Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom A. wrote:
spookini wrote:
You can't run 28s unless you go to disc brakes, right?
I ain't EVAH going to freakin' disk brakes!
(Purist here...)


Not true...most "normal reach" rim calipers will usually accommodate tires up to 28mm measured width, and mid- and long-reach calipers (not to mention cantilevers and V-brakes) will accommodate even larger tires. The caveat is the frames/forks need to be designed for them.

Correct! It always bothers me when a fork is designed with the legs too short, or the brake mounting bolt too low (reducing the clearance between the tire and bottom of the fork, and/or inside of the brake). Usually it's only a few millimeters - this is enough to "ruin" a frame or fork. My custom tri bike has standard short-reach calipers, but I've fit tires in that are 29-30mm. The pad adjuster bolts are almost all the way down at the bottom of their adjustment range, and it's great. Plug for Habanero bikes, for getting the details right.

With mid-reach Shimano BR650 brakes and an appropriately designed frame/fork, you could probably fit 33-34mm without a problem. I had a test bike with these brakes a couple years back (Kona Honky Tonk), and it was fantastic. The limited on tire clearance was actually that the chainstays were too short (they since lengthened them), and the Shimano long-arm front derailleur (6800/9000)... which they've since ditched because of this problem. The older FDs also work well.

A lot of folks assume that you need disc brakes to run 28mm tires. It's a shame, because the reason they assume this is that bike manufacturers weren't designing their frames to allow road caliper rim brakes to be used to their full capability. In other words, the tire clearance was always there from the brakes - the frames just had some poor design aspects that narrowed the potential tire size for the user.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
4. almost 6 in 10 are choosing 23mm or thinner.


Dan,

As you well know sometimes it's the little least obvious things that make the most impact.

My sense is just generally in the cycling and triathlon population there seems to be VERY poor information about tires and in particular some basics about tires, and how much they impact performance.

I can't tell you how many times, I've been out on rides with either roadies or triathletes and seen people on very expensive bikes with low-grade bad tires on them and almost always 23mm, and way OVER inflated.

Getting top-line tires, with either 25 or even 28mm profile is the single biggest performance up-grade anyone can make for any bike! (Someone please stop the madness with the Gatorskins!!)

Cars are the same. I don't drive a very expensive car - but I always invest in good tires. Makes the car feel, and drive much better, than it does with the lousy OEM tires on it.


Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [gregk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gregk wrote:
Tom A. wrote:
spookini wrote:
You can't run 28s unless you go to disc brakes, right?
I ain't EVAH going to freakin' disk brakes!
(Purist here...)


Not true...most "normal reach" rim calipers will usually accommodate tires up to 28mm measured width, and mid- and long-reach calipers (not to mention cantilevers and V-brakes) will accommodate even larger tires. The caveat is the frames/forks need to be designed for them.


Correct! It always bothers me when a fork is designed with the legs too short, or the brake mounting bolt too low (reducing the clearance between the tire and bottom of the fork, and/or inside of the brake). Usually it's only a few millimeters - this is enough to "ruin" a frame or fork. My custom tri bike has standard short-reach calipers, but I've fit tires in that are 29-30mm. The pad adjuster bolts are almost all the way down at the bottom of their adjustment range, and it's great. Plug for Habanero bikes, for getting the details right.

With mid-reach Shimano BR650 brakes and an appropriately designed frame/fork, you could probably fit 33-34mm without a problem. I had a test bike with these brakes a couple years back (Kona Honky Tonk), and it was fantastic. The limited on tire clearance was actually that the chainstays were too short (they since lengthened them), and the Shimano long-arm front derailleur (6800/9000)... which they've since ditched because of this problem. The older FDs also work well.

A lot of folks assume that you need disc brakes to run 28mm tires. It's a shame, because the reason they assume this is that bike manufacturers weren't designing their frames to allow road caliper rim brakes to be used to their full capability. In other words, the tire clearance was always there from the brakes - the frames just had some poor design aspects that narrowed the potential tire size for the user.

Yup...my old steel '86 Bianchi has PLENTY of clearance at the fork crown for the 28mm+ measured width tires I'm running on it (26C Turbo Cottons on H Plus Son TB14 rims)...and the 1st Gen dual pivot Dura Ace brakes have plenty of clearance as well.

In fact, the limiter on the bike is really the width between the chainstays on the rear...I probably can't go much over 29mm and still fit in there...

