my 'cross bike with Avocet 700
x 32 Duros (which were about 28 mm wide actual measurement) and never
felt like the tires were holding me back and they were so secure
feeling in corners. I used to get comments, though, from guys on
skinnies... For brevets and most riding I used Continental Ultra
2000 700 x 28 @ 120 psi for years. They were fine. Last fall I
bought some Panaracer Pasela 20 x 1.25s for my A/R and was very
pleased with them. I bought some Pasela 700 x 25s for my road bike,
which was just a bit tight clearance-wise with the Contis, and was
really, really impressed with those too. Now Paselas are on all my
bikes. For years I groused about my A/R being slow (average speeds
being 1 to 1.5 mph slower in similar conditions over the same routes
at the same subjective effort) and tried a bunch of different tires;
the Paselas were a noticeable difference as my average speeds came up
to be the same as my other bikes.
I think you are right about the TGs and other tires with some kind of
Kevlar or other puncture strip. The strip adds weight and rolling
resistance, and I have never found that they were all that helpful in
preventing flats. Sharp things just slide between the strands of the
Kevlar belt, which is a woven fabric. I've not ridden the GBs and
have only seen the very limited information in BQ about them. The
size seems awfully nice, if you've got clearance for them, and they
look nice too. I hope they are wonderful to ride as well.