Any cyclists here?

[Bobvin]

I did learn something. Even though skinny tires with high pressure are demonstrably faster in my opinion, it is not the absolute I thought it was. There are limits and many factors come into play. Some factors maybe even more important than all out speed. The good news is you can verify it for yourself. The tires are not that expensive. So make your best guests and race against the clock. You be the judge.

All out speed... unless you're competing, I'd say the difference of a few watts isn't going to make much difference, so go for more comfort. I've done it all over the course of my life, been cycling since I was a wee child. Never competitive at the highest levels, but rode my share of races. As I got older I took the pride of hanging with the fast boys, I just couldn't do those back to back with the intensity of youth. I also toured quite a bit, crossing the country west-east and south-north up into Canada. I missed a couple years recently, but would test myself with the annual ride up to Hurricane Ridge in Olympic National Park. Retirement (this year) might have me riding the Tour Divide next summer.

I wish wide, supple sidewall tires were ALWAYS part of cycling. Too many rides on skinny high pressure tires. Now I can ride a fast, supple, 44mm tire for rides even at 18-21mph, and when I want to go faster I'm still on a 35. Rene Herse (formerly Compass Tires) have some great tires that ride nearly as nice as the silk tubulars I used to ride.

Speed isn't everything. But if you want to go fast, it can still be done on a wider tire. Rule#5 always applies. https://www.velominati.com/

 

[gajgmusic]

An interesting post, and I will just chime in on the last comments, I agree completely with wider tires. I have an Open Up and have moved from 28mm to 38 running at 40 psi. I can't keep up with the fastest aerobikes, but who cares. I just finished riding with chap who had the newest Specialized S Works Tarmac SL-7, he was definitely faster. But he missed half the last day, just too tired. The roads were far from champagne. Comfort is king, and I suspect from what I read actually lets you perform better. There is a cost to all the jarring. Just my opinion, I defer to anyone who thinks otherwise

 

[Gregadd]

I think a lot of the problem is based on how the tires were being used. The better the bike the thinner the tire. This usually comes with lighter rims and more exotic materials. athe cheaper the bike the wider the tires and less exotic materials. Nowadays that is not always the case. You can see a fat tire with aero profile ,low or inverted tread and exotic materials. This is especially true for off- road applications where speed is not the primary goal. Strength, weight, and traction might be far more critical.
For my daily trip to the coffee shop I ride a 700 x 28m inflated to 80 psi. That's positively obese for me.

 

[Bobvin]

I think a lot of the problem is based on how the tires were being used. The better the bike the thinner the tire. This usually comes with lighter rims and more exotic materials. athe cheaper the bike the wider the tires and less exotic materials. Nowadays that is not always the case. You can see a fat tire with aero profile ,low or inverted tread and exotic materials. This is especially true for off- road applications where speed is not the primary goal. Strength, weight, and traction might be far more critical.
For my dearly trip to the coffee shop I ride a 700 x 28m inflated to 80 psi. That's positively obese for me.

You’re right, today I can build a carbon road wheel with light hubs (or my favorite, slightly weightier Onyx hubs with silent freewheeling) that don’t weigh much more than my ENVE ‘racing’ wheels, and put a 35mm extralight Compass tire on them (254g) and run those at 50 - 60 psi. (My carbon “mountain” wheels are only ~ 150g heavier) If you were to ride that on your coffee run you’d come away with a different impression I am sure. (My coffee run used to be 22 miles round trip, enough of a workout if you drop the hammer to count as a training ride. Plus — espresso!)

The secret is the supple sidewall tire. You won’t get the speed or road feel from a thick, stiff sidewall tire. The reason the pro’s still use a silk casing. Its all about the tires ability to deform to absorb minor road irregularities without bouncing.

 

[Whbgarrett]

The diagram is missing something- what happens when you hit a bump. At that point some of the forward speed is converted to vertical motion. Its less efficient. By running a lower pressure you can have a more efficient ride- if the pressure is right it will be faster and smoother at the same time.

By going with a wider tire (as long as its not too wide) your contact patch is reduced in size due to the aspect ratio being different- a narrower tire has a long contact patch while a wider tire trades

that for one that is wider- but less area overall. This give you a bit more flexibility with the tire pressures you can run since you have a greater volume of air. You can try to get around that by greater inflation of the narrower tire, but then the bumps make the ride less efficient, and certainly less comfortable, robbing you of energy. The downside of wider tires isn't speed on flat ground- in that regard as long as TPI and tread issues are similar they are faster, but not uphill, simply on account of the greater weight.

YT has a ton of videos on this topic!

