Tire rolling resistance

Paul Cassel said:

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between tires.
Is this something tested but which I've missed or are the differences
between tires so little that nobody cares or is this entirely too
trivial of a matter to even discuss?

Is there such a thing as a matter too trivial for rb.tech to discuss?

I would reply with less levity, but I'm entirely the wrong person to
involve in this discussion.

/grabs coat and rides off on my Schwalbe Marathon Pluses

--
Dane Buson - [email hidden]
Thus spake the master programmer:
"Without the wind, the grass does not move. Without software, hardware is useless."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Per Paul Cassel:

Quoted message said:

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between tires.

From past threads on the subject, it seems to me like it's kind of complicated,
especially when it comes to the condition of the surface.

Take a look at http://bike.terrymorse.com/rolres.html and click on Jobst's
explaination...
--
PeteCresswell

Paul Cassel said:

When reading about tires in catalogs, I note that the vendors always
give the mass of the tire. I can see that the mass of the tire can
affect the inertia of the entire wheel / tire assembly, but I really am
skeptical that most folks can detect a 30 g or so difference between a
'heavy' and 'light' tire.

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between tires.
Is this something tested but which I've missed or are the differences
between tires so little that nobody cares or is this entirely too
trivial of a matter to even discuss?

When tires are similar in weight, suppleness is what affects rolling
resistance the most, as far as I know.

I just switched my single speed from thicker 28mm winter gumwalls to
25mm supple skinwalls, and it "feels" more zoomy. No hard data of
course.

I'm skeptical as well that a 30g difference per tire can be "felt", but
100g might be the breaking point. :P

I would expect that, even for a single tire, the rolling resistance could
vary considerably, depending on pressure, rider weight, road surface, speed.
It could even have an aerodynamic component, so wind would enter into the
total. Try to imagine getting a standard test accepted across different
brands. And then, if it were accepted, how useful would it be?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between
tires. Is this something tested but which I've missed or are the
differences between tires so little that nobody cares or is this
entirely too trivial of a matter to even discuss?

There's been dozens of threads on rolling resistance, some of them in
the past couple of months. Try search Google Groups. For that matter,
just plug "bicycle tire rolling resistance" in Google and see what you
get.

Paul Cassel said:

When reading about tires in catalogs, I note that the vendors always
give the mass of the tire. I can see that the mass of the tire can
affect the inertia of the entire wheel / tire assembly, but I really am
skeptical that most folks can detect a 30 g or so difference between a
'heavy' and 'light' tire.

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between tires.
Is this something tested but which I've missed or are the differences
between tires so little that nobody cares or is this entirely too
trivial of a matter to even discuss?

-paul

Sorry, the differences in energy required to spin up a heavy or light
tire, a heavy or light rim and rolling resistence is small, teeny and
the stuff or marketing, not actual cycling performance.

many here dwell on this type of stuff, but look for tires that are
reliable,

landotter said:

Paul Cassel said:

When reading about tires in catalogs, I note that the vendors always
give the mass of the tire. I can see that the mass of the tire can
affect the inertia of the entire wheel / tire assembly, but I really am
skeptical that most folks can detect a 30 g or so difference between a
'heavy' and 'light' tire.

What I'd think could be of greater impact for a bicyclist would be
rolling resistance if there are significant differences between tires.
Is this something tested but which I've missed or are the differences
between tires so little that nobody cares or is this entirely too
trivial of a matter to even discuss?

When tires are similar in weight, suppleness is what affects rolling
resistance the most, as far as I know.

I just switched my single speed from thicker 28mm winter gumwalls to
25mm supple skinwalls, and it "feels" more zoomy. No hard data of
course.

I'm skeptical as well that a 30g difference per tire can be "felt", but
100g might be the breaking point. :P

an article by Bike.com measured the differences in energy to spin up a
300 gr rim and a 600 gr rim and it was in the .1 of 1% range
difference.

Per landotter:

Quoted message said:

When tires are similar in weight, suppleness is what affects rolling
resistance the most, as far as I know.

