# Nice steel bike with good tire clearance?



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

I'm not expecting to go touring; ride in bad weather, go off road much. I want disks, and clearance for wide tires. But I want a steel frame that has great ride quality. I guess I'm looking for suggestions for a frame that is really comfortable with sacrificing speed. Thought?


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> I'm not expecting to go touring; ride in bad weather, go off road much. I want disks, and clearance for wide tires. But I want a steel frame that has great ride quality. I guess I'm looking for suggestions for a frame that is really comfortable with sacrificing speed. Thought?


Sounds like you need a Surly


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Breezer Bikes - INVERSION TEAM - Bike Overview


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

That Breezer looks great. I might want wider tires. I wonder if 650Bx42mm would fit.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Budget? Custom would be the obvious answer if you can swing it. Lot's to choose from there. Gunnar and Geekhouse would be a couple to look at first and generally speaking prices go up from there. 44 Bicycles Huntsman looks like a really nice bike of that type too but I don't know of anyone who has one so will stop short of recommending them. Worth a look though.
When I wanted pretty much what you're looking for I got a Honey (which is Seven's line of non-custom steel). Very happy with it.

Don't worry about the 'sacrificing speed' part. Bike frames have virtually nothing to do with speed beyond the position they put your body in.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> That Breezer looks great. I might want wider tires. I wonder if 650Bx42mm would fit.


I know the Radar and the Doppler can do the Road Plus, which is 650Bx47mm.

I'm willing to bet that the Inversion can do a 650Bx42mm.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Specialized AWOL comes to mind.

Niner RLT9

Rodeo Labs Flaanimal


The Niner and the Rodeo will def do 650Bx47 tires IIRC.


----------



## skepticman (Dec 25, 2005)

The Riding Gravel Bike Finder has a list that can be sorted by frame material. But it's outdated and is missing some like the All-City Cosmic Stallion, Specialized Sequoia, Salsa Colossal and CrMo Vaya and the Fairdale Rockitship due next month.

Gravel Bike Finder - Gravel, Back Road, Gravel Grinder, All Road


----------



## mtrac (Sep 23, 2013)

Traitor Wander


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Some good options here.

I posted about this bike in another thread.

Norco Search XR Steel

https://www.norco.com/bikes/road/adventure/search-xr-steel/


----------



## tangerineowl (Sep 1, 2012)

Migen21 said:


> Some good options here.
> 
> I posted about this bike in another thread.
> 
> ...


Was about to suggest the same.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Check out the Jamis Renegade Exploit:

renegadeexploit 

Fast, plush ride, room for up to 40mm tires, full Shimano groupo, hydraulic disc brakes. Disclaimer: I own one and love it!!! 

If you are looking for more of a road bike, Jamis makes the Quest Elite which is quite nice. Not sure of the tire clearance though:

questelite


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

All good suggestions. I like seeing some I've not heard of.

I'm starting to think I want 650B x 42mm with disks. I'm not to keen on converting a 700c frame, because of the BB drop might make it too low.

I'm fairly certain I don't need a gravel/adventure bike. I will rarely go off pavement. I want 42mm tires for comfort and grip, and they shouldn't be all that slow. Seems like custom is the only option, but I don't know that I can afford that given I can't even try it first...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Built for 26" but has clearance for 650b x 48's, so would be easy to do with the 42's. I've been riding 650b\42 for a couple of years now and have nothing but praise for the wheel size. been using Compass tires.

The Crust Romanceur has been getting good reviews from owners.

https://crustbikes.com/products/the-romanceur-presale/


I ride a Boulder Bicycle, which I'm very happy with, but I didn't recommend it because no disc brakes which you are wanting.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> I'm starting to think I want 650B x 42mm with disks. I'm not to keen on converting a 700c frame, because of the BB drop might make it too low.
> 
> I'm fairly certain I don't need a gravel/adventure bike. I will rarely go off pavement. I want 42mm tires for comfort and grip, and they shouldn't be all that slow. Seems like custom is the only option, but I don't know that I can afford that given I can't even try it first...


WRT 650c size, the issue is the more limited tire selection and availability. You may not be able to walk into a shop and buy one. 