This is one of those cycling traditions which takes decades of time to overcome, similar to the idea of drop bars for people that aren't racing.

For the Tour Divide I moved away from the Jones CRims to a set of Hunt rims with internal wall to wall width of 33mm and tire width of 2.6". This reduced weight a bit since the Hunt rims even though alloy are lighter than the Jones CRims and for that matter so are the tires (Vitorria Mezcals). On the Tour Divide, the most successful racers say that 2.2 to 2.3" widths seem to be the sweet spot- narrower and you can't make speed over the rougher stuff, wider and its too heavy. But most of those guys weigh 30-50 pounds less than me so the wider tire seems prudent. In 2019 I rode 2.8" Vee Rubber Speedsters and made the best speed on the route of any of my prior attempts (two of those using 2.2" tires). Over days and weeks of continuous riding, the comfort aspect becomes paramount; the Jones is easily the most comfortable bike I've owned despite no suspension. I think the longer wheelbase is playing a role.
View attachment 92989 Hope you enjoyed riding with the Tetons in view. I am fortunate enough to live in their shadow and my favorite local ride is a 52 mile loop through GTNP. The views never get old!

Hope you enjoyed riding in the Tetons. I am fortunate entropy live in their shadow, and my favorite local ride is a 53 mile loop in GTNP. The hiking and skiing is pretty good too . The views never get old.

 

[bonzo75]

What a majestic dog

 

[Whbgarrett]

What a majestic dog

Thanks! That’s Hendrix. He is a two year old Belgian Sheepdog. We have two of them. The other one is named Onyx, who is 13. Here are some more pics, including a pic of Onyx after a morning of backcountry fun in the winter, Hendrix in our backyard and at the top of a ski run on a sunny day and the two of them together.

 

[rando]

I just finished riding with chap who had the newest Specialized S Works Tarmac SL-7, he was definitely faster. But he missed half the last day, just too tired. The roads were far from champagne. Comfort is king, and I suspect from what I read actually lets you perform better. There is a cost to all the jarring. Just my opinion, I defer to anyone who thinks otherwise.

One of the most excruciating experiences is bringing a parts hanger race bike* to anything but a devoted effort with the requisite conditioning. It appears this rider did not set up his bike correctly for the course. Nor was he prepared for the efforts.

Ever heard the saying good at any speed? The domain of amateur riding is currently using pro level equipment, or beyond as any rule book will ascertain, with exceedingly larger quantities of compelling elements built into it than rider possesses. Conditioning, set up ability, toolbox of experiences, and most importantly restraint - the ability to control what comes on so easily at all times. All contribute to the net effect of fatigue and ability to relax within any effort.

*One need only consider how much thought and effort goes into course recon and then multiple hours of building a bike by pro level mechanic based on exact knowledge of conditions. To see fresh out of the box ENVE wheels paired with anything actually a stock part plus a mishmash of shiny expensive looking aftermarket pieces bolted on... the exact same for every ride... as underwhelming.

 

[rando]

I think a lot of the problem is based on how the tires were being used. The better the bike the thinner the tire. This usually comes with lighter rims and more exotic materials. athe cheaper the bike the wider the tires and less exotic materials.

Good riders do more with less. By design everything was built to be less forgiving and get out of the way allowing use of illegal elements. Dangerously thin walled parts for climbing and drillium sure showed up in a lot of places once established as providing gains in performance. The price you mention is one's continued health in the first case. Obviously saner minds prevailed when it came to making commonplace bikes anyone could ride using the most proven designs at affordable prices. Thicker tires (impossible to make narrow and thick tires) also puncture less easily if meeting reasonable criteria of manufacture.

Nowadays that is not always the case. You can see a fat tire with aero profile ,low or inverted tread and exotic materials. This is especially true for off- road applications where speed is not the primary goal. Strength, weight, and traction might be far more critical.

Turning back to my post on rock hard narrow 10 speed tires. That era of racer showed the upper body and core development their machine and road surface insisted upon. Climbers were ballerinas, short and round. Today you see a very different breed of racer take the line on their compact geo endurance (or equally strange geo aero) frames fitted with bulbous broad and tall wheels fitted with tires having a very different profile to tackle mostly smooth even roads. Climbers are tall and anemic with long levers for limbs.

A lot, I do mean a lot, of examining took place looking at how closely the postures of racers on steel race bikes of yesteryear mirror carbon bikes with top riders of today on them. Not much has changed besides outwards appearances. If anything sight lines have gotten harder with frame tubing being so much larger. The interesting comparison inside aerodynamics is not speed. It is the impact on floating through bumps. Or finding better angle of downforce at exact moment input is applied and how it corroborates with lower Cdi.