That would be my kneejerk reaction in the context of fat tires.

I started out riding low-thread-count Hei Shin semi slicks on my MTB.
When I switched to WTB Mutano Raptors (almost double the tpi) it was almost
spooky.... the things just kept rolling and rolling... OTOH that's also about
the time I woke up to the fact that running 55 psi in a fat tire seems to defeat
part of the tire's purpose... and switched to 35-40 psi.
--
PeteCresswell

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Sorry, the differences in energy required to spin up a heavy or light
tire, a heavy or light rim and rolling resistence is small, teeny and
the stuff or marketing, not actual cycling performance.

I agree that the difference between one brand of 25mm skinwall and
another will be minute, but you can't deny that there's a difference
going from say, a 32mm Schwalbe Marathon at 700g, and putting on a
Paperlight at 200g. Or going from knobbies to slicks on an mtb.

Quoted message said:

many here dwell on this type of stuff, but look for tires that are
reliable,

That's what I mostly do as well, but I do notice that some ride better
than others, often at the expense of urban durability.

Part of why I ask is that my daughter's bike came with 35's. She was
discontent wanting instead a 'thin tire' bike so I mounted 28's which,
based on info here, was the thinnest I felt were safe. She was very
happy to have them.

When we went next, she clearly had a faster, easier rolling bike. The
test is simple for us. We hit a long shallow hill after about 5 miles.
In the past, she'd have to pedal to keep up with me on this hill, but
after the tire swap, she glides just like I do.

Whle the PSI was about the same, the SI wasn't between her old and new
tires. So there was not only a difference in size, but her old tires
were somewhat hardened due to time / ozone (less supple?) a difference
in the tread pattern and more.

My OP was due to my planning on riding my first century ride this May.
I figured if there was a signficant difference in rolling resistance,
it may make a difference over 100 miles where it'd be insignficant on a
30 mile jaunt. Based on the replies here plus the searching I did at
Google Groups and Yahoo search, I guess there really isn't much of a
diff. This is sort of like chasing 20 g in bike mass.

I do think I noted a difference when I went from 23 tires inflated at
90 psi to my current ones which I run at 130.

Quoted message said:

Part of why I ask is that my daughter's bike came with 35's. She was
discontent wanting instead a 'thin tire' bike so I mounted 28's which,
based on info here, was the thinnest I felt were safe. She was very
happy to have them.

When we went next, she clearly had a faster, easier rolling bike. The
test is simple for us. We hit a long shallow hill after about 5 miles.
In the past, she'd have to pedal to keep up with me on this hill, but
after the tire swap, she glides just like I do.

Whle the PSI was about the same, the SI wasn't between her old and new
tires. So there was not only a difference in size, but her old tires
were somewhat hardened due to time / ozone (less supple?) a difference
in the tread pattern and more.

My OP was due to my planning on riding my first century ride this May.
I figured if there was a signficant difference in rolling resistance,
it may make a difference over 100 miles where it'd be insignficant on a
30 mile jaunt. Based on the replies here plus the searching I did at
Google Groups and Yahoo search, I guess there really isn't much of a
diff. This is sort of like chasing 20 g in bike mass.

I do think I noted a difference when I went from 23 tires inflated at
90 psi to my current ones which I run at 130.

That's not surprising, but how smooth are the roads in your parts?
Around here 130psi wo would certainly cause me to go crosseyed.

Yeah, playing with 20g here or there in tires probably won't be
palpable, in my own experience, I can feel subtle changes with a 100g
loss at either end. Sometimes though, it's nice to ride a tire that
inspires confidence in durability with an exchange of a little deadness.

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:

Quoted message said:

Part of why I ask is that my daughter's bike came with 35's. She was
discontent wanting instead a 'thin tire' bike so I mounted 28's which,
based on info here, was the thinnest I felt were safe. She was very
happy to have them.

When we went next, she clearly had a faster, easier rolling bike. The
test is simple for us. We hit a long shallow hill after about 5 miles.
In the past, she'd have to pedal to keep up with me on this hill, but
after the tire swap, she glides just like I do.