BTW, my custom Stinner is set up for at least 30mm wide tires in the rear. Unfortunately, the crown on the 1st Gen Cervelo S5 fork on there doesn't allow tires that large...but, I have considered picking up one of these (a Whisky No. 7 road fork): http://theradavist.com/...s-co-no-7-road-fork/ , but that might not allow me to run my current SRAM Hydro R rim brakes since it requires mid-reach calipers :-(


http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
so, turns out based on the early results of the NEW poll that the thing people are complaining about isn't really the thing. it's not that they aren't putting a 25mm or 28mm tire on the bike because they don't have room. they aren't going to put it on there anyway. if they only need a bike that allows a tire that's MEASURED 25mm wide, that's probably a 23mm tire.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [gregk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Correct. I had a CAAD10 with ultegra caliper brakes that fit 32c Vittoria XN cyclocross tires without rubbing.

On the other hand, i can't run my Zipp 404 tubies with Zipp Tangente SL Speed tires in a 27c on my p3c because it rubs on the fork crown.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, frame clearance on tri bikes is a huge issue, it is a big limiter.
Plus, if you use rim brakes, actual brake caliper clearance is another significant issue.

But, there are really two tire widths to talk about:

1) the most practical and rideable wide tire/rim for comfort and for fun and for training (where overall speed is not too big of an issue, as long as it is within reason).

2) simply the fastest (optimal combined aero drag and rolling resistance) tire/rim combo for RACING on most, say U.S., roads.

The widths a smart rider would choose for option 1 and option 2 are probably very different.

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Anything bigger than 23 on a wide rim will not fit. Would ride wider if it were feasible. So... FIT
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I suspect that people are not thinking about their answers in the new poll. Those that pick 25 probably did not consider that means a 23 tire.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [PennBen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Never thought I'd see Walter Benjamin quoted on ST :)
PennBen wrote:
The great Walter Benjamin discussed how and why products have an aura created around them and how that aura becomes the authentic 'thing' and not the product itself. Light reading for your recovery days.

People will go with the first narrative they've created (or agreed with) concerning a product. Judgements about information after that simply serve to justify the opinion.

And when it comes to numbers, people just aren't smart - please believe me, I don't mean that to be condescending. But, Agent K said it best "a person is smart but people are dumb." Read up on why A&W's 1/3 lb burger failed and you'll begin to crack the code of the wider tire. Opinions about tire width, like most things cycling, have nothing to do with the actual thing itself.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At tter at the pointy end of the field will want s different tire than a mid pack triathlete doing an iron man.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dan,

Most are on the tire width that they think is fastest. And some are right, but probably not 90% of us. There is additional information sprinkled around out there that suggests some changes could be made.

1) Aero - probably Flo Wheel testing and widely read here that said the 23s were the most aero (with their wheels/rims) could be the single biggest driver in the poll.

However RIM SIZE will dictate the aeroness of TIRE SIZE. Narrow rims need narrow tires to be aero and large rims can use a large tire (probably not larger than the the rim though) to be more aero.

2) Rolling resistance - Road buzz or impedance is underestimated in importance. Many tests were run with relatively smooth surfaces and not real roads. Here is a site that shows how much road surface and road resistance matter. https://silca.cc/...stance-and-impedance

RIM SIZE dictates TIRE SIZE for aero and rolling resistance. Picking a tire irregardless of the rim is a mistake.

I learned the hard way.

Over inflated tires for performance led to as many flats as under inflated tires. Plus the physical strength expended in absorbing road shock. Wanting to steer clear of even relatively minor road bumps was also unsafe.

Bought some 28 tubeless tires (because my bike can take them) and mistakenly put them on too narrow a rim. The ride was soft; yet, something was wrong. A tire too big for a rim can act like a parallelogram on the road. The tire shifts sideways and slows one while cornering and increases the odds of getting sidewall cuts/punctures.

The good news is that the data is out there. The auto/truck tire industry is way ahead of us. Cycling is catching up. It seems like the new Mavic wheel and tubeless tire SYSTEM is there from what I've read and recently saw on a GCN video. Mavic said that just 1mm between rim and tire makes a difference in fit, performance and aero.

Which leaves us with the problem that we have separate wheel/rim manufacturers and tire manufacturers. Hardly any do both and they may not be talking to each other or creating alliances and sharing data. So we the users are getting in between results trying to match tires to rims and then we disagree about which is better on ST. We also continously spend money searching for a better result that is not as in between. ;)

We really don't have enough data to guide us to the richt answer in tire and rim selection given all the possible combinations (including rider weight) out there. So we try this and that depending on what we've read on ST and else where.

