5 ms·
Correct tread pattern and pressure for conditions will make a significant difference in rolling resistance, far more than just about every other tire property (
by sasawpg 5y ago
Correct tread pattern and pressure for conditions will make a significant difference in rolling resistance, far more than just about every other tire property (weight, suppleness, etc). Different conditions require different tread patterns and different tire pressures. As for weight, you’ll save maybe 100g of weight per tire, which is admittedly amplified due to rolling. Drop a single water bottle and you’ll be back on top. You won’t of course find many “performance” bikes with wire beaded tires.
Most paved paths are best paired with slicks/semi-slicks, even when wet (snow/ice is a separate discussion). Yet many hybrid/city bikes are equipped with a bit of tread depth. The tradeoff is durability and puncture resistance - slicks/semi-slicks can’t compete. And for people buying these types bikes, it is far more important that they reliably get from point A to point B without any flats or maintenance costs than saving a minute off their daily commute, so it is a fair trade off.
As for tubeless setups, I would hesitate to recommend those to anyone that needs this site (not that you’re suggesting that). If you don’t know what tire you need I would be willing to bet you have no idea how to fix a tubeless puncture, top up sealant, or remove/reinstall the tire.
- walrus01 5y agoRe: the weight of a water bottle, rotating weight is very different than static weight. My experience with 28-32mm sizes tires on pavement in an urban environment has been that tires with tread on them actually have much less overall grip and cornering ability. This seems to correlate with data I've seen from third parties measuring the actual square mm area of a typical "contact patch" between tire and pavement. It seems counter intuitive, because on a car you want and need tires that aren't bald. But on a city/road bike, the best possible performance on pavement in the size range of 23-32mm with seems to be gained by having a treadless tire with a grippy compound.
- sasawpg 5y agoThat’s exactly my point :) Puncture resistance may be improved with more aggressive tread but handling and rolling resistance will definitely suffer. It’s all about the amount of contact patch on the ground. Same reason why on ice you want to run very shallow tread while on snow or mud you want a very aggressive tire. You can correlate this with slick car race tire vs a rally tire. One is great on road while the other wouldn’t get you far. For a fun experiment, head out on a wet day and try to corner on both 28mm slicks and 33mm+ tires with a decent amount of tread (bonus points if you use a mud CX tread). Personal experience dictates that aggressive tread will treat you to a good dose of road rash while slicks will continue to grip far longer. I’ve far more experience with this than I should (one should be plenty).
- sasawpg 5y agoAs for the water bottle vs. rotating weight, I noted that as well. Which is why I compared dropping 100-200g of rotating weight (tires) to dropping a 500-750mL water bottle. It is a very rough comparison, I haven’t ever done the math to figure out how close they are, but I suspect it is close enough. Even 200g of rotating weight isn’t THAT significant when you consider the likelihood your pair of wheels weigh 2500g+ (assuming low end box wheels since we are discussing wire beads).
- walrus01 5y agoAs with some other highly technical disciplines I think what we're seeing is the possibility of going down a rabbit-hole of optimizing for 1-2% extra efficiency in various subsystems/components... For people who road cycle very seriously this will lead towards things like bikes that have a $6000-8000 all up cost with deep aero section wheels, expensive tires, ultra lightweight components to put the whole thing near a UCI-illegal weight, and so on. It's probably easy to spend $1500 on a road bike combined aero bar-stem package that comes out of a single piece CF mold and has very marginally better aerodynamic performance in wind at >35km/h, but the returns are minuscule. There is definitely a phenomenon of diminishing returns with increasing money spent above a certain point, that would be difficult to subjectively notice unless tested by a person that rides a very large amount like >10,000 km/year.
- sasawpg 5y agoDon’t underestimate middle aged men in lycra with too much money to burn. They’ll spend hours obsessing about individual components and won’t bat an eye when it comes to spending $15k or more (Canadian, a bit closer to $10k USD/EUR) on a brand new bike every couple years, $3-5k on the newest dimpled wheels from the big Z manufacturer, tires, and so forth, all in the name of besting their mates in the Saturday morning world classic coffee ride. While I don’t strictly identify as above (I’ve more sense than to spend $1000/watt, or so I like to claim anyway), I do my fair share of purchasing the extra few watts. I’ve spent an embarrassing amount of time obsessing about what the optimal tire choice is for my next Cat 3 CX race. At least I’m realistic enough to know the hoards of 16-20 year olds with more handling skills and less fear will destroy my every day of the week. Joke is on them because they’ve real life coming to crush them :p In all seriousness, I know fully well the 5-10W gain is marginal for me at best and will only get me so far. Genes, age and hours in saddle cannot be purchased. Being a late comer to the sport and not being blessed with the requisite body type, I can’t have any one of those three, but I can however throw more money at the hobby, unlike the younger ones can. And why not enjoy myself while doing so and ride around in style. As for diminishing returns, don’t talk to bike enthusiasts about those. They’ll only be outdone by audiophiles