WRT tire width - despite the Internet claims, wide tires (42) are slower than narrow tires (23 or 25) at appropriate pressures ("comfort" means dropping pressure). How much slower may not matter to you. But, noticeably slower with the wallowy mushy rear end feel on high power efforts. If you ride alone that doesn't matter. If you are trying to hang on to a group, it might matter. 

WRT "grip" on the wide tire (42) vs narrow (23 or 25) - if you only ride on the road, I don't see how a wider tire's grip would matter. People turn 90° corners at speed on 20s, 23s, and 25s. If you have trouble keeping the rubber side down, it is technique not equipment. 

I think the Gravel Cyclist: The Gravel Cycling Experience - Gravel Cyclist - The Gravel Cycling Experience - Rides, Races, Calendar, Reviews dude (JOM) is riding a 650 bike now. The site has a bunch of info. There is definitely info about 650 tire size and bikes there.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

crit_boy said:


> WRT tire width - despite the Internet claims, wide tires (42) are slower than narrow tires (23 or 25) at appropriate pressures ("comfort" means dropping pressure). How much slower may not matter to you. But, noticeably slower with the wallowy mushy rear end feel on high power efforts.


I haven't put 42mm tires on my gravel bike, but I can say one thing for sure. My gravel bike with 36mm tires feels no slower than my road bike with 23, 25 or 28mm tires (all 700c) - pressures adjusted appropriately for tire width. The 36mm tire gravel bike feels like a very comfortable, stable, sturdy road bike, not like a hybrid or mountain bike. Nor do I feel a "mushy, wallowy rear end" on higher power efforts. If I feel that sensation, it is because my rear tire is going flat. 

Going to a smaller diameter like 650b has only two advantages - tighter turning ability and lower low gearing.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

crit_boy said:


> WRT 650c size, the issue is the more limited tire selection and availability. You may not be able to walk into a shop and buy one.
> 
> WRT tire width - despite the Internet claims, wide tires (42) are slower than narrow tires (23 or 25) at appropriate pressures ("comfort" means dropping pressure). How much slower may not matter to you. But, noticeably slower with the wallowy mushy rear end feel on high power efforts. If you ride alone that doesn't matter. If you are trying to hang on to a group, it might matter.
> 
> ...


Have you much experience riding high volume tires? This "wallowy mushy rear end feel" of which you speak has more to do with tire pressure than tire size. My 650b\42's do squirm when pressure is too low, but when properly inflated there is no problem with squirm.

And if tire size doesn't influence handling on the road, why have 20mm tires lost favor to 23's and 25's and 28's more recently? 

Yes, 650b tires are not as available as 700c tires, but that is changing, and while not able to just walk into any shop and pick up a tire it is easy enough to keep an extra tire or two stockpiled so as not to have an issue. Shucks, I have a stockpile of 700c tires, both 23mm and 25mm, so why would it be any different with my 650b\42's? 

As far as being slower than 25mm tires, while 650b\42 may not be as fast as 700c\25, I think tire construction and frame geometry has more to do with that than tire size. A bicycle frame designed for fast riding on 650b\42's _may_ not be as fast as a bike on 700c tires and wheels, but it isn't going to be so slow as to not be able to ride in a fast group.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> I haven't put 42mm tires on my gravel bike, but I can say one thing for sure. My gravel bike with 36mm tires feels no slower than my road bike with 23, 25 or 28mm tires (all 700c) - pressures adjusted appropriately for tire width. The 36mm tire gravel bike feels like a very comfortable, stable, sturdy road bike, not like a hybrid or mountain bike. Nor do I feel a "mushy, wallowy rear end" on higher power efforts. If I feel that sensation, it is because my rear tire is going flat.
> 
> *Going to a smaller diameter like 650b has only two advantages - tighter turning ability and lower low gearing*.


A third advantage is weight, a 650b\42 tire wheel combination will be lighter than a 700c\42 tire wheel combination of the same quality components. So it has an advantage in acceleration.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

velodog said:


> Have you much experience riding high volume tires? This "wallowy mushy rear end feel" of which you speak has more to do with tire pressure than tire size. My 650b\42's do squirm when pressure is too low, but when properly inflated there is no problem with squirm.
> 
> *And if tire size doesn't influence handling on the road, why have 20mm tires lost favor to 23's and 25's and 28's more recently? *
> 
> ...


I think the number 1 driver in all this move toward higher volume tire size is due to:

1. the (aging) demographic wanting to ride something more comfortable and yet still perceived as "racy".

2. marketing. Simply put, manufacturers will always be happy to concoct new products as long as people are willing to spend.

And then there's the so-called science talk in all this. I think the science stuff is more like pseudo-science. Nothing is conclusive, there are give and take. A wider tire may roll better on a rough surface, but you're need to use low psi for this to happen. But then wider tires also give back any rolling advantage (on rough pavement) in the aero department when the speed picksup, and aero resistance trumps rolling resistance at higher speed. Well, if bigger is better, then world class time trial and track pursuit events would be using 40, 42, 45 mm tires and not 23, right?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> I think the number 1 driver in all this move toward higher volume tire size is due to:
> 
> 1. the (aging) demographic wanting to ride something more comfortable and yet still perceived as "racy".
> 
> ...


Pursuit\track events are run on a glass smooth surface, not the road. Not only do they use smaller diameter tires, they use them at pressures that aren't \wouldn't be used on the road. apples\oranges

As far as your pseudo science, if nothing is conclusive why are you so willing to believe in low volume over high volume? There is more to the ride than aero.

Perceived as "racy", maybe in your world, but I really don't care what another persons perception of me is. I ride my bike for my reasons, not someone elses.

And as far as marketing, how you enjoying that nice full carbon lightweight wonderbike, oh I'm sorry, I meant that nice full carbon aero wonderbike.

Oh yeah, if bigger isn't better why aren't you riding 19\20mm tires that were once the bestest fastest tires?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I think the number 1 driver in all this move toward higher volume tire size is due to:
> 
> 1. the (aging) demographic wanting to ride something more comfortable and yet still perceived as "racy".
> 
> 2. marketing. Simply put, manufacturers will always be happy to concoct new products as long as people are willing to spend.


I think it's that people are discovering that being able to ride on multiple surfaces is a blast.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> A third advantage is weight, a 650b\42 tire wheel combination will be lighter than a 700c\42 tire wheel combination of the same quality components. So it has an advantage in *acceleration*.


And there lies the overblown "rotating weight is so much more important than static weight" theory. Once you are up to speed, it's a wash.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> And there lies the overblown "rotating weight is so much more important than static weight" theory. *Once you are up to speed, it's a wash*.


And that's why I said the advantage is in acceleration.

But even if that is discounted, A savings in static weight, all else being equal, is not a bad thing.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> And that's why I said the advantage is in acceleration.
> 
> But even if that is discounted, A savings in static weight, all else being equal, is not a bad thing.


That depends on how much static weight. I think people blow this one out of proportion as well. Weight will make a difference, but less than you might think.


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

I'm following along.

I'm currently riding a 700C frame (too small for me) with 35mm tires. I want larger tires, but I don't need reeally big ones because as I said I will rarely be on anything but crappy paved roads.

And I want to "feel" racy regardless of whether anyone else thinks I am.

Yeah, I'm fully buying into Compass bikes "marketing", but that's because it sounds on point to me.

Basically I want as large a tire I can run without it feeling like being too much. There just aren't any off the shelf 650B options with disks I like yet. Most of the frames are 700c "adventure/gravel" bikes. I want a 650B bike that has been designed for the tire size I want to run, otherwise if I don't run "road plus" the BB drop might be too low.

I will most likely end up with another 700c (that fits better), but probably won't run 42mm. Maybe 38? My current 35mm are pretty good, I just want "more"...


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> But then wider tires also give back any rolling advantage (on rough pavement) in the aero department when the speed picksup, and aero resistance trumps rolling resistance at higher speed. Well, if bigger is better, then world class time trial and track pursuit events would be using 40, 42, 45 mm tires and not 23, right?



......and downhill mountain bikers would use 19mm if it wasn't. How far shall we escalate that stupid line of reasoning?

And no aero does not trump rolling resistance or visa versa per se. You'd need to (I would think obviously) define each and then let the numbers decide. I doubt a $10 Walmart tire at 23mm would be faster than a high quality, say, 32 mm tire at any speed regardless of being more aero. And while we're at it what to heck is 'higher speed'?