Faster on paper or bolted down in a wind tunnel mean nothing if your design resonates across a number of easily found frequencies that disrupt claimed benefits. This is the safety measure wide tires supply to rank amateurs. I won't make detailed explanations how pro level racers encourage these designs to act differently. Suffice to say that below 18mph/30kmh you encounter orders of magnitude lower disruptions. The more you tamper with parameters of weight distribution and add rider drag...

Since I love picking on S. Graphic their lead S-Works road designer famously used his fancy mapping design software to construct is below. More than a bit on the nose personal statement on day he cashed his bonus check after sales went through the roof.

 

[Atmasphere]

I think a lot of the problem is based on how the tires were being used. The better the bike the thinner the tire. This usually comes with lighter rims and more exotic materials. athe cheaper the bike the wider the tires and less exotic materials. Nowadays that is not always the case. You can see a fat tire with aero profile ,low or inverted tread and exotic materials. This is especially true for off- road applications where speed is not the primary goal. Strength, weight, and traction might be far more critical.

The better bikes don't have thinner tires. They have tires for their application! Cheaper bikes might have narrow tires- and they might not. A lot of off road applications are meant for speed- that does not change simply because you are off-road

Traction is always critical.

The Tour Divide (as opposed to the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route) is a race. There is a race on the Colorado Trail and one for the Arizona Trail. A bike with narrow tires wouldn't make it very far on these routes- the rider would be exhausted from the abuse of the route itself, the tires would fail in short order and the wider tires are simply faster to boot.

Jeff Jones, the guy that designed my bike, built it for speed. His original design was for 700C (29") rim size with 3" wide tires (I have a set of carbon rims for mine...)! He's a powerful rider and does amazing things on his bike, which is a bit of an odd duck in the mountain bike world as it has no suspension. I would not call it 'cheap'; most carbon bikes I see cost less.

All over the US, gravel has become a huge thing. These are to my eye road bike geometry modified to accept wider tires. IMO they are a compromise- a tad slower on pavement compared to an all out road bike, but faster than one on gravel; slower than a mountain bike might be on single track, but a tad faster than one on gravel. I've wondered why gravel bikes don't get used on the Tour Divide (which is about 80% gravel) and of course they do get used, but are usually at a disadvantage on the route for no other reason than comfort, a lack of which saps your strength over the weeks it takes to complete the course.

(they say they are riding completely self-supported, but IMO/IME that isn't correct- they are riding with minimal support)

One thing I really love about bicycles is you can take them at any level.

 

[Bobvin]

... The Tour Divide (as opposed to the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route) is a race.

Ah, yeah, I stand corrected. I won't be doing any "Tour Divide" but certainly the Great Divide Route. And I'm sure it will be on my Jones. Tire of choice would most likely be Compass/Herse 55mm Fleecer Ridge endurance casing, maybe endurance plus.

I'd love a cross bike, something like a road bike with wide tire ability, but long wheel base and a drop bar without the drop. I much prefer a road bike brifter to a mtb shifter. As much as I love the Jones H bar, I hate using MTB thumb shifters. And there's no two ways around it, the Jones, compared to my Cyfac, is a Winnebago. Would love to have some of the Cyfac responsiveness in a wide-tire capable road frame.

My perfect bike is yet to be made.

 

[Gregadd]

Dutch Electric Bike | LeMond Bikes
Greg Lemond sponsors this bike. Quite interesting.

 

[Bobvin]

Dutch Electric Bike | LeMond Bikes
Greg Lemond sponsors this bike. Quite interesting.

That is a nice looking eBike. I’ll look more into the specs.

Put the dutch handlebars on the prolog, a road bike with a straight bar is going to result in the same sore shoulders and neck as drop bars (for us geezers). No need to be forced into that forward position with so much weight on hands, shoulders, arms.

 

[Atmasphere]

I'd love a cross bike, something like a road bike with wide tire ability, but long wheel base and a drop bar without the drop. I much prefer a road bike brifter to a mtb shifter. As much as I love the Jones H bar, I hate using MTB thumb shifters. And there's no two ways around it, the Jones, compared to my Cyfac, is a Winnebago. Would love to have some of the Cyfac responsiveness in a wide-tire capable road frame.

My perfect bike is yet to be made.

Since I use a Rohloff, no brifters. The twist grip shifter of the Rohloff is very reliable since the indexing is handled by the hub in a sealed environment rather than the shifter. Its nice to be able to shift over a wide range of gears instantaneously.

