24 ms·

Bicycle Rolling Resistance: Tire Rolling Resistance Tests and More

100 points by jacksgt 2y ago

unnervingduck 2y ago
What a coincidence, earlier this week I thought about changing the tires on my MTB to better suit my riding style, and I wondered if there are sites with extensive tire reviews.
Titan2189 2y ago
"Become a Pro Member" "One-time payment, no auto-renewal" [5 lines further down] "From $ 0.79 / month"
- scott_w 2y ago
  I'm a member and this is just saying "it costs $.79 / mo" but you pay in one payment. There's no auto-renewal, you get an email telling you your membership is expiring and asks you to pay again. What you've posted implies they're lying and they are verifiably not.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    >"it costs $.79 / mo" but you pay in one payment How do you pay a single one-time payment at a per month rate? How many months do they charge for the one-time payment? Usually a 'single one-time payment' would be a payment for life. Typically for apps they're <$10 for the lifetime of the buyer (or app if that dies first; there are issues around this sort of pricing, but people are expecting a minimum of several years). What you appear to be describing would be a pre- payment plan at 80¢/mo.
    - rob74 2y ago
      The registration page (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/register https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/register) should answer your questions: basically you can pay for 30 days, one year or two years in advance, and the two year membership translates to 79 cents per month. But I still think they could have phrased it better in the "Become a Pro Member" box...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - reedf1 2y ago
      Literally 5 seconds of investigation revealed that they offer three durations of membership, each a one off payment (the per month pricing is just a representative amortisation). This is actually so easy to discover, and so easy to understand, that I'm guessing you're just reflexively enraged.
      - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
        Continuing membership requires recurring payment not "one-time payment".
        scott_w 2y ago
        It’s not a recurring payment. A recurring payment is automatically taken from you, this is a one off payment that gives you access for a set time. It’s very clear on the purchasing page.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      I just explained it in my message: you pay once for a year and that's it. This is not a lifetime access, it's a one-off payment that gives you access for 12 months. If you like it, you purchase again. I really don't understand how this is confusing for you.
      - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
        >"If you like it, you purchase again." This is not what I would call a one-time payment. If you wish to continue to use the website you pay again. That's just not what "one-time" means to me. It's not confusing, it's just annoying marketing-speak in the sense that (paraphrasing) 'a simple one-time payment' is what customers like when purchasing something. Whereas the offer is not that, the term has been used in any case. What is offered is 'a subscription without auto-renewal'. If you really wish to understand my thinking I can elucidate you at length, but it seems we've spent way too long already discussing understanding of a particular piece of marketese.
        scott_w 2y ago
        I understand your thinking, it’s just inconsistent with the rest of the world’s understanding of the words.
  - pestatije 2y ago
    so when they say "one-time payment", do they mean "one-time payment per year"?, "per decade"?...
    - scott_w 2y ago
      No, they say "one-time payment" that gives you access for a year. If you want a second year, you make another one-time payment. There's no recurring payment, it's totally under your control.
      - pestatije 2y ago
        ah i love this...i have to say i havent checked that page...one-time payment, to me, means forever...if you have one-time payment per year, you must say so
        bluecalm 2y ago
        Or maybe that's you who must adjust your understanding of reality. One time payment for forever access to something that is constantly updated/cost money to run is not a reasonable expectations and no one "must" tell you this. You must learn it yourself instead.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    In a market where the two dominant modes are a) a subscription fee that you have to keep paying and b) indefinite membership after one payment, many people reading "one-time payment" will immediately assume that means (b) and bristle when they realise it's actually (a). They're not lying as such but it's at least accidentally misleading. "It's a subscription" should be up front, then go into how it's prepay and well behaved.
