| |
Main
Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:45:52
From: datakoll
Subject: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
Continental?
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 04:05:40
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
right. Greens absurd fallacy, concept stretched till it makes zero
sense is the fullcrumb here. How peddeling hard is the Surely Pugslee?
One camp and the adverts say narrow, the other fat, the rim makers say
screw you buddy.
Theignorant peddle on eternally uphill on knobbies over pavement.
The line as i saw it:
Conti stops at 37c in the USA but stops at 2.1 in Yurp
Schwalbe, recently brought up to date from wood to rubber by billions
of Chinese US Treasury notes sez MARKET SHARE MARKET SHARE
with a 2.35 "BIG APPLE" I assume the translation is the Chinese will
soon own "BIG APPLE" before the sea reclams it.
does Conti indicate rational top width balance (of the factors
discussed) at 2.1?
Is Scwalbe just yanking our chain with "one better"
I'll let you know next year.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 04:50:43
From: landotter
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Oct 7, 1:21 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> datakoll wrote:
> > "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> > Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
> > Continental?
>
> Dunno.
> Peddling bike equipment can involve a lot of energy. or ennui.
How much you pay for small man to follow you around with violin?
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 02:48:26
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
wheeeawl appreciate the expert comment!
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:F9lzoJV4e1oJ:afgen.com/chiblues.html+blues+lyrics:+Willie+Dixon%27s+Built+for+Comfort,+Not+for+Speed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
http://www.deadbluesguys.com/images/johnson_robert_images/johnson_robert_lz_002.jpg
I'll send a photo of my cholla punctured hide...
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:21:07
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
datakoll wrote:
> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
> Continental?
Dunno.
Peddling bike equipment can involve a lot of energy. or ennui.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 16:36:57
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Oct 7, 9:53 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> > Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
>
> Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
> Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
> Fresh..."
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=17306&category=196
http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16624&category=196
front and rear?
With Vapors a 3 wheel suite?
But no 1.4" eyeleted rim. Nada.
$25 my hine
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 18:06:29
From:
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:36:57 -0000, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Oct 7, 9:53 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>> > Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
>>
>> Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
>> Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
>> Fresh..."
>
>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=17306&category=196
>
>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16624&category=196
>
>front and rear?
>With Vapors a 3 wheel suite?
>But no 1.4" eyeleted rim. Nada.
>$25 my hine
The less rubber on the road the faster you go. Try riding with tires
slightly under-inflated and then fully inflated.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 23:15:44
From: Greens
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
<cd3@snailmail.com > wrote in message
news:k18ig3ta3cphvf4g1ummuctvaiq7rrc7vb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:36:57 -0000, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 7, 9:53 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>>> > Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
>>>
>>> Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
>>> Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
>>> Fresh..."
>>
>>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=17306&category=196
>>
>>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16624&category=196
>>
>>front and rear?
>>With Vapors a 3 wheel suite?
>>But no 1.4" eyeleted rim. Nada.
>>$25 my hine
>
> The less rubber on the road the faster you go. Try riding with tires
> slightly under-inflated and then fully inflated.
The ultimate speed tire would then be solid metal with a little pasted on
rubber layer an eighth of an inch thick for traction. You could cut the
rubber out of a tube and glue it to the metal wheel which would have to be
shaped like an inflated tire more or less. The ride would be awful, but
somewhat mediated by shocks and a good seat. Potholes without shocks would
probably break your wrists and tailbone if you werern't ready. Ultra light
frames might crack as the shock is transfered but on a smooth track this
kind of wheel should excel.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:35:58
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
Greens ??? wrote:
> <cd3@snailmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k18ig3ta3cphvf4g1ummuctvaiq7rrc7vb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:36:57 -0000, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 9:53 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>>>>> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
>>>> Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
>>>> Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
>>>> Fresh..."
>>> http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=17306&category=196
>>>
>>> http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16624&category=196
>>>
>>> front and rear?
>>> With Vapors a 3 wheel suite?
>>> But no 1.4" eyeleted rim. Nada.
