Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
SammyG wrote:BBB wrote:SammyG
Thousands, no.. millions, in fact 9 of 10 of roadies are still on pointless 23mm tyres (coz the pros use them…), mistaking vibrations and lack of comfort for speed and ignoring solid research on rolling resistance (e.g. excellent work by Bicycle Quarterly).
I won’t even start on a stupid 19-21mm trend from (I believe) 90’s that people mindlessly followed just like the pros…Bag of worms there, not that simple :x
It is very simple.
Yes the rolling resistance is simple which will save you 0.2 – 0.3 watts going from 23c to 25c, but aerodynamic implications are closer to 6 watts dependent on wheel rim width.
Testing rolling resistance using smooth steel drums and air resistance of wheels/tyres using a TT bike “ridden” at 25-30mph in full aero position is as far to typical riding conditions as it gets.
It makes a very effective marketing, though.
SammyG wrote:BBB
Thousands, no.. millions, in fact 9 of 10 of roadies are still on pointless 23mm tyres (coz the pros use them…), mistaking vibrations and lack of comfort for speed and ignoring solid research on rolling resistance (e.g. excellent work by Bicycle Quarterly).
I won’t even start on a stupid 19-21mm trend from (I believe) 90’s that people mindlessly followed just like the pros…Bag of worms there, not that simple :x
It is very simple.
No offence but road cycling
No offence but road cycling community is known from riding and thinking in a pack.Thousands, no.. millions, in fact 9 of 10 of roadies are still on pointless 23mm tyres (coz the pros use them…), mistaking vibrations and lack of comfort for speed and ignoring solid research on rolling resistance (e.g. excellent work by Bicycle Quarterly).
I won’t even start on a stupid 19-21mm trend from (I believe) 90’s that people mindlessly followed just like the pros…It’s one of the many examples in the cycling world and in life generally how the majority is often wrong and how their strong convictions are based on assumptions, subjective impressions and opinions of others rather than on scientific facts.
In assessing (meaningful) performance gains I’m only interested in research not fairy tales so I will appreciate if someone points me in the right direction. Links, articles please… (independent, not “sponsored” ones, normal, NO TT setup, just a typical bloke on the bike).
I’d like to know how much faster exactly on a varied route a typical non-competing bloke putting 250-300W and cycling at 15-18mph, mostly on hoods is going to gain from more aero or lightweight wheels exactly?
700c wrote:…Everyone that I
…Everyone that I know of who has upgraded their wheels experience an improvement in performance to a greater or lesser extent…Perceived benefits and the “feel” has very little to do with actual performance. The best example are tyre pressure and perceived rolling resistance. Pump up a 23mm tyre to 120PSI and it will always “feel” faster than a 28mm one at 30-40PSI less even though you’re likely to be faster or at least as fast on a wider one.
… Even changing to my summer tyres this year have given me a noticeable boost in speed…
I totally agree on this one. Performance of various tyres can be pretty accurately measured with a drum, pendulum or a simple rolling test and the difference between slow and fast ones can be as much as 20-30W.
IMO it’s the only bike component that it’s worth obsessing about.
… You just have to try it out for yourself in the real world! You’d be surprised at how much difference weight and aerodynamics can make to the effort required to power on the flat or sprint up a hill…
I ride in the real world and over 25years of cycling I’ve never noticed the measurable performance benefits of lighter wheels. They may feel different but that’s all.
The only things that made a positive difference to my average speeds were: picking the right tyres, losing 3 stones, commuting/training regularly all year round and clocking long endurance miles in winter.Anything else had very little relevance.
robdaykin wrote:
…Effort
…Effort measured by heart rate, since I don’t own a power meter…Frankly speaking I should have stopped reading it at this point but I carried on…
Handbuilt wheel ~ 2100g (measured, no tape, tube, tyre, skewer, cassette, however scales accurate to maybe +/- 50g) 5.5% slower +/- 0.5%Mavic Ksyrium Elite 1550g list weight 8% faster +/- 0.5%.
I appreciate your efforts and respect your opinions but sorry I’m absolutely not buying it at all.
I’m a bit of a tyre tart and there was a time I was testing various tyres on my bike (w/ Powertap) on a 3h loop, from 25mm 250g GP4000S to 37mm 600g Contact Sports and even despite differences in rolling resistance I don’t recall differences exceeding 0.5-0.7mp in extreme cases.Few other thoughts.
Rims vary in width/shape/volume and tyre pressure should account for that. A 1mm difference may not seem like an awful lot but it may change the volume of the tyres by 5-10% and affect rolling resistance and the feel.
You know… people claiming that wheels A are more comfortable or roll smoother than wheels B 😉Also of e.g. 500g difference between wheels most of weight saving will be in the hubs. Most of rims will be in a region of 370-450g. There is not much potential for weight saving here. What it means is that you’re only saving about 100-200g of rotating mass furthermost from the centre (at best!).
To suggest it’s going to result in noticeable difference in av. speed is madness.Besides, what most of people debate mostly about is not how much difference lighter wheels make but how does it does it compare to a static weight.
The difference is going to be **** all.
robdaykin wrote:Purely
Purely objectively, based on measurements taken myself on actual rides, I’ve found bigger differences than the cyclingpowerlabs, but similar trends. I find lighter wheels are measurably faster with no aero features, and aero wheels give benefit climbing and below 25mph ground speedI’d ignore the biketechreview article. I don’t think it would pass peer review for a science journal is probably the politest way of putting it.
If we are to ignore the Biketechreview article (and many other simulations/calculations confirming their findings) and accept the results of your “purely objective” tests, could you please share your test results and methodology with us?
ALIHISGREAT wrote:badkneestom
Just from a surface area standpoint, I’m pretty sure my body far exceeds my bike..That’s irrelevant. The bike still makes a difference – if we assume your body is a fixed constant, other variables can be changed and I don’t see why you wouldn’t change them?
.. well there is a point since the bike will be nicer to ride.
.. similarly there is a point to making your bike more aerodynamic because it does make a difference to the ride.
No one is questioning the benefits of aero frames and wheels but of course IT IS largely irrelevant for… vast majority of (often overweight) cyclists who typically cruise at 15-18mph with hands on their hoods.
Rider’s body is still responsible for most of air drag and other components may matter during a race or a TT but won’t be noticeable in most of situations.I think you’re overestimating the potential gains and take the whole thing too seriously. 😉
P.S. Calling people idiots isn’t helping to get your point across.
Just like with shop
Just like with shop assistants DECENT mechanics are rare as the wages aren’t attractive enough to attract lots of sensible people for long enough. Many of them will leave for a better paid job before getting enough experience.Also many shop owners tend to prefer youngsters with worthless “bike mechanic” certificates so they can proudly claim that they employ “qualified bike technicians” while paying them peanuts at the same time.
Contrary to all the propaganda bike maintenance training certificates are a joke and say absolutely nothing about anyone’s qualifications. They only benefit companies running the courses.
There is no substitute for the right mix of experience, passion, geekiness and a some IQ but you’re not going to come across it very often.