- rob74 2y ago
  No idea why you get downvoted... on one hand, a site like this one needs some revenue in order to keep up their work, I think we can all agree on that one. But unclear messaging about how much exactly you will be paying is not going to encourage anyone to sign up...
- reedf1 2y ago
  Niche website with extremely thorough and exacting analysis, that provides most of its data completely for free has a modest payment model. I'm shocked, but because of how strikingly reasonable it is.
matsemann 2y ago
I think it's interesting to have observed the changes over the years. Before it was about having as thin tires as possible, pumped as hard as possible. Then one realized that only gives a low rolling resistance on perfectly even surface, something softer can absorb more of the little bumps (and also perhaps not fatigue the rider as much from a bumpy ride). Then bytul vs latex vs tpu tubes. Or go entirely tubeless is in vogue lately, often with wider tires and less air in them. There are other trade offs than rolling resistance. Like puncture resistance, grip/cornering ability, aerodynamics, weight etc. that also comes into account when choosing a tire setup.
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  > something softer can absorb more of the little bumps (and also perhaps not fatigue the rider as much from a bumpy ride). Not quite. You can air down narrower road tires for this. The difference is that a wider tire (i.e a tire with more volume) is going to be more efficient at lower psi, because of a wider contact patch that ends up spreading the load out more and deflecting the tread less. This effect definitely is pronounced for gravel riding when you have to run pressures lower than 60 psi, and a wider tire is better. However for on road riding, even on rough roads, a narrower tire is going to usually be better, because you gain the aerodynamic advantage, even if you run at lower psi. If you can sustain above 20 mph, running a 28c tire vs a 38c will save you 20 watts, which is noticeable. >Then bytul vs latex vs tpu tubes. This matters extremely little for most people. Maybe like 4 watts at most. For racing, when you are optimizing everything, its worth it, but generally tubes matter way less then tire selection. That being said, there really isn't any reason not to run TPU tubes because they are a lot more pliable and puncture resistant. Generally asking bike industry to do actual engineering is an impossible task, but for optimal design there is no reason why even road bikes should not have suspension that doesn't rely on tire compliance. You can do carbon leaf springs with very small dampers. The best we get is suspension stems and seatposts, which suck because you still have all that unsprung mass of the entire bike bouncing around.
  - bluecalm 2y ago
    I feel the same about suspension but maybe it's just very hard to design. It would need to be very light and aero to make it worth it for road bikes which are pretty great on roads as they are. For gravel there is the Lauf suspension thing and the new light/short suspension forks but I am not surprised they are not very popular as a suspension fork means regular expensive maintenance. Why not just slap 2+ inch MTB tires on the bike instead?
Neil44 2y ago
The rolling resistance data is interesting, but it would be nice to see some more realistic testing. For example ramping the pressure up on a smooth surface gives lower rolling resistance on a rolling road. But in the real world super high pressures cause the whole bike and your body to shudder and vibrate, which also consumes energy. So there is a sweet spot, between heating the tyre up too much, and passing too much vibration through.
- tpm 2y ago
  The question is whether more realistic testing is really needed. At some speed below 30km/h aero drag takes over and at higher speeds that's basically the only thing that matters. Unless you are riding steep hills in which case total weight is the thing that matters.
  - Neil44 2y ago
    Excelent point. Personally I think I would rather run a few PSI less and have confortable ride.
    - londons_explore 2y ago
      can't you also get a smoother ride by having slightly slacker spokes on wheels? Then the wheel rim bounces over every rock and pebble, but the axle doesn't.
      - tpm 2y ago
        Or even very slack spokes, like the Berd (UHMWPE) ones, but then power transmission is slightly less efficient.
      - _Wintermute 2y ago
        Not really, spokes work under tension rather than compression, you're essentially hanging from the top-most spokes on the wheel. Also if your spokes are too slack, they can move in the hub, cause wear, and are likely to snap at the elbow.
zython 2y ago