>>> $25 my hine
>> The less rubber on the road the faster you go. Try riding with tires
>> slightly under-inflated and then fully inflated.
>
> The ultimate speed tire would then be solid metal with a little pasted on
> rubber layer an eighth of an inch thick for traction. You could cut the
> rubber out of a tube and glue it to the metal wheel which would have to be
> shaped like an inflated tire more or less. The ride would be awful, but
> somewhat mediated by shocks and a good seat. Potholes without shocks would
> probably break your wrists and tailbone if you werern't ready. Ultra light
> frames might crack as the shock is transfered but on a smooth track this
> kind of wheel should excel.
This type of tire would like make the handling of the bicycle VERY quick.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 20:05:24
From:
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:15:44 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:
>
><cd3@snailmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k18ig3ta3cphvf4g1ummuctvaiq7rrc7vb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:36:57 -0000, datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 7, 9:53 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>>>> > Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
>>>> Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
>>>> Fresh..."
>>>
>>>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=17306&category=196
>>>
>>>http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=16624&category=196
>>>
>>>front and rear?
>>>With Vapors a 3 wheel suite?
>>>But no 1.4" eyeleted rim. Nada.
>>>$25 my hine
>>
>> The less rubber on the road the faster you go. Try riding with tires
>> slightly under-inflated and then fully inflated.
>
>The ultimate speed tire would then be solid metal with a little pasted on
>rubber layer an eighth of an inch thick for traction. You could cut the
>rubber out of a tube and glue it to the metal wheel which would have to be
>shaped like an inflated tire more or less. The ride would be awful, but
>somewhat mediated by shocks and a good seat. Potholes without shocks would
>probably break your wrists and tailbone if you werern't ready. Ultra light
>frames might crack as the shock is transfered but on a smooth track this
>kind of wheel should excel.
>
Yeah, that's exactly what you would want. Maybe you can patent that
and make a million dollars.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:53:53
From: landotter
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Oct 6, 8:45 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles.
Depends on how many times you yell, "Come on and get your 2.35" wide
Schwalbes here! Only twenty-five dollars! The kids love 'em! Hot n
Fresh..."
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:33:56
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
Per datakoll:
>"all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>Continental?
I'd think it would depend on conditions
- Deep loose gravel: wider/softer tire wins.
- Hard smooth blacktop: narrower/harder tire wins.
- Everything in-between: depends on surface and tire pressures.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 07:55:12
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
Some folks are built like this, some folk are built like that, But the
way I'm built, y'all, don't you call me fat. I'm built for comfort,
and I ain't built for speed,
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 14:17:58
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
datakoll wrote:
> Some folks are built like this, some folk are built like that, But the
> way I'm built, y'all, don't you call me fat. I'm built for comfort,
> and I ain't built for speed,
From "All about Tires' by Howlin' Wolf??
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 04:46:45
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
right. to federalize the question, let's snot complicate the evidence
and facts with reality or even hearsay or rumor.
let's proceed on speculation.
posts around the subject roll toward fatter is EASIER. Are the
commentaters considering physical energy loss or does psychological
EASE add into less physical stress giving an ILLUSION of fat is
EASIER?
Cause, to restate the less obvious, if the posters were "able" to use
a radically skinnier tire than the fat tire they're crowing about,
they'd use the skinnier cause common knowledge sez skinnier tires are
faster than fat tires that is to say skinny tires use less energy.
So I came to one conclusion that an energy loss was REAL but not
EVIDENT or DYSFUNCTIONAL as energy loss was less than psychological
gain.
Trying to fit the analysis if you could call this BS analysis into
traveling further than going to woolmort in an expedition sense where
point A to B is necessary not optional I'll ask a hypothetical
question that has no value whatsoever and could be called obtuese or
stupid:
If Armstrong ran on 2.35" tires on the TdF and the field used 37c,
would Armstrong win or loose?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:17:12
From: Greens
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1191732405.992101.313840@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> right. to federalize the question, let's snot complicate the evidence
> and facts with reality or even hearsay or rumor.