Since I also run belt drive, no weight downside compared to derailleurs. I use a snubber on the belt so I don't have to run a lot of belt tension. This makes the belt more efficient. Above 200 Watts its more efficient than chain drive anyway. Belts typically run about 3-4x the lifespan of a chain. They do not need service- on the GDMBR you will want to service your chain daily.

On the GDMBR you encounter mud, dust, a wide variety of precipitations and spectacular views. It has a way of eating brake pads, brifters and other indexed shifters, derailleurs, chains and cassettes.If you run a chain bring extra master links; bring extra brake pads too. I also run cable operated brakes (with 203mm rotors) to maximize brake reliability. Bleeding brakes in the field can get tricky! If you get into ultras like the GDMBR, making the bike reliable pays off. You might also consider a Pinion drive; its a bit heavier than a Rohloff and slightly less efficient. You'll need a frame designed for the Pinion if you go that route.

 

[Gregadd]

Cannondale Bad Boy uses belt drive.https://www.cannondale.com/en-us/bikes/active/urban/bad-boy/bad-boy-1
Cannondale Bad Boy | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)

 

[Atmasphere]

Cannondale Bad Boy uses belt drive.https://www.cannondale.com/en-us/bikes/active/urban/bad-boy/bad-boy-1
Cannondale Bad Boy | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)

The Alfine 8 speed is a good hub. Shimano's 11 speed hub is IMO a disaster. It did prove to me though that the Rohloff would be a great hub gear for either off-road or on. Gates has been around a long time, since the 1920s IIRC. They supply belts to Harley Davidson for main drive use.

 

[MTB Vince]

The Alfine 8 speed is a good hub. Shimano's 11 speed hub is IMO a disaster. It did prove to me though that the Rohloff would be a great hub gear for either off-road or on. Gates has been around a long time, since the 1920s IIRC. They supply belts to Harley Davidson for main drive use.

Belt drive bicycle drivetrains and the Gates belt drives specifically appear to be great low-maintenance set-ups in theory. In practice they haven't really lived up to their low cost, low maintenance claims. In my Southern Ontario bike shop where we have sold both Gates equipped and later proprietary Trek belt drives over the past 15 years, we found the maintenance cost and belt, chainring, and drive cog replacement frequency to be similar to having used a chain driven drivetrain with a high-end single-speed chain.

 

[Atmasphere]

Belt drive bicycle drivetrains and the Gates belt drives specifically appear to be great low-maintenance set-ups in theory. In practice they haven't really lived up to their low cost, low maintenance claims. In my Southern Ontario bike shop where we have sold both Gates equipped and later proprietary Trek belt drives over the past 15 years, we found the maintenance cost and belt, chainring, and drive cog replacement frequency to be similar to having used a chain driven drivetrain with a high-end single-speed chain.

Having already run a chain on a Rohloff for some years now, my own experience is different- the belt so far has outlasted the chain with no sign of wear with more miles than the chain. I suspect belt tension is playing a role; I don't run any tension at all, instead I use a snubber to prevent the belt climbing off of the rear sprocket.

 

[rando]

All over the US, gravel has become a huge thing. These are to my eye road bike geometry modified to accept wider tires. IMO they are a compromise- a tad slower on pavement compared to an all out road bike, but faster than one on gravel; slower than a mountain bike might be on single track, but a tad faster than one on gravel.

Almost identical angles/clearance to a mid-80's Trek road or touring bike sold for use in the US. Or what the locals in Spain rode to work in those days when road was synonymous with rough track and their hotel's lacked running much less hot water. Pointing another four decades back you see the tail end of this design in active racing use among Europeans.

Rolling out at the start of 1935 Tour de France



Finally you reach the early 1900's where now storied unsupported European races were conducted on rough unpaved surfaces using cruder forms of the above design some imagination is required to see in actuality closely informed the non-commercialized beginnings of gravel racing.

Early all road bikes were incredibly well thought out adaptations destroying years of industry insistence on changing small pieces that would require buying a brand new bike or complete drivetrain, through clever engineering. Engineering that allowed them to be built up for road use with no more compromise than a CX bike, flat bar mtb use with or without FD or more than one gear, and the middle ground of simulating a triple by fitting multiple BCD drilled boutique cranks which when paired with adapters allowing components from both worlds to be mixed, lead to all road adventures.

 

[marty]

Hope you enjoyed riding in the Tetons. I am fortunate entropy live in their shadow, and my favorite local ride is a 53 mile loop in GTNP. The hiking and skiing is pretty good too . The views never get old.

Gorgeous pics