I wish there was a site that ranks tire grip. Only way to know right now is to see who is rolling faster through the corners than you and word of mouth.
- scott_w 2y ago
  BRR explain why it's difficult. Even testing the grip changes the grip profile (via wear) but they do their best. It's even more difficult with off-road tyres, as it's not really the rubber compound providing the grip.
- prmoustache 2y ago
  Even that is not realistic as in contradiction with 4 wheels setup most people on pavement don't nearly reach the limit of grip on 2 wheels. The reward/risk ratio is not high enough. You'd need a bot for that on a skidpad test. Also on 2 wheels going fast around corners doesn't only involve grip but confidence. This is partly personal/psychological and partly based on feedback from the tire that comes on how the carcass of the tire deform while you are leaning the bike. It could be that a tire with more grip doesn't give you as much confidence as a tire with less grip on which you are closing in much closer to the limit. Off the road the grip is so dependent on surface that it is even more difficult. There are tire for dry, mud or mixed surfaces and what you will encounter on the trail might be somewhere in between all of these.
  - zython 2y ago
    I race criteriums (and end up on the podium every once in a while) so I know relatively well how to corner. Fact is that there is no way to compare grip of tires except to trust a reputable manufacturer.
ano-ther 2y ago
I appreciate sites like this where they make an effort to systematically review products rather than just giving a superficial impression or repeating PR. https://www.notebookcheck.net/ https://www.notebookcheck.net/ or https://dpreview.com/ https://dpreview.com/ are also good examples. They are also a testament to the dazzling amount of options that mature industries seem to produce. > The Schwalbe Racing Ray is optimized for front tire use and is a bit less aggressive than the Schwalbe Rocket Ron, […] Schwalbe suggests pairing the Racing Ray with the Racing Ralph (read review), which is optimized for use on the rear wheel. > The Racing Ray used to be only available with the Addix SpeedGrip compound, which [is] grippier than their Addix Speed compound. We just noticed Schwalbe also released a Super Race version with the Addix Speed compound somewhere in the last few years, and we're not sure about the front wheel claims for that version.
- 303uru 2y ago
  As a cyclist, this is a situation in which I find this type of reviewing close to worthless to be honest. Throwing a tire on a metal roller is very far removed from riding unless you're on a velodrome or perfectly maintained road. This has led to a lot of push-back in the cycling community against this site and its findings. Their testing methodology, especially before they made recent changes, largely will prefer skinny, highly inflated tires. But in the real world, everyone is finding fatter, less inflated tires are faster, because in the real world compliance (smoothly rolling over every road variation, rock or pebble) is faster.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    To add to this, unless you are actually competitively cycling (you probably aren't) this sort of thing makes pretty much no difference for someone that is using cycling for transport. It's a bit like obsessing over the lightest frame possible. Yeah, we can get a 1lb frame made of space materials but at the end of the day it's basically something that will reduce a cyclist's average speed by like 0.1mph. For anyone doing anything other than competitive cycling, comfort is far more important than anything else and fat wheel bikes with steel frames are damn comfortable to ride on. A relatively heavy bike with giant wheels might take your average speed down .5 or even 1 mph. You almost certainly won't notice it.
ActorNightly 2y ago
A super easy way to tell how efficient a tire is going to roll is weight. If you are comparing tires for the same diameter/width/tread pattern, in most cases, the lighter tire is going to roll better. Tire rolling resistance comes from effectively the rebound damping on the tread. As the tire rolls, the tread on the backside of the contact patch takes some time to rebound, so the tire is effectively always rolling over a bump that is the uncompressed tread the front of the contact patch The lighter the tire, the less sidewall and puncture material there is, which means that the rebound damping on the tire is going to be less.
- nl 2y ago
  This isn't right. The difference in weight of a tire in the same class is insignificant (~400g) compared to the bike (~7kg) and the rider. Indeed based on your explanation the stiffness of the tread is going to be as much of a cause as anything.
  - matsemann 2y ago
    There can be some merit to the fact that the weight in a tire is rotating mass, though. But then you get into thoughts about that the bottom of the tire is technically standing still, and the top of the tire is double the speed of your travel. And does it then matter?
  - ActorNightly 2y ago
    Its a very rough rule, and has exceptions, but its generally works out. Compare continental gatorskins in 28c vs continental gp5000 in 28c. Gatorskins have more casing to prevent puncture, so they are heavier, but that casing also takes away from the rolling efficiency.
pandemic_region 2y ago
Unless you're on the ProTour, choose riding comfort over rolling resistance. Also see https://www.renehersecycles.com/12-myths-in-cycling-1-wider-tires-are-slower/ https://www.renehersecycles.com/12-myths-in-cycling-1-wider-... for a related myth-debunking of the impact of tire width (which contributes to rolling resistance) on speed.
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  >Unless you're on the ProTour You don't have to be on the Pro Tour to benefit from aero gains with narrower tires. Even moderately fit people usually can sustain 15 mph on flat, at which point aero gains start to matter. Even more for hilly terrain where you can easily pick up over 20 mph on descents. The wider tires roll more efficient at lower psi (when you have to air down for comfort). But roughness of pavement road usually doesn't require less than 60 psi, and above 60 psi the rolling resistance of wider tires is about the same as narrower tires, but watt savings from aero can be significant. I got a gravel bike to replace my old road bike because everyone was raving about it, and I absolutely hated riding it. Sure, at slow recreational speeds, it was more comfortable, but when getting places, it just didn't roll as well down hills, making me having to pedal more over extended times to get uphill. Now I ride an aero road bike with TT bars, with 28c tires, and even when running them at 60-70 psi for rough pavement, the aero gains from the narrower wheels are significant, as I can pick up speeds over 30 mph on some descents which carry me way further uphill.
  - bradfa 2y ago
    It depends on what kinds of roads you ride on. If you're always riding nice smooth asphalt, then yes, high pressure narrow tires are going to be faster pretty much always. But if you're riding on really crappy asphalt, chipseal, or on dirt or gravel roads, then a wider more supple tire may be just as fast but a whole lot more comfortable due to the ability to run lower pressures. The power losses on a perfectly smooth road are aero and rolling resistance. But once you get onto bumpy surfaces, now you also need to consider the power losses of the bumps on the bike AND on the rider because the rider is the one supplying the power, even the power which does not transmit through the cranks. Although I do agree with you partially, if you're racing, ride what ever makes you fastest. Energy efficiency isn't paramount, getting to the finish first is. But if you're not racing, then really consider if the tradeoff of comfort is worth it. The BRR website's test protocol uses a fairly smooth metal drum for testing. This is good for testing rolling resistance but not for testing total system losses over rough roads. So although BRR is a great resource, take it with a grain of salt.
simonbarker87 2y ago
Not sure how valid this really is for mountain bike tyres as the terrain is so varied. For example if you run an MTB tyre hard it will bounce around on a rocky surface and roll less efficiently than if you run it at lower pressure that allows the tyre to deform and bounce around less. Interesting site nonetheless and a useful data point to compare tyres in a systematic way.
- bradfa 2y ago
  It isn't valid for mountain bike tires, except for when you're riding your mountain bike on a smooth road. The only tests which BRR does which are likely applicable to mountain bike tires mounted to mountain bikes ridden on trails are the puncture tests, as you're likely to find sharp objects even on trails. Maybe the wet grip tests matter, if you often encounter wet large rock that you ride on.
- bluecalm 2y ago
  It turns out the test is remarkably useful: fast tires on BRR are fast tires on various terrains. It turns out that fast tires are fast on everything and slow tires are slow on everything. It's true you can't say that about pressure (high pressure is slightly faster on perfect road but much slower on not so perfect one) but when it comes to tire choice it's a very good resource.
rasz 2y ago
Imo worthless hyper optimizing. Want health? ride fattest worst tires. Want comfortable distance? mount $500 hub motor.
giuliomagnifico 2y ago
Oh I’m reading this website (and subscribed) since lots of years. It’s very interesting and used for cyclists like me! Love it.

100 points by jacksgt 2y ago

What a coincidence, earlier this week I thought about changing the tires on my MTB to better suit my riding style, and I wondered if there are sites with extensive tire reviews.

Titan2189 2y ago

"Become a Pro Member" "One-time payment, no auto-renewal" [5 lines further down] "From $ 0.79 / month"

scott_w 2y ago
I'm a member and this is just saying "it costs $.79 / mo" but you pay in one payment. There's no auto-renewal, you get an email telling you your membership is expiring and asks you to pay again. What you've posted implies they're lying and they are verifiably not.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  >"it costs $.79 / mo" but you pay in one payment How do you pay a single one-time payment at a per month rate? How many months do they charge for the one-time payment? Usually a 'single one-time payment' would be a payment for life. Typically for apps they're <$10 for the lifetime of the buyer (or app if that dies first; there are issues around this sort of pricing, but people are expecting a minimum of several years). What you appear to be describing would be a pre- payment plan at 80¢/mo.
  - rob74 2y ago
    The registration page (https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/register https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/register) should answer your questions: basically you can pay for 30 days, one year or two years in advance, and the two year membership translates to 79 cents per month. But I still think they could have phrased it better in the "Become a Pro Member" box...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - reedf1 2y ago
    Literally 5 seconds of investigation revealed that they offer three durations of membership, each a one off payment (the per month pricing is just a representative amortisation). This is actually so easy to discover, and so easy to understand, that I'm guessing you're just reflexively enraged.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      Continuing membership requires recurring payment not "one-time payment".
      - scott_w 2y ago
        It’s not a recurring payment. A recurring payment is automatically taken from you, this is a one off payment that gives you access for a set time. It’s very clear on the purchasing page.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    I just explained it in my message: you pay once for a year and that's it. This is not a lifetime access, it's a one-off payment that gives you access for 12 months. If you like it, you purchase again. I really don't understand how this is confusing for you.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      >"If you like it, you purchase again." This is not what I would call a one-time payment. If you wish to continue to use the website you pay again. That's just not what "one-time" means to me. It's not confusing, it's just annoying marketing-speak in the sense that (paraphrasing) 'a simple one-time payment' is what customers like when purchasing something. Whereas the offer is not that, the term has been used in any case. What is offered is 'a subscription without auto-renewal'. If you really wish to understand my thinking I can elucidate you at length, but it seems we've spent way too long already discussing understanding of a particular piece of marketese.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        I understand your thinking, it’s just inconsistent with the rest of the world’s understanding of the words.
- pestatije 2y ago
  so when they say "one-time payment", do they mean "one-time payment per year"?, "per decade"?...
  - scott_w 2y ago
    No, they say "one-time payment" that gives you access for a year. If you want a second year, you make another one-time payment. There's no recurring payment, it's totally under your control.
    - pestatije 2y ago
      ah i love this...i have to say i havent checked that page...one-time payment, to me, means forever...if you have one-time payment per year, you must say so
      - bluecalm 2y ago
        Or maybe that's you who must adjust your understanding of reality. One time payment for forever access to something that is constantly updated/cost money to run is not a reasonable expectations and no one "must" tell you this. You must learn it yourself instead.
- amenhotep 2y ago
  In a market where the two dominant modes are a) a subscription fee that you have to keep paying and b) indefinite membership after one payment, many people reading "one-time payment" will immediately assume that means (b) and bristle when they realise it's actually (a). They're not lying as such but it's at least accidentally misleading. "It's a subscription" should be up front, then go into how it's prepay and well behaved.
rob74 2y ago
No idea why you get downvoted... on one hand, a site like this one needs some revenue in order to keep up their work, I think we can all agree on that one. But unclear messaging about how much exactly you will be paying is not going to encourage anyone to sign up...
reedf1 2y ago
Niche website with extremely thorough and exacting analysis, that provides most of its data completely for free has a modest payment model. I'm shocked, but because of how strikingly reasonable it is.