> let's proceed on speculation.
>
> posts around the subject roll toward fatter is EASIER. Are the
> commentaters considering physical energy loss or does psychological
> EASE add into less physical stress giving an ILLUSION of fat is
> EASIER?
>
> Cause, to restate the less obvious, if the posters were "able" to use
> a radically skinnier tire than the fat tire they're crowing about,
> they'd use the skinnier cause common knowledge sez skinnier tires are
> faster than fat tires that is to say skinny tires use less energy.
>
> So I came to one conclusion that an energy loss was REAL but not
> EVIDENT or DYSFUNCTIONAL as energy loss was less than psychological
> gain.
>
> Trying to fit the analysis if you could call this BS analysis into
> traveling further than going to woolmort in an expedition sense where
> point A to B is necessary not optional I'll ask a hypothetical
> question that has no value whatsoever and could be called obtuese or
> stupid:
>
> If Armstrong ran on 2.35" tires on the TdF and the field used 37c,
> would Armstrong win or loose?
>
I'm guessing he'd lose. He'd be slower to accelerate. He'd be carrying more
weight than every one else. He'd be less agile. He'd also be more
comfortable and have better "roll".
How many times does he have to acclerate during the tour? Probably hundreds
of times and most likely accelerating smartly is key to winning.
I conclude that he'd lose with the fat tires mostly because if fat tires won
tours, everyone would be riding them. The Darwinian nature of the race is
why fat tires have been weeded out.
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 04:04:57
From: Anthony King
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
On Oct 6, 10:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invaalid.com > wrote:
> Greens who? wrote:
> > "datakoll" <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1191721552.772055.153000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> >> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> >> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
> >> Continental?
>
> > That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
> > means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
> > affect speed when compared to smooth.
>
> > Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
> > common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
> > wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
> > require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
> > forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
> > to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....
>
> Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
> does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
> to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
> the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
> internal friction of the tire casing cords.
>
> I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
> resistance, based on actual testing:
> <http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Quit complicating things with evidence and facts. Adhere to the party
line! large tire are slooow, dontcha know?
Please visit the "Large spoke tension drop with inflated tire" thread
and share your experience..
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:07:38
From: Greens
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1191721552.772055.153000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
> Continental?
>
That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
affect speed when compared to smooth.
Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
to propel yourself as with a skinny tire.
There are other factors that slow you down and require more energy. Wind
resistance is one of them. Of course a wide tire doesn't cause a significant
amount of air friction since your body and arms are probably ten times as
wide as a 2 inch tire. The change in air friction of using a big tire is
hardly worth considering in this question even though it's friction with the
road is worth considering.
What may be more important is that a wider tire may or may not have twice
the footprint of the skinny tire. Air pressure can make this vary
considerably. It may be that the amount of friction that needs to be
overcome goes by the area in contact with the ground at any moment as
opposed to just the width. A long footprint can then produce surprising
amounts of friction. I bought a fat tire to replace an older fat tire. The
new tire took 65 pounds of pressure. The old tire used 80 pounds. Isn't that
going to result in a bigger area of the tire in contact with the ground at
any time? Wouldn't that cause a lot more friction?
The best way to get your answer is to try both tires at the pressures you're
going to be riding them on. You need some way of measuring the watts you're
using, so you need one of those expensive watt meters that they train with
on the tour le france. Run a few hundred tests and average your answers.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 22:33:36
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
Greens who? wrote:
> "datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1191721552.772055.153000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>> Continental?
>>
>
> That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being equal"
> means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would significantly
> affect speed when compared to smooth.
>
> Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you the
> common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice as
> wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
> require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
> forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much energy
> to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....
Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
internal friction of the tire casing cords.
I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
resistance, based on actual testing:
<http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:03:00
From: Greens
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invaalid.com > wrote in message
news:470847a0$0$26387$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Greens who? wrote:
>> "datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1191721552.772055.153000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>>> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>>> Continental?