My guess is that your poll probably correlates well to the number of time 23 and 25 have been mentioned on ST.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [nilloc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What about weight?

Don't you have to factor that into the benefit/lack of benefit to using a wider tire in addition to any rolling resistance or aero impacts?
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom,

Do you think the 105 rule applies to the front and rear equally or would there need to be another calculation based on the seat tube geometry and proximity?

Cheers!
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [swimswam1003] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
swimswam1003 wrote:
Anything over 23mm on my rear wheel rubs against my BMC TM02 frame. I have no choice.

Yes you do. Spin those little things in the horizontal dropout. My rear race tire measures 28mm on a Time Machine. I could go even bigger if the brake wanted to cooperate.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So I think we have a lot of factors converging here:

1. Acceptance/belief: I travel a LOT and talk to A LOT of people and I'd say 98% of people out there still know little and care little about tire Crr or wheel/tire aero. Most people want to purchase the solution to what THEY think is the problem. With 30 years under our belts, frames and wheels aren't in a bad place: "I ride this frame because it's the fastest, this wheel..fastest.. etc." But with tires, not everybody knows/cares/believes about Crr or tire aero and so almost nobody in the real world (not on ST) is yet spending a lot of time/energy on this. People are generally shocked..and I mean dis-believing shocked when I tell them that their Gatorskins/Armadillos are doing as much or more harm to speed than their aero wheel set is doing to improve it..and even after our conversation I'd be shocked if most people make changes as the fear of flatting (more accurately the fear of changing a flat) is SO HIGH for most people that they'll accept the penalties.

2. That number on the sidewall vs the Actual Measurement: I'd say 90% of people I talk to about measured vs actual disbelieve it. I get this. It says 23mm... that like, means 23mm, right? This can be one of the toughest points in all of this to make because of the language used to discuss it... it's hard to argue that a 23mm tire measures 25mm when we are forced to constantly refer to it as a '23mm tire'. To really move on from this, we need to adopt a new standard like the one Josh Deetz developed some 10 years ago that combines bead width of rim and circumferential length of tire casing to create an install size. I'd say for most people it's actually the diameter increase that causes the real problems here. As we've shown in our pressure blog, the tire diameter also grows when moving to a wider bead width... My first experience with this was doing the early Zipp carbon clinchers and we were experimenting with bead widths and people would have a prototype with 15mm bead with and 23mm tire and we'd give them an identical wheel and tire only with 17.5mm bead width, and now we're rubbing the caliper, or seat-tube.

3. Disconnect between how we talk about Crr and Aero and their actual orders of magnitude: We say 'Wider is faster' and for a given tire construction, wider is generally faster (in Crr), but with diminishing returns.. So maybe the first 2mm of width get you 1Watt..the next 2mm gets you 0.8Watt and then next two might net 0.6, etc.. (these are made-up numbers but consistent with real data..). In my experience with real world testing on pavement there seems to be some sort of cross-over point in the 28-32mm zone where the benefits of further widening the tire seem to disappear. At this point, with the data we have, I'd say that somewhere in here we find the sort of max optimal width for road/tri tires.

In the mean time, what I tell everybody from the local triathlete to Peter Sagan is this:

1. Run the widest tire that doesn't violate the Rule of 105% for your rim AND will also fit in your frame with 3mm+ clearance on all sides. This will allow you the most tunability for your overall setup while also remaining close to optimal aero.
2. Test and optimize your pressures for various surfaces in training. A 23mm tire measuring 25mm is ~4% stiffer than a 23mm tire measuring 23mm at the same pressure, so going wider without lowering pressure very likely costs you more watts in Crr than are being saved by the wider tire. Test pressures in training to find your optimal pressure for various types of surface (should be smooth and feel like the tire is absorbing the harsh edges, yet not bouncy). Knowing ahead of time that you can comfortably adjust PSI depending on the course in front of you takes some of the guess work and stress out. We have 4 pre-set pressure 'Zones' for Team Bora and can quickly scan the parcours and make a decision.. no guess work, no stress.
3. When in doubt: let it out! Remember, 5psi above optimal can cost you twice as many watts as 5psi below optimal for a given surface.. so unless pinch flatting is a real concern, we always recommend dropping a few psi rather than adding.

http://www.SILCA.cc
Check out my podcast, inside stories from more than 20 years of product and tech innovation from inside the Pro Peloton and Pro Triathlon worlds!
http://www.marginalgainspodcast.cc
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw that on the poll and though it weird too. Although I cannot remember the study, but it showed 25 faster than 23 but 28 about the same as 23.

