700/23 vs 700/25 tires ?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:21:29 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

I can't understand why anyone heavier would want to ride
a 23 except for two reasons: they came with the bike, or perhaps
caught a great sale on some Vredesteins and couldn't pass em up. ;-)

This guy weighs over 180s and is using 23s in the picture. He wants
to go fast and they work well for that in races.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.ph...06/andyshen226

On Jan 29, 10:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:21:29 -0800 (PST), landotter

wrote:
I can't understand why anyone heavier would want to ride
a 23 except for two reasons: they came with the bike, or perhaps
caught a great sale on some Vredesteins and couldn't pass em up. ;-)

This guy weighs over 180s and is using 23s in the picture. *He wants
to go fast and they work well for that in races. *

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.ph...un06/harlem06/....

Where's the evidence that he couldn't roll faster on 25s? It probably
wouldn't make a difference, ultimately. For folks that aren't racing,
you get a little more durability and comfort at the expense of
nothing.

90% of folks flatted out on the local greenway are riding 23s. There's
zero glass there, so I guess it's just fashionable to pinch flat!

On Jan 29, 11:13*am, landotter wrote:
On Jan 29, 10:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:21:29 -0800 (PST), landotter

wrote:
I can't understand why anyone heavier would want to ride
a 23 except for two reasons: they came with the bike, or perhaps
caught a great sale on some Vredesteins and couldn't pass em up. ;-)

This guy weighs over 180s and is using 23s in the picture. *He wants
to go fast and they work well for that in races. *

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.ph...un06/harlem06/....

Where's the evidence that he couldn't roll faster on 25s? It probably
wouldn't make a difference, ultimately. For folks that aren't racing,
you get a little more durability and comfort at the expense of
nothing.

90% of folks flatted out on the local greenway are riding 23s. There's
zero glass there, so I guess it's just fashionable to pinch flat!

I use a 23 on the front, 25 on the back of my trek 2300

On Jan 29, 10:31*am, "Clive George" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I used to use 23 mm tires exclusively. *Fashion I suppose. *I now use
mostly 25mm tires. *I can't tell any difference in speed, comfort,
traction, flat rate, or anything else.

Didn't tyre sizes become more realistic recently? So yesterday's 23 is
today's 25, or something like that?

I think just opposite. Labeled 25 but really only 23 wide. And
labeled 23 but just 21 wide. My Vittoria Open Pro Evo CX something or
other tires are available in 23 and 25 labeled widths from the
manufacturer. I'm using the 25 labeled model. How wide they really
are, don't know. They do look wider than a 23 labeled model I have on
another bike in front. Different brand tire though. Some day I might
try a 28 labeled tire. I think they will fit on some of my road
bikes. But I have lots of 25 labeled tires to wear out first before
wasting money on more bike tires.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:13:00 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Jan 29, 10:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:21:29 -0800 (PST), landotter

wrote:
I can't understand why anyone heavier would want to ride
a 23 except for two reasons: they came with the bike, or perhaps
caught a great sale on some Vredesteins and couldn't pass em up. ;-)

This guy weighs over 180s and is using 23s in the picture. *He wants
to go fast and they work well for that in races. *

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos.ph...un06/harlem06/...

Where's the evidence that he couldn't roll faster on 25s?

Your question was you cant' understand why anyone would make a choice
other than your, not for evidence.

That said, I have seen evidence, which I'll be too lazy to find now,
that tires the same width as the have less wind resistance than tires
that are wider.

Do you accept that? If not, I'll try to find more info.

It probably
wouldn't make a difference, ultimately
For folks that aren't racing,
you get a little more durability and comfort at the expense of
nothing.

Ohhhh, so when you said you don't understand why anyone heavier would
want to ride a 23 you meant you don't understand why anyone heavier
doing the sort of riding *you* do would want to ride a 23. Is that
it?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:13:00 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

90% of folks flatted out on the local greenway are riding 23s. There's
zero glass there, so I guess it's just fashionable to pinch flat!