>>>
>>
>> That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being
>> equal" means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would
>> significantly affect speed when compared to smooth.
>>
>> Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you
>> the common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is
>> twice as wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and
>> therefore require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance
>> to your forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as
>> much energy to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....
>
> Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road does
> not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due to
> hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make the
> flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and internal
> friction of the tire casing cords.
>
> I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling resistance,
> based on actual testing: <http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
"Anthony King" <trinitybicycles@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1191729897.322989.274910@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 6, 10:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@invaalid.com> wrote:
>> Greens who? wrote:
>> > "datakoll" <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1191721552.772055.153000@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> >> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>> >> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>> >> Continental?
>>
>> > That's a valid question that I've considered myself. "All else being
>> > equal"
>> > means we're assuming very similar treads as knobbies would
>> > significantly
>> > affect speed when compared to smooth.
>>
>> > Technical questions like this are usually tricky. I'm going to give you
>> > the
>> > common sense answer (often common sense is wrong). If the tire is twice
>> > as
>> > wide, it's going to have twice the friction with the road and therefore
>> > require twice the energy to overcome that aspect of resistance to your
>> > forward progress. That doesn't mean it's going to take twice as much
>> > energy
>> > to propel yourself as with a skinny tire....
>>
>> Unless there is tread squirm, friction between the tire and the road
>> does not cause a loss unless accelerating/decelerating. The loss is due
>> to hysteresis of the rubber in the tire and tube as it deforms to make
>> the flat contact patch against the road, then recovers its shape, and
>> internal friction of the tire casing cords.
>>
>> I went with wider tire on one of my bicycles for lower rolling
>> resistance, based on actual testing:
>> <http://www.hadland.me.uk/rolrec10a.pdf>.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> Quit complicating things with evidence and facts. Adhere to the party
> line! large tire are slooow, dontcha know?
> Please visit the "Large spoke tension drop with inflated tire" thread
> and share your experience..
>
You have sacrificed agility and acceleration for comfort, but at slow speeds
your tire might have less resistance than a skinny tire.
Just to make things more complicated...
http://schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance
"Wider tires roll better than narrow ones.
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but narrow tires
can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. However, they then
obviously give a less comfortable ride.
narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at higher speeds, as they
provide less air resistance.
Air resistance rises squared with increased speed. At a straight-line speed
of 20 km/h on the flat, air resistance is the main resistance force.
a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate because the
rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is much more agile.
At constant speeds of around 20 km/h, the ride is better with wider tires.
In practice, the energy saving is even greater than in theory as the
elasticity of the tires absorbs road shocks, which would otherwise be
transferred to the rider and so saves energy."
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 06:37:35
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
"Greens" wrote:
> ...
> You have sacrificed agility and acceleration for comfort, but at slow speeds
> your tire might have less resistance than a skinny tire....
The loss of "agility" when replacing a 35-mm wide tire with a 47-mm wide
tire was not a detriment. Never forget that psychological factors are at
work here. The improvement in control made by the wider tire allowed for
higher speeds on less than optimum surfaces. In addition, on a longer
ride, the wider tires will reduce fatigue, allowing better long distance
performance.
The differences in acceleration are negligible.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 01:50:36
From: sally
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in news:1191721552.772055.153000@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
> Continental?
What is equal? Weight? Air pressure? Tire tread?
What are your road or trail condition?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 13:22:09
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1191721552.772055.153000@
> 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>> Continental?
sally wrote:
> What is equal? Weight? Air pressure? Tire tread?
> What are your road or trail condition?
Not all peddlers are equal
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:05:59
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: tires, the wider the better: but slower?
|
sally wrote:
> datakoll <datakoll@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1191721552.772055.153000@
> 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>> "all else being equal", how much more energy does a 2.35" wide
>> Schwalbe take to peddle for ten miles at 10 mph than to peddle a 37c
>> Continental?
>
> What is equal? Weight? Air pressure? Tire tread?
> What are your road or trail condition?
gene is dodging alligators on a shopping run to woolmort.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