Whle the PSI was about the same, the SI wasn't between her old and new
tires. So there was not only a difference in size, but her old tires
were somewhat hardened due to time / ozone (less supple?) a difference
in the tread pattern and more.

My OP was due to my planning on riding my first century ride this May.
I figured if there was a signficant difference in rolling resistance,
it may make a difference over 100 miles where it'd be insignficant on
a 30 mile jaunt. Based on the replies here plus the searching I did at
Google Groups and Yahoo search, I guess there really isn't much of a
diff. This is sort of like chasing 20 g in bike mass.

I do think I noted a difference when I went from 23 tires inflated at
90 psi to my current ones which I run at 130.

My tires are typically 7.5 bars front, and 8 rear. Plenty comfortable for a
very long ride. But if it's your first century, and you won't be riding
terribly fast, leave out latex tubes, or plan on pumping. I find Michelin
ProRace comfortable, more so than Hutchinson Fusion. All at 23mm. Comfort
is essential, especially the last 30 miles or so. Important to find a group
to keep your mind off the potenital isolated boredom. Tires I find less
comfortable are my winter tires - Vittoria EVO-KX - but they are still OK.
I hope you enjoy the distance and the atmosphere. It's nice to recall your
first real challenge, sitting in the tub, melting your pain away.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

In article <[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Sorry, the differences in energy required to spin up a heavy or
light tire, a heavy or light rim and rolling resistence is small,
teeny and the stuff or marketing, not actual cycling performance.

I agree that the difference between one brand of 25mm skinwall and
another will be minute, but you can't deny that there's a difference
going from say, a 32mm Schwalbe Marathon at 700g, and putting on a
Paperlight at 200g. Or going from knobbies to slicks on an mtb.

At some point, yes, the difference will be great enough to be
perceptible. The threshold is called "least discernible difference"
(or something similar, various authors of textbooks on perception use
slightly different terminology). Humans can in many cases make
extremely fine distinctions. However, our ability to discern
differences is affected by the proportional difference of the stimulus-
it's easier to feel the difference between a 20 gram weight and a 100
gram weight than it is between a 1020 gram weight and a 1100 gram
weight.

In the case of a bicycle, between a Michelin 700 x 23 Pro Race and a 700
x 23 Vredestein Fortezza, the difference in weight is typically going to
get lost given that the bike weighs 8000-10000 grams.

landotter said:

Quoted message said:

I do think I noted a difference when I went from 23 tires inflated at
90 psi to my current ones which I run at 130.

That's not surprising, but how smooth are the roads in your parts?
Around here 130psi wo would certainly cause me to go crosseyed.

Yeah, playing with 20g here or there in tires probably won't be
palpable, in my own experience, I can feel subtle changes with a 100g
loss at either end. Sometimes though, it's nice to ride a tire that
inspires confidence in durability with an exchange of a little deadness.

I have no metric to say how smooth the roads are. For some reason, I'm
less sensitive to vibration than others seem to be. For example, I ride
an all Al bike which I'm told is very harsh, but I like it just fine. I
got a carbon seat post to dampen the harshness, but I can't tell any
difference.

If you mean potholes, we have a few, but I avoid them.

-paul

Sandy said:

My tires are typically 7.5 bars front, and 8 rear. Plenty comfortable for a
very long ride. But if it's your first century, and you won't be riding
terribly fast, leave out latex tubes, or plan on pumping. I find Michelin
ProRace comfortable, more so than Hutchinson Fusion. All at 23mm. Comfort
is essential, especially the last 30 miles or so. Important to find a group
to keep your mind off the potenital isolated boredom. Tires I find less
comfortable are my winter tires - Vittoria EVO-KX - but they are still OK.
I hope you enjoy the distance and the atmosphere. It's nice to recall your
first real challenge, sitting in the tub, melting your pain away.

Thanks for the good wishes and yes, I hope to ride slowly. My riding
companion is somewhat competitive so I may be forced into a bit of a
pushed pace, but if he overdoes it, I'll let him go.

How do I know if my tubes are latex? They are just black something or
other which seems standard tube material same as in my motorcycles
except thinner.

Several have said those Pro Race are nice tires. I currently run Conti
4000's. I had a few flats with them to bought Gatorskins as a
replacement, but since the new tires arrived, I haven't gotten a flat so
the 4000's remain on the bike.

Weird how those things work out. I can't see buying yet another set of
tires unless the advantage over the Conti 4000's is noticable. Do you
think it would be?

-paul

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Sorry, the differences in energy required to spin up a heavy or light
tire, a heavy or light rim and rolling resistence is small, teeny and
the stuff or marketing, not actual cycling performance.

many here dwell on this type of stuff, but look for tires that are
reliable,

The other thing for me is easy to change in the field. My current tires
are Conti 4000's and I couldn't do it with the tiny levers in my flat
kit. I'll take easy on and off over a lot of other things because where
I am flats are part of the ride.

-paul

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Sorry, the differences in energy required to spin up a heavy or
light tire, a heavy or light rim and rolling resistence is small,
teeny and the stuff or marketing, not actual cycling performance.

many here dwell on this type of stuff, but look for tires that are
reliable,

The other thing for me is easy to change in the field. My current
tires are Conti 4000's and I couldn't do it with the tiny levers in
my flat kit. I'll take easy on and off over a lot of other things
because where I am flats are part of the ride.

Try the Crank Bros telescoping tire lever. I thought it was a gimmick
until I tried one. Works pretty slick.

Here is some data from an Oct-2005 test done by Tour. The last number
is the difference in speed relative to the best tire... it is up to you
to decide if these values are large enough to consider.

Tire Crr Speed* Delta

Deda Tre Giro d'Italia 0.0038 23.08
Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX 0.0039 23.05 0.03
Michelin Pro 2 Race 0.0042 22.96 0.12
Vittoria Diamante Pro Rain 0.0044 22.90 0.18
Michelin Megamium 2 0.0047 22.81 0.27
Pariba Revolution 0.0048 22.78 0.30
Michelin Carbon 0.0050 22.72 0.36
Panaracer Stradius Pro 0.0051 22.69 0.39
Schwalbe Stelvio Plus 0.0052 22.66 0.42
Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Front 0.0056 22.54 0.54
Continental GP Force (rear) 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Hutchinson Fusion 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Rear 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Continental Ultra GatorSkin 0.0058 22.48 0.60
Ritchey Pro Race Slick WCS 0.0058 22.48 0.60
Schwalbe Stelvio 0.0059 22.45 0.63
Specialized S-Works Mondo 0.0061 22.39 0.69
Continental GP 3000 0.0067 22.21 0.87
Hutchinson Top Speed 0.0069 22.15 0.93
Continental GP Attack (front) 0.0073 22.04 1.04

*
in MPH
185lb rider + bike
250W rider output
CdA = .32m^2 (racing crouch, normal road bike)
Transmission efficiency = 96%

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Paul Cassel said:

landotter said:

Quoted message said:

I do think I noted a difference when I went from 23 tires inflated at
90 psi to my current ones which I run at 130.

That's not surprising, but how smooth are the roads in your parts?
Around here 130psi wo would certainly cause me to go crosseyed.

Yeah, playing with 20g here or there in tires probably won't be
palpable, in my own experience, I can feel subtle changes with a 100g
loss at either end. Sometimes though, it's nice to ride a tire that
inspires confidence in durability with an exchange of a little deadness.

I have no metric to say how smooth the roads are. For some reason, I'm
less sensitive to vibration than others seem to be. For example, I ride
an all Al bike which I'm told is very harsh, but I like it just fine. I
got a carbon seat post to dampen the harshness, but I can't tell any
difference.

If you mean potholes, we have a few, but I avoid them.

The riding nature of a frame is governed by the design. I
believe people who say that they rode harsh aluminum
frames. I think that when Al frames were becoming popular
that some designs were not appropriate; and then frame
makers became very good at designing and building Al
frames.

--
Michael Press