matsemann 2y ago

I think it's interesting to have observed the changes over the years. Before it was about having as thin tires as possible, pumped as hard as possible. Then one realized that only gives a low rolling resistance on perfectly even surface, something softer can absorb more of the little bumps (and also perhaps not fatigue the rider as much from a bumpy ride). Then bytul vs latex vs tpu tubes. Or go entirely tubeless is in vogue lately, often with wider tires and less air in them. There are other trade offs than rolling resistance. Like puncture resistance, grip/cornering ability, aerodynamics, weight etc. that also comes into account when choosing a tire setup.

ActorNightly 2y ago
> something softer can absorb more of the little bumps (and also perhaps not fatigue the rider as much from a bumpy ride). Not quite. You can air down narrower road tires for this. The difference is that a wider tire (i.e a tire with more volume) is going to be more efficient at lower psi, because of a wider contact patch that ends up spreading the load out more and deflecting the tread less. This effect definitely is pronounced for gravel riding when you have to run pressures lower than 60 psi, and a wider tire is better. However for on road riding, even on rough roads, a narrower tire is going to usually be better, because you gain the aerodynamic advantage, even if you run at lower psi. If you can sustain above 20 mph, running a 28c tire vs a 38c will save you 20 watts, which is noticeable. >Then bytul vs latex vs tpu tubes. This matters extremely little for most people. Maybe like 4 watts at most. For racing, when you are optimizing everything, its worth it, but generally tubes matter way less then tire selection. That being said, there really isn't any reason not to run TPU tubes because they are a lot more pliable and puncture resistant. Generally asking bike industry to do actual engineering is an impossible task, but for optimal design there is no reason why even road bikes should not have suspension that doesn't rely on tire compliance. You can do carbon leaf springs with very small dampers. The best we get is suspension stems and seatposts, which suck because you still have all that unsprung mass of the entire bike bouncing around.
- bluecalm 2y ago
  I feel the same about suspension but maybe it's just very hard to design. It would need to be very light and aero to make it worth it for road bikes which are pretty great on roads as they are. For gravel there is the Lauf suspension thing and the new light/short suspension forks but I am not surprised they are not very popular as a suspension fork means regular expensive maintenance. Why not just slap 2+ inch MTB tires on the bike instead?

Neil44 2y ago

The rolling resistance data is interesting, but it would be nice to see some more realistic testing. For example ramping the pressure up on a smooth surface gives lower rolling resistance on a rolling road. But in the real world super high pressures cause the whole bike and your body to shudder and vibrate, which also consumes energy. So there is a sweet spot, between heating the tyre up too much, and passing too much vibration through.

tpm 2y ago
The question is whether more realistic testing is really needed. At some speed below 30km/h aero drag takes over and at higher speeds that's basically the only thing that matters. Unless you are riding steep hills in which case total weight is the thing that matters.
- Neil44 2y ago
  Excelent point. Personally I think I would rather run a few PSI less and have confortable ride.
  - londons_explore 2y ago
    can't you also get a smoother ride by having slightly slacker spokes on wheels? Then the wheel rim bounces over every rock and pebble, but the axle doesn't.
    - tpm 2y ago
      Or even very slack spokes, like the Berd (UHMWPE) ones, but then power transmission is slightly less efficient.
    - _Wintermute 2y ago
      Not really, spokes work under tension rather than compression, you're essentially hanging from the top-most spokes on the wheel. Also if your spokes are too slack, they can move in the hub, cause wear, and are likely to snap at the elbow.

zython 2y ago

I wish there was a site that ranks tire grip. Only way to know right now is to see who is rolling faster through the corners than you and word of mouth.

scott_w 2y ago
BRR explain why it's difficult. Even testing the grip changes the grip profile (via wear) but they do their best. It's even more difficult with off-road tyres, as it's not really the rubber compound providing the grip.
prmoustache 2y ago
Even that is not realistic as in contradiction with 4 wheels setup most people on pavement don't nearly reach the limit of grip on 2 wheels. The reward/risk ratio is not high enough. You'd need a bot for that on a skidpad test. Also on 2 wheels going fast around corners doesn't only involve grip but confidence. This is partly personal/psychological and partly based on feedback from the tire that comes on how the carcass of the tire deform while you are leaning the bike. It could be that a tire with more grip doesn't give you as much confidence as a tire with less grip on which you are closing in much closer to the limit. Off the road the grip is so dependent on surface that it is even more difficult. There are tire for dry, mud or mixed surfaces and what you will encounter on the trail might be somewhere in between all of these.
- zython 2y ago
  I race criteriums (and end up on the podium every once in a while) so I know relatively well how to corner. Fact is that there is no way to compare grip of tires except to trust a reputable manufacturer.

ano-ther 2y ago

I appreciate sites like this where they make an effort to systematically review products rather than just giving a superficial impression or repeating PR. https://www.notebookcheck.net/ https://www.notebookcheck.net/ or https://dpreview.com/ https://dpreview.com/ are also good examples. They are also a testament to the dazzling amount of options that mature industries seem to produce. > The Schwalbe Racing Ray is optimized for front tire use and is a bit less aggressive than the Schwalbe Rocket Ron, […] Schwalbe suggests pairing the Racing Ray with the Racing Ralph (read review), which is optimized for use on the rear wheel. > The Racing Ray used to be only available with the Addix SpeedGrip compound, which [is] grippier than their Addix Speed compound. We just noticed Schwalbe also released a Super Race version with the Addix Speed compound somewhere in the last few years, and we're not sure about the front wheel claims for that version.

303uru 2y ago
As a cyclist, this is a situation in which I find this type of reviewing close to worthless to be honest. Throwing a tire on a metal roller is very far removed from riding unless you're on a velodrome or perfectly maintained road. This has led to a lot of push-back in the cycling community against this site and its findings. Their testing methodology, especially before they made recent changes, largely will prefer skinny, highly inflated tires. But in the real world, everyone is finding fatter, less inflated tires are faster, because in the real world compliance (smoothly rolling over every road variation, rock or pebble) is faster.
- cogman10 2y ago
  To add to this, unless you are actually competitively cycling (you probably aren't) this sort of thing makes pretty much no difference for someone that is using cycling for transport. It's a bit like obsessing over the lightest frame possible. Yeah, we can get a 1lb frame made of space materials but at the end of the day it's basically something that will reduce a cyclist's average speed by like 0.1mph. For anyone doing anything other than competitive cycling, comfort is far more important than anything else and fat wheel bikes with steel frames are damn comfortable to ride on. A relatively heavy bike with giant wheels might take your average speed down .5 or even 1 mph. You almost certainly won't notice it.

ActorNightly 2y ago

A super easy way to tell how efficient a tire is going to roll is weight. If you are comparing tires for the same diameter/width/tread pattern, in most cases, the lighter tire is going to roll better. Tire rolling resistance comes from effectively the rebound damping on the tread. As the tire rolls, the tread on the backside of the contact patch takes some time to rebound, so the tire is effectively always rolling over a bump that is the uncompressed tread the front of the contact patch The lighter the tire, the less sidewall and puncture material there is, which means that the rebound damping on the tire is going to be less.

nl 2y ago
This isn't right. The difference in weight of a tire in the same class is insignificant (~400g) compared to the bike (~7kg) and the rider. Indeed based on your explanation the stiffness of the tread is going to be as much of a cause as anything.
- matsemann 2y ago
  There can be some merit to the fact that the weight in a tire is rotating mass, though. But then you get into thoughts about that the bottom of the tire is technically standing still, and the top of the tire is double the speed of your travel. And does it then matter?
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  Its a very rough rule, and has exceptions, but its generally works out. Compare continental gatorskins in 28c vs continental gp5000 in 28c. Gatorskins have more casing to prevent puncture, so they are heavier, but that casing also takes away from the rolling efficiency.