And comfort also impacts speed. Not so much for short ride but I pretty much know I'm faster after 50 miles or so using 28mm instead of 23mm because my body will be less beat up. I also use 33mm on the road sometimes and am a little slower but those tires have aggressive file tread, 260TPI (vs 320) and I use regular tubes vs latex so it's probably not the size making me slower. Even then it's not slower by very much.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

velodog said:


> Pursuit\track events are run on a glass smooth surface, not the road. Not only do they use smaller diameter tires, they use them at pressures that aren't \wouldn't be used on the road. apples\oranges
> 
> As far as your pseudo science, if nothing is conclusive why are you so willing to believe in low volume over high volume? There is more to the ride than aero.
> 
> ...


sorry to disappoint you skippy, but all of my bikes, except for one, is some type of metal, and in tradtional round tubes, either lugged, brazed, or tig welded. And in fact, until recently, a wheelset of mine on an original 1993 Casati is one of those old school narror rims running a 21mm tires, but I had to go to 23mm tires because well, you can't get 21mm tire these days, but that wheelset eventually weren't truable anymore so I ditched it, after 24 years of service, bless that Mavic set. I used to rail down the Santa Monica mountains and Malibu on that wheelset, absolutely no problem keeping up with the guys running aero wheels, and wider tires, eh.

Since then, all my modern wheels now are either 23mm or 25mm wide, and all my tires are now either 23mm or 25mm wide to match up with the wheels. Yeah I still go faster with the new stuff, but not any faster than when I was on the old stuff. Yea, not science, but that's what I feel like it. The one thing I notice is that the wider rims and tires do feel a tad more comfortable, providing the psi is lowered, but handling wise, I would say anyting bigger than a 25mm tire & at lower psi (eg, 60 psi) is definitely SLOWER to me, doesn't feel ass sharp in high speed (45mph) sweepers, and can be a little vague when braking very hard into a corner while beginning to to lean the bike over.

I've tried the Sectuer 28 (28mm wide) tire, put about 60 psi, and while it rolls nice like a couch going down a straightaway, it's a completely horribly crappy handling during very hard braking situation. Yea pumping up the psi helped, but that sort of defeat the purpose of riding a wide tire at low psi. Ended up ditching them on fleabay after a couple of rides


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> ......and downhill mountain bikers would use 19mm if it wasn't. How far shall we escalate that stupid line of reasoning?
> 
> And no aero does not trump rolling resistance or visa versa per se. You'd need to (I would think obviously) define each and then let the numbers decide. I doubt a $10 Walmart tire at 23mm would be faster than a high quality, say, 32 mm tire at any speed regardless of being more aero. And while we're at it what to heck is 'higher speed'?
> 
> And comfort also impacts speed. Not so much for short ride but I pretty much know I'm faster after 50 miles or so using 28mm instead of 23mm because my body will be less beat up. I also use 33mm on the road sometimes and am a little slower but those tires have aggressive file tread, 260TPI (vs 320) and I use regular tubes vs latex so it's probably not the size making me slower. Even then it's not slower by very much.


well air resistance increases with the square of speed, but rolling resistance does not increase with speed. So just looking at principle alone, it's easy to see that with increasing speed, air resistance will become a progressively bigger factor. The question is, what is the cross-over point that air resistance trumps rolling resistance. I don't have the numbers, but I believe if you take in both bicycle and cyclist as a whole, it's like 15mph. All these tests of tire rolling resistance get a lot of hype, but what needs to be considered is tire + wheel + bike + rider, then we'll have a much better idea of just how much weight does rolling resistance come into play at a spectrum of speed.

But let's just assume that a tire will save you 5 watts. Well, 5 watts is nothing when you consider an effort of 300 watts at say 25 mph. There are a billion things that can account for 5 watts (and much more) at that speed and wattage.

I will readily admit that comfort is better on a wider tire, but this has always been the case. However, comfort is also a subjective thing, and for some people, comfort is not always the highest priority. For me, comfort has always been low on my priority list, but handling, especially sharp cornering and braking, has to be high because I like to go fast around corners and one mishaps and I could be faceplanting.

as for mtb downhilling... well they have to run a wide and thicker tire with knobs for the abuse they sustain in their environment. Totally different, not even close to road vs. track thing.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

velodog said:


> Have you much experience riding high volume tires?