I put the Bontrager 26mm tubeless on my flo wheels, and have been enjoying them.

My new Speed Concept even came with 25mm from the factory, so Trek has started shipping 25mm instead of 23mm with their tri bikes.
Last edited by: tyme: Jun 28, 17 13:29
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [mcmetal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mcmetal wrote:
What about weight?

Don't you have to factor that into the benefit/lack of benefit to using a wider tire in addition to any rolling resistance or aero impacts?

No. Asked and answered above.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [refthimos] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It will never happen, but with rim widths varying so much these days, the designations "23mm," "25mm," "28mm," etc. just are not that meaningful anymore.

What would be a lot more helpful would be for tires sizes to be listed by their cross section measured bead-to-bead ("B2B") out of the box and laid flat. I'm sure some tires inflate "higher" or "wider" than others given a particular B2B, but I doubt there is much variation due to "inflated shape" and you can pretty safely assume that a tire with a wider B2B will result in a wider inflated tire (rather than simply a "taller" tire and yes that is despite what we know about the GP4000SII and its "magic aero" properties). And of course a tire with a given B2B will result in a wider inflated tire when mounted on a wider rim (internal bead width).

Below is a list from a thread on the Internets showing exactly this, the B2B of a variety of tires. You can see that for various "23mm" tires, the B2B can vary from as narrow as 56mm to as wide as 60mm. And then you have some "24mm" tires that measure as wide as 64mm. So you can have an 8mm swing just moving from a "23mm" tire to a "24mm" tire. And then of course these tires will all measure out quite differently when mounted on different width rims.

So what we really need is tires listed in B2B, and then for the rim/wheel manufacturers (or Slowtwitchers armed with their digital calipers) to tell us what range of B2B works best for a particular rim's width (both external and internal). Generally speaking, we would expect the "ideal" B2B to be the B2B that results in the measured width of the inflated tire equaling 95% of the external rim width. This way, we are obeying the Rule of 105 while at the same time using the widest tire for lowest rolling resistance.

OK fine, we all know tire manufacturers are not going to give up on the "23mm-25mm-28mm" designations in the same way that we know they are not going to stop reporting aero results in terms of "watts saved" because in both cases these are measurement units that consumers can get their heads around - a lot more than B2B and CdA. But if we can get manufacturers to report CdA in addition to "watts saved," can we get manufacturers to report B2B in addition to "23mm-25mm-28mm?" It's a lot more informative.

| Mfr | Size | Model | B2B |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bontrager | 700X23 | Race X Lite Silica | 60 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Clement | 700X28 | Strada LGG | 68 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Continental | 700X24 | Grand Prix | 64 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Continental | 700X25 | GP4000s | 70 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Continental | 700X22 | GP Attack | 54 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Continental | 700X23 | GP3000 | 58 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Continental | 700X23 | Force | 57 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Deda | 700X23 | TRE RS | 58 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hutchinson | 700X23 | Fusion 2 Triathalon | 59 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X23 | Speedium 2 | 64 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X25 | Pro4 Race SC | 70 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X23 | Pro4 Race SC | 60 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X23 | Pro3 Race SC | 60 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X25 | Krylion | 72 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X25 | Pro3 Race SC | 72 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X23 | Krylion | 64 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X25 | Pro Optimum | 72 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michelin | 700X23 | Pro4 Endurance | 59 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Panaracer | 700X23 | Type-A | 56 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Schwalbe | 700X28 | One Tubeless | 77 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Specialized | 700X23 | Pro all conditions | 56 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vittoria | 700X24 | Diamante Pro Radiale | 64 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vittoria | 700X24 | Open Pave Evo | 64 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vittoria | 700X23 | Rubino Pro 3 | 60 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| WTB | 700X23 | Camino Alto | 59 |


The last number for each is the measured B2B.

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Last edited by: refthimos: Jun 28, 17 13:51
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [ktm520] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ktm520 wrote:
Tom,

Do you think the 105 rule applies to the front and rear equally or would there need to be another calculation based on the seat tube geometry and proximity?

Cheers!

I assume it applies more to front wheels than rear...mostly because its based on wheel-only tunnel data.

One can probably "afford" a smaller percentage on a rear wheel with less adverse affect...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You're right about caliper expansion. When I started riding in the 70s we rode clement del mundo tubies. Every bit of 30mm. But today's tri bikes, magura hydraulics on a p5-6, speed concepts, ain't like it was in the good old days.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [dangle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks. Couple Qs:

1: 105% means inflated tire, as measured, cannot exceed what? Brake track width?

2. Based on what you wrote in your post it sounds like you would've checked the 30mm box in the current poll running. If not the 32mm box. Am I understanding?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
Thanks. Couple Qs:

1: 105% means inflated tire, as measured, cannot exceed what? Brake track width?

I don't know. I asked Josh on his blog last year and didn't get a reply. I asked again on ST after one of his awesome blog post discussions and don't recall a reply. I'm assuming brake track, but that's 100% assumption. It just seems like something shaped similar to a sideways figure 8 with a tail hanging off the back doesn't make sense aerodynamically.

Slowman wrote:
2. Based on what you wrote in your post it sounds like you would've checked the 30mm box in the current poll running. If not the 32mm box. Am I understanding?

I did check 30mm. I don't need it, but would prefer for training tires. I have started my own outdoor testing, but am still new enough to it that I am not confident enough to really discuss 'findings' here. I started replying to Trevor Wurtele's post that he absolutely should try 80 psi front and rear as my *limited* testing at 185-190lbs on nearly the same setup was getting faster and faster on bumpy midwest roads down to 80. I don't think we (as a community) have a great understanding of how much our road surfaces are slowing us down. The Josh P. stuff from last year was just awesome, but we still have so much of ST telling everybody to buy 23mm GP4000's, fill em up to at least 100, then buy an Aerohead to make up for how much you're slowing yourself down with vertical oscillation.
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
You're right about caliper expansion. When I started riding in the 70s we rode clement del mundo tubies. Every bit of 30mm. But today's tri bikes, magura hydraulics on a p5-6, speed concepts, ain't like it was in the good old days.

Yes, but what I called "normal reach" are actually considered "short reach" (i.e. the new normal).

Apparently the mid-reach (47-57mm) brakes were actually referred to as "standard reach".

My old Bianchi, even with "short reach" DA brakes can easily fit 30mm tires. The rear of my Stinner currently has a tire that measure just over 30mm wide, and there's still plenty of clearance to the SRAM Hydro R caliper (even though they only claim up to 28mm of clearance). On the front fork, I'll hit the crown with anything measuring over 26-27mm...

So yeah, the clearance "issues" on road/TT/Tri bikes for tires up to 28-30mm in width seem to be more about frame/fork design than anything else...although, there ARE some brake designs that have issues at smaller widths.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [dangle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dangle wrote:
Slowman wrote:
Thanks. Couple Qs:

1: 105% means inflated tire, as measured, cannot exceed what? Brake track width?


I don't know. I asked Josh on his blog last year and didn't get a reply. I asked again on ST after one of his awesome blog post discussions and don't recall a reply. I'm assuming brake track, but that's 100% assumption. It just seems like something shaped similar to a sideways figure 8 with a tail hanging off the back doesn't make sense aerodynamically.

I'm fairly certain it's in reference to maximum wheel width, not brake track outer width...but, Josh can correct if I'm wrong.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: Tire Width (I don't get it) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think this one is fairly easy. Do you NEED anything wider than 25c on your tri bike? I guess if it's your only bike and primarily ride on crappy roads. For road bikes, I'm happy my Evo Hi-Mod can take up to 30c. That gives me flexibility for where I'm going to ride it. Would I ever do something like BWR on a tri bike...no, but I might use my road bike.

The increasing manufacture of bikes with disc brakes allows wider tires to be used. I still feel like this is marketing creating a problem for a problem that exists for very few cyclists. Remember the days when we only had to worry about whether wheels had a Shimano or Campy freehub? Now you also need to make sure the hub spacing and width fit your bike, you have tires that properly match the rim, and are tubeless ready (if you go that route).

As someone who works in marketing, I have no issue with bike companies doing this. However, as a bike consumer, I like to have as few of standards as possible. Thankfully, there are minimal standards when it comes to tire (diameter, width, type).


Slowman wrote:
i can see now i asked the wrong question. the question i SHOULD have asked is what tire width you feel your next bike should accommodate. i will ask that in the next poll

"Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps"
Blog = http://extrememomentum.com|Photos = http://wheelgoodphotos.com
Quote Reply

Prev Next