pandemic_region 2y ago

Unless you're on the ProTour, choose riding comfort over rolling resistance. Also see https://www.renehersecycles.com/12-myths-in-cycling-1-wider-tires-are-slower/ https://www.renehersecycles.com/12-myths-in-cycling-1-wider-... for a related myth-debunking of the impact of tire width (which contributes to rolling resistance) on speed.

ActorNightly 2y ago
>Unless you're on the ProTour You don't have to be on the Pro Tour to benefit from aero gains with narrower tires. Even moderately fit people usually can sustain 15 mph on flat, at which point aero gains start to matter. Even more for hilly terrain where you can easily pick up over 20 mph on descents. The wider tires roll more efficient at lower psi (when you have to air down for comfort). But roughness of pavement road usually doesn't require less than 60 psi, and above 60 psi the rolling resistance of wider tires is about the same as narrower tires, but watt savings from aero can be significant. I got a gravel bike to replace my old road bike because everyone was raving about it, and I absolutely hated riding it. Sure, at slow recreational speeds, it was more comfortable, but when getting places, it just didn't roll as well down hills, making me having to pedal more over extended times to get uphill. Now I ride an aero road bike with TT bars, with 28c tires, and even when running them at 60-70 psi for rough pavement, the aero gains from the narrower wheels are significant, as I can pick up speeds over 30 mph on some descents which carry me way further uphill.
- bradfa 2y ago
  It depends on what kinds of roads you ride on. If you're always riding nice smooth asphalt, then yes, high pressure narrow tires are going to be faster pretty much always. But if you're riding on really crappy asphalt, chipseal, or on dirt or gravel roads, then a wider more supple tire may be just as fast but a whole lot more comfortable due to the ability to run lower pressures. The power losses on a perfectly smooth road are aero and rolling resistance. But once you get onto bumpy surfaces, now you also need to consider the power losses of the bumps on the bike AND on the rider because the rider is the one supplying the power, even the power which does not transmit through the cranks. Although I do agree with you partially, if you're racing, ride what ever makes you fastest. Energy efficiency isn't paramount, getting to the finish first is. But if you're not racing, then really consider if the tradeoff of comfort is worth it. The BRR website's test protocol uses a fairly smooth metal drum for testing. This is good for testing rolling resistance but not for testing total system losses over rough roads. So although BRR is a great resource, take it with a grain of salt.

simonbarker87 2y ago

Not sure how valid this really is for mountain bike tyres as the terrain is so varied. For example if you run an MTB tyre hard it will bounce around on a rocky surface and roll less efficiently than if you run it at lower pressure that allows the tyre to deform and bounce around less. Interesting site nonetheless and a useful data point to compare tyres in a systematic way.

bradfa 2y ago
It isn't valid for mountain bike tires, except for when you're riding your mountain bike on a smooth road. The only tests which BRR does which are likely applicable to mountain bike tires mounted to mountain bikes ridden on trails are the puncture tests, as you're likely to find sharp objects even on trails. Maybe the wet grip tests matter, if you often encounter wet large rock that you ride on.
bluecalm 2y ago
It turns out the test is remarkably useful: fast tires on BRR are fast tires on various terrains. It turns out that fast tires are fast on everything and slow tires are slow on everything. It's true you can't say that about pressure (high pressure is slightly faster on perfect road but much slower on not so perfect one) but when it comes to tire choice it's a very good resource.

rasz 2y ago

Imo worthless hyper optimizing. Want health? ride fattest worst tires. Want comfortable distance? mount $500 hub motor.

giuliomagnifico 2y ago

Oh I’m reading this website (and subscribed) since lots of years. It’s very interesting and used for cyclists like me! Love it.