Oh, an internet measuring contest. Well, my experience on “high volume” tires this year was only a 207 mile race and a bunch of training for it. I have been racing mountain bikes since the mid 90s. Since Kanza, I probably only have a couple hundred of my about 9,000 miles for the year on the wider tires and bike.


velodog said:


> This "wallowy mushy rear end feel" of which you speak has more to do with tire pressure than tire size. My 650b\42's do squirm when pressure is too low, but when properly inflated there is no problem with squirm.


Agreed. It is the lower pressure run on big tires. The two are linked because you cannot run 100 psi in 42s. You win the argument that proves my point. I feel the mushiness at 300+ watts. 


velodog said:


> And if tire size doesn't influence handling on the road, why have 20mm tires lost favor to 23's and 25's and 28's more recently?


Marketing. Advancement of knowledge. I ride 25s on my road bike. But, the point is 42s are way wider, run at a lower pressure, and are slower for the same power. 


velodog said:


> As far as being slower than 25mm tires, while 650b\42 may not be as fast as 700c\25, I think tire construction and frame geometry has more to do with that than tire size. A bicycle frame designed for fast riding on 650b\42's _may_ not be as fast as a bike on 700c tires and wheels, but it isn't going to be so slow as to not be able to ride in a fast group.


So, you conclude by contradicting your entire post? 
As for as group rides, it depends. If you are in a hammer fest that you can barely hang on with a 700x25, you are getting dropped on the 42 tire pumped to 40-50 psi. 
That is also why I said in my original post that the slower tire may not matter to OP. It depends on the use of the bike.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> sorry to disappoint you skippy, but all of my bikes, except for one, is some type of metal, and in tradtional round tubes, either lugged, brazed, or tig welded. And in fact, until recently, a wheelset of mine on an original 1993 Casati is one of those old school narror rims running a 21mm tires, but I had to go to 23mm tires because well, you can't get 21mm tire these days, but that wheelset eventually weren't truable anymore so I ditched it, after 24 years of service, bless that Mavic set. I used to rail down the Santa Monica mountains and Malibu on that wheelset, absolutely no problem keeping up with the guys running aero wheels, and wider tires, eh.
> 
> Since then, all my modern wheels now are either 23mm or 25mm wide, and all my tires are now either 23mm or 25mm wide to match up with the wheels. *Yeah I still go faster with the new stuff, but not any faster than when I was on the old stuff*. Yea, not science, but that's what I feel like it. The one thing I notice is that the wider rims and tires do feel a tad more comfortable, providing the psi is lowered, but handling wise, I would say anyting bigger than a 25mm tire & at lower psi (eg, 60 psi) is definitely SLOWER to me, doesn't feel ass sharp in high speed (45mph) sweepers, and can be a little vague when braking very hard into a corner while beginning to to lean the bike over.
> 
> I've tried the Sectuer 28 (28mm wide) tire, put about 60 psi, and while it rolls nice like a couch going down a straightaway, it's a completely horribly crappy handling during very hard braking situation. Yea pumping up the psi helped, but that sort of defeat the purpose of riding a wide tire at low psi. Ended up ditching them on fleabay after a couple of rides


You lost me with being faster on the new stuff but not faster than when on the old stuff. What does that even mean? But I'm glad to hear you're still riding metal bikes skippy, but so what. I will say that if the only reason you're riding 23 and 25mm tires is because you can't get 21mm tires, well, I'm sorry for your luck.

But my real question is are you actually faster, as in a timed distance at a given power, or do you feel faster because of the perception of speed from the road chatter that you feel through those tires? This post of yours seems to be based on your perception of the ride, you know, not science.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> But my real question is are you actually faster, as in a timed distance at a given power, *or do you feel faster because of the perception of speed from the road chatter that you feel through those tires?* This post of yours seems to be based on your perception of the ride, you know, not science.


I think you hit the nail on the head here, Velodog.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Lombard said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head here, Velodog.


No, he didn't. He made a rhetorical question. He did not demonstrate that 42s pumped to their proper pressure (<50 psi) are the same speed as 23s/25s pumped to their proper pressure (90-100 psi).

These threads always go the same way. The very wide tire group eventually says, "well they are more comfortable. So, i don't care that they may be slower".

As discussed previouly, if very wide tires were better (same speed more comfortable), then pros would be rocking them on normal stages and tts.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

crit_boy said:


> No, he didn't. He made a rhetorical question. He did not demonstrate that 42s pumped to their proper pressure (<50 psi) are the same speed as 23s/25s pumped to their proper pressure (90-100 psi).
> 
> These threads always go the same way. The very wide tire group eventually says, "well they are more comfortable. So, i don't care that they may be slower".
> 
> As discussed previouly, if very wide tires were better (same speed more comfortable), then pros would be rocking them on normal stages and tts.


Yep, I said that the 700\25's may be faster than the 650\42's, but I also said that frame geometry has some influence on that. Typically larger volume tired bikes are built with less aggressive geometries than lower volume tired bikes so it's harder to compare apples to apples.

Pros are rocking what they are given. And although they have choices that they can make, those choices still fall within the parameters offered up by their sponsors.

Yeah, I'm faster on my bicycle wearing 25mm tires than I am on my bicycle wearing 42mm tires, but is it because of the tires or the fact that the 42mm bike has a loaded handlebar bag and generator hub? Or is it because of different geometries? Or is it a combination of all of these things?

There is more to look at than just tire size in this discussion that I don't think is being considered.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

velodog said:


> There is more to look at than just tire size in this discussion that I don't think is being considered.



OP was discussing tire size. So, it is about tires. Obviously, loading down a bike with a bunch of crap will slow it down relative to that same bike sans crap.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Just pulled data. Same out and back route. 50 miles total.

Schwalbe all round tle 700x36 at 50 psi
Average moving speed: 17.4 mph
Avg power: 185 W
NP: 212 W
Work: 1,918 KJ

Conti 4000s ii, 700x25 at 100 psi
Average moving speed: 17.6 mph
Average power: 160 W
NP: 178 W
Work: 1,640 KJ

Wide tire = more work, more power, less speed. 

Yes, these are different tires. Not a scientific controlled environment. Was a real world example. 

Put up some data or move on with your rhetorical theories.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

crit_boy said:


> Just pulled data. Same out and back route. 50 miles total.
> 
> Schwalbe all round tle 700x36 at 50 psi
> Average moving speed: 17.4 mph
> ...


Thank you for this.

I have a couple of questions. 

How different are the tires, both construction wise and tread pattern? Also have you tried the larger tires using a higher pressure, trying the tires for their handling abilities more so than for their comfort? I think that both these questions matter in real world examples and am not asking to be argumentative.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

You can google the tires to see the different patterns. They are different tires for different uses. However, the schwalbe all rounds are fast tires (faster than clement mso. pretty similar to clement las - those are the 3 sets that I have). 

You cannot pump wide tires up to narrow tire pressures. I think the all round pressure limit is 70 psi. I ride them between 40 and 50 psi. I run my road tires at 100 psi. 

The phrase everyone always ignores in the wide tires are faster is the "when run at the same pressure". It has been discussed multiple times on this forum. The wide tire crowd always ignores that qualifier (usually by stating that they run at lower pressure b/c it is more comfortable). 

WRT handling: 
- I do not have the confidence in the tire to dive the wider tires into a corner at near the speed i will on the 25s. Like I said, mushy and wallowy. IOW, no f'ny way i would run 36 width tires at 50 psi in a crit. Other people might. Not me. 

- Other problem I have is that they make me feel squirrelly at high power/speed. The softer tire and larger sidewall allows the back end of the bike to shift around. In a paceline on the rivet, that feeling is not confidence inspiring. 

With that, I will ride those tires on most fast group rides. I just know that there are a couple Wednesday night world type rides that there is a good chance I will get dropped with the multiple brutal (to me) accelerations on my wide/lower pressure tires. 

My strengths are neuromuscular power and VO2 max efforts. However, the lower pressure adds enough rolling resistance that you are pushing more power while sitting in. So, you get relatively less recovery. 

Relatively less recovery/higher average power plus relatively harder to match accelerations = burning more anaerobic work capacity to match them = better chance of getting dropped.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

crit_boy said:


> The wide tire crowd always ignores that qualifier (usually by stating that they run at lower pressure b/c it is more comfortable).



The 'it depends on the rider weight and road surface' crowd ignores the conversation entirely. Well, tries to.

For all we know these conversations are between a 290 pounder who rides in Vermont where the 'road' absolutely suck arguing bigger is better/faster with someone 130 pound where the roads are great saying they are slower. They're both right, for them.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

crit_boy said:


> You can google the tires to see the different patterns. They are different tires for different uses. However, the schwalbe all rounds are fast tires (faster than clement mso. pretty similar to clement las - those are the 3 sets that I have).
> 
> You cannot pump wide tires up to narrow tire pressures. I think the all round pressure limit is 70 psi. I ride them between 40 and 50 psi. I run my road tires at 100 psi.
> 
> ...


No, you can't run a 38\42mm tire at 100psi, but they can be pushed past 50psi to firm them up some. I'm not putting out your power, as stated in your comparison post, but I do know that if I let my pressure drop below 45psi I start to feel them squirm. Above 45psi they firm up, and at 50 they start transmitting road irregularities. I'll pump them up to 50 and don't want them below 45. I'll run them lower when off the pavement. I'm 185lbs at about 180\210 watts. 

I run compass tires on my bike, 650b\42, but they have a 700c\38 also. These are road tires that don't have the heavy knobs of the tires that you're riding, which has as much to do with rolling resistance as pressure.

https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/700c/compass-700cx38-barlow-pass/

There must be a reason that motorcycle road racing tires have grown to their larger volume.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

crit_boy said:


> Just pulled data. Same out and back route. 50 miles total.
> 
> Schwalbe all round tle 700x36 at 50 psi
> Average moving speed: 17.4 mph
> ...


I don't have any of that fancy power meter equipment, and I am not a racer, so I really don't care about downhill speeds. What I do know is what the bikes *feel* like and how fast it *feels*. I also know that I just broke uphill PR's on Strava with my gravel bike and I'm in nowhere near as good shape as I was last year at this time. Uphill speeds impress me, downhill speeds don't. I have even offered to let a few friends test ride my gravel bike and they agree it feels just as fast as their road bikes.

Gravel bike weight: 23lbs.
Tires: Clement Xplor MSO 700x36 50 PSI front/65 PSI rear

Road bike weight: 18lbs.
Tires: Maxxis Re-Fuse 700x28 70 PSI front/100 PSI rear 

Rider weight fully clothed: 180 lbs.
Roads where I ride: Mixture of OK, crappy and in between. 

Verdict is it's a wash. I'm not here to try and prove wider is faster than narrow or vice versa. My main point is that it does not noticeably matter. So all other things being equal, why shouldn't I ride the more comfortable nicer riding bike?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> .....but I do know that if I let my pressure drop below 45psi I start to feel them squirm. .


Well yes, this makes some sense. Below 45 PSI is mountain bike tire pressure.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Lombard said:


> Well yes, this makes some sense. Below 45 PSI is mountain bike tire pressure.



Depends on the size of the tire and the size of the rider/load.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

crit_boy said:


> These threads always go the same way. The very wide tire group eventually says, "well they are more comfortable. So, i don't care that they may be slower".


And there it is. . . 


Lombard said:


> My main point is that it does not noticeably matter. So all other things being equal, why shouldn't I ride the more comfortable nicer riding bike?


Once again, I gave power and speed data supporting my position. 

I don't care about comfort. Sitting on my chair watching TV is comfortable. I ride my bike for other reasons. Note that I have about 9,000 miles this year with 10 or more centuries and a gravel double - so don't post that I would care about comfort if I rode more.

My guess is that OP cares about comfort over speed. So, all this really doesn't matter. Just bringing to light the wider is faster concept has limitations and qualifiers.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Lombard said:


> I don't have any of that fancy power meter equipment, and I am not a racer, so I really don't care about downhill speeds. What I do know is what the bikes *feel* like and how fast it *feels*. I also know that I just broke uphill PR's on Strava with my gravel bike and I'm in nowhere near as good shape as I was last year at this time. Uphill speeds impress me, downhill speeds don't. I have even offered to let a few friends test ride my gravel bike and they agree it feels just as fast as their road bikes.
> 
> Gravel bike weight: 23lbs.
> Tires: Clement Xplor MSO 700x36 50 PSI front/65 PSI rear
> ...


Well a big factor there is you're using really $hitty 28mm tires, as far as anything but flat protections goes, vs some of the better 36mm tires on the market.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Wasn’t this thread about steel bikes??? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Migen21 (Oct 28, 2014)

Opus51569 said:


> Wasn’t this thread about steel bikes???


LOL you must be new here


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

Migen21 said:


> LOL you must be new here


Yeah... I gotta stop reading thread titles... it just slows up the work...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Well a big factor there is you're using really $hitty 28mm tires, as far as anything but flat protections goes, vs some of the better 36mm tires on the market.


Interesting. Re-Fuses do ride a little harsher than some other tires, but reducing pressure helps. The price to pay for a bombproof tire. But increased rolling resistance vs. say a Conti GP 4000S II?

The Clement Xpor MSOs have a tread which I would have thought would slow me down, but apparently not. I am considering trying the Challenge Strada Bianca 36mm.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Lombard said:


> I am considering trying the Challenge Strada Bianca 36mm.


I've only used the 30 version but those are outstanding. 36mm ain't for me though because if I want a tire that big it means I'm getting into something where I'll also want a little extra traction.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Lombard said:


> Interesting. Re-Fuses do ride a little harsher than some other tires, but reducing pressure helps. The price to pay for a bombproof tire. But increased rolling resistance vs. say a Conti GP 4000S II?


About a 100% chance that re-fuses have more rolling resistance than 4000s. 

Bunch of different tire rolling resistances here: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/

Don't see maxxis.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

crit_boy said:


> About a 100% chance that re-fuses have more rolling resistance than 4000s.
> 
> Bunch of different tire rolling resistances here: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/
> 
> Don't see maxxis.


The closest thing to a Re-Fuse is probably a Gatorskin which shows 8W more rolling resistance than a 4000S II at 100PSI.

8W probably wouldn't be noticeable. Though there is only one way to find out.


----------



## crit_boy (Aug 6, 2013)

Lombard said:


> The closest thing to a Re-Fuse is probably a Gatorskin which shows 8W more rolling resistance than a 4000S II at 100PSI.
> 
> 8W probably wouldn't be noticeable. Though there is only one way to find out.


Yes, 8 watt per tire is noticeable. 16 watts is a lot of free power to get or give up.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

https://crustbikes.com/products/lightning-bolt-2/


----------



## Wish I Were Riding (Nov 24, 2011)

That looks really interesting!!! Thanks.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

jnbrown said:


> Sounds like you need a Surly


+1... Surly offers more of a selection for what the OP wants in my opinion.

Surly Bikes


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

terbennett said:


> +1... Surly offers more of a selection for what the OP wants in my opinion.
> 
> Surly Bikes


While Surleys are good bikes, they are a bit overbuilt.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

stock


----------



## Andreas_Illesch (Jul 9, 2002)

Wish I Were Riding said:


> I'm not expecting to go touring; ride in bad weather, go off road much. I want disks, and clearance for wide tires. But I want a steel frame that has great ride quality. I guess I'm looking for suggestions for a frame that is really comfortable with sacrificing speed. Thought?


All City has a range of gravel/touring/cyclocross framesets, all steel with external and internal ED coating for rust protection.
Bikes | All-City Cycles


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

mtrac said:


> Traitor Wander


$!300 for the bike? I'll take it. That flat fork crown adds another couple of hundred value. It tops off the bike as an all day cruiser. Bar end shifters will be around for a while. With fenders and 35 mm tires, it could go anywhere in an urban environment.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> $!300 for the bike? I'll take it. That flat fork crown adds another couple of hundred value. It tops off the bike as an all day cruiser. Bar end shifters will be around for a while. With fenders and 35 mm tires, it could go anywhere in an urban environment.


Note that the bike has an entry level drivetrain - Alivio and Sora. All the value is in the frame.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Note that the bike has an entry level drivetrain - Alivio and Sora. All the value is in the frame.


Which makes it the perfect bike for those who suffer from upgradeitis.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

velodog said:


> Which makes it the perfect bike for those who suffer from upgradeitis.


Good point.


----------

