I've been meaning to dig up some articles from a few years back. a local town chip-sealed a road and they were able to work with the paving company to do it in a 'cyclist-friendly' way. it helped that the owner of the paving company is a cyclist.
there were some interesting observations. i believe they found a way that didn't materially increase the costs or time to complete the project. i also believe it had something to do with the size of the aggregate (perhaps combining multiple sizes) and with the order of laying down the layers.
What I saw being done was a layer of black goo, a layer of gravel, then a layer of black goo (maybe not the same stuff or as thick). There is a double layer process where they use smaller aggregate for the last layer, and that is much better. There is also a process where they add a layer of goo that is thick enough to cover all the gravel and fill in gaps. Both cost at least 50% more but are supposed to last longer.
Browsing through the cost studies I could find online, not a one of them considers higher fuel consumption. It's like a 10% increase. One study mentioned that fuel consumption would take a big hit, yet completely ignored it in their analysis!
A big selling point for chipseal is better traction. I haven't seen any measurements, but it is always cited as a plus. How would you like to experience that traction if you crashed your bike?
120psi on the supersonics? do you find that to be fastest? i'm a little surprised by that.
They are 20mm on narrow rims. I typically run them at 130psi on smooth roads. 110psi on rougher ones.
there were some interesting observations. i believe they found a way that didn't materially increase the costs or time to complete the project. i also believe it had something to do with the size of the aggregate (perhaps combining multiple sizes) and with the order of laying down the layers.
What I saw being done was a layer of black goo, a layer of gravel, then a layer of black goo (maybe not the same stuff or as thick). There is a double layer process where they use smaller aggregate for the last layer, and that is much better. There is also a process where they add a layer of goo that is thick enough to cover all the gravel and fill in gaps. Both cost at least 50% more but are supposed to last longer.
Browsing through the cost studies I could find online, not a one of them considers higher fuel consumption. It's like a 10% increase. One study mentioned that fuel consumption would take a big hit, yet completely ignored it in their analysis!
A big selling point for chipseal is better traction. I haven't seen any measurements, but it is always cited as a plus. How would you like to experience that traction if you crashed your bike?
120psi on the supersonics? do you find that to be fastest? i'm a little surprised by that.
They are 20mm on narrow rims. I typically run them at 130psi on smooth roads. 110psi on rougher ones.