So let me get this straight, if I weigh 155 pounds and ride 28s I can
mock you for your tire choice and say how you seem to love risking
pinch flats, since I'm on fatter tires? And if someone the same
weight was on 35s and saw me, he could mock me?

Is that the way it works? Rather than just saying there are
tradeoffs, we can also say the person riding tires smaller than us is
making a mistake and as long as we're on larger tires than they are,
we've made the smarter choice?

OK I understand now.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Chalo wrote:

Instrumented tests have shown that for tires of
equal construction, wider tires have slightly less
rolling resistance at the same pressure. *Narrower
tires have slightly less aerodynamic drag. *While
these factors mostly offset each other, all other
benefits (rim protection, ride quality, wear life,
pinch flat resistance, traction)give the advantage
to the wider tire.

This depends on how much one weighs and what sort
of roads the person is riding on.

In my observation, the road surface has a much bigger role in
dictating the appropriate minimum tire size. It is true that fatter
tires usually have a higher weight rating, and when the rider's weight
goes high enough, this becomes a consideration.

And also the speeds at which the person is riding.

The faster you ride, the more you need in terms of rim protection,
shock absorption, wear resistance, pinch flat resistance, and
traction. So the faster you go, the more you can benefit from a wider
tire.

Chalo

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:12:44 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:


The faster you ride, the more you need in terms of rim protection,
shock absorption, wear resistance, pinch flat resistance, and
traction. So the faster you go, the more you can benefit from a wider
tire.

I can see that for traction, though very few people go near the limits
of traction on moderatley narrow tires.

But why dod you need more for rim protection when going fast? Or
shock absorbtion? Or wear resistance?

And more to the point, do people trying to go fast care about a little
extra shock absorbtion?

When I'm going fast there's more weight on my legs and less on my
hands and butt, so I notice shocks less than when just rolling along
slowly.

And Chalo - I have a couple friends who weigh 100-105 lbs. In your
scheme of things, are they allowed to ride 23s or woudl you tell them
they'd be better off riding 25s or larger? Not knowing them or their
riding goals. Well?

Chalo wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
Chalo wrote:
Instrumented tests have shown that for tires of
equal construction, wider tires have slightly less
rolling resistance at the same pressure. Narrower
tires have slightly less aerodynamic drag. While
these factors mostly offset each other, all other
benefits (rim protection, ride quality, wear life,
pinch flat resistance, traction)give the advantage
to the wider tire.
This depends on how much one weighs and what sort
of roads the person is riding on.

In my observation, the road surface has a much bigger role in
dictating the appropriate minimum tire size. It is true that fatter
tires usually have a higher weight rating, and when the rider's weight
goes high enough, this becomes a consideration.

Yes, we know that you have special considerations where weight is a
concern. But in that regard, you are an outlier. We all have personal
agendas though. I, for one, tend to think generally from sporting angles
rather than utilitarian, though I do love the utilitarian aspect of my
bikes.


And also the speeds at which the person is riding.

The faster you ride, the more you need in terms of rim protection,
shock absorption, wear resistance, pinch flat resistance, and
traction. So the faster you go, the more you can benefit from a wider
tire.

Chalo

"Chalo" wrote in message
...

The faster you ride, the more you need in terms of rim protection,
shock absorption, wear resistance, pinch flat resistance, and
traction. So the faster you go, the more you can benefit from a wider
tire.

Chalo

I am not convinced from my experience. Those who are going faster are
lighter, when you look at broad rider weight categories. I think that's
quite obvious, but maybe you disagree. Shock absorption matters little in
racing. Crossing a pothole faster means less drop, so less likelihood of
pinch flats, not to mention that higher pressure likely allows greater
resistance to the deformations leading to them. (I can't recall a single
incident of flatting while crossing low traffic circles, and fast riders
don't ride into curbs regularly.) Wear resistance is not really a big
consideration _in racing_ so budget accordingly. And when you accumulate
all the small weight savings on a bike weighing 10 kg against one weighing 8
kg, it makes for a competitive difference.

If by "fast" you were aiming at 14 mph rather than 11 mph, then I am not
sure my observations apply.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR