# Tire Size? 23/25/28mm?



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

What happened? I've been riding 23mm since like 2002, and 25mm was for heavier people, now new Trek Bikes come with 28mm ?

What did I miss being out of touch for so long? 

(2003 Trek Madone 5.2)


----------



## TDFbound (Jul 11, 2017)

I'm in the same boat as you are, man. I got into riding in 2002 and quickly got pretty seriously into it, but had to stop around 2008. Just now getting back into it and so much has changed. Don't worry too much about it, though- my old bike still does plenty fine. It's funny to take a bike currently valued at around $500 on a hilly century and finish over 2 hours in front of a guy about my same age on a $12,000 Pinarello. Don't believe all the new marketing hype, though some things are worth a try. Everything in moderation!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

TDFbound said:


> It's *very satisfying* to take a bike currently valued at around $500 on a hilly century and finish over 2 hours in front of a guy about my same age on a $12,000 Pinarello.


Fixed.

I remember a couple of years ago, a delicious moment when I toasted a 30 something guy with $3,000 zip carbon wheels climbing this steep hill while I was on an entry level wheel set. He had a look on his face like "that old geezer passed me?!?!?!"

You can't buy speed. It's all in the engine.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

bas said:


> *What happened? * I've been riding 23mm since like 2002, and 25mm was for heavier people, now new Trek Bikes come with 28mm ?
> 
> What did I miss being out of touch for so long?
> 
> (2003 Trek Madone 5.2)


We finally started paying attention to physics and facts.


----------



## TDFbound (Jul 11, 2017)

cxwrench said:


> We finally started paying attention to physics and facts.


Don't forget the flood of marketing hype surrounding wide tires and wheels. The bike I am about to buy comes stock with 23mm internal width rims and 30mm tires. I'm basically stuck with 28mm tires or bigger until I get a different wheelset. Can't pass judgment on it though as I haven't ridden it yet.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

TDFbound said:


> Don't forget the flood of marketing hype surrounding wide tires and wheels. The bike I am about to buy comes stock with 23mm internal width rims and 30mm tires. I'm basically stuck with 28mm tires or bigger until I get a different wheelset. Can't pass judgment on it though as I haven't ridden it yet.


Well let me put it this way. I have ridden 23mm, 25mm and 28mm tires. I notice no difference in speed or effort necessary on the bike. The only thing I notice is the 28mm tires ride the nicest/smoothest. 

Bike makers convinced the consumer for years that they would go faster on the skinniest tires and rims pumped up to the highest pressure they could stand. Many bikes were made such that not much else would fit. Then, as CX put it, people finally started paying attention to physics and facts. Wheels and tires got wider. But of course, those bikes with narrow stays can't accommodate them. So that means another bike purchase. How clever! 

But as with most trends, eventually we will reach a point of diminishing returns just like we did with skinny rims and tires. Wider rims and tires are nice. But how wide do we really need to go? I could feel the difference in stability when I went from 14mm to 15mm rims. I could feel the difference from 15 to 17. However, I felt no difference when I went from 17 to 18.


----------



## TDFbound (Jul 11, 2017)

Yeah, in any industry there always seems to be a case of some marketer or designer saying "well if a little is good, more must be better, and the most must be the best!" which often produces some silly products for a short time while a happy middle ground is found.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

TDFbound said:


> Don't forget the flood of marketing hype surrounding wide tires and wheels. The bike I am about to buy comes stock with 23mm internal width rims and 30mm tires. I'm basically stuck with 28mm tires or bigger until I get a different wheelset. Can't pass judgment on it though as I haven't ridden it yet.


Trust me...wider (to the extent we're talking here) is better. 


Really.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

TDFbound said:


> Yeah, in any industry there always seems to be a case of some marketer or designer saying "well if a little is good, more must be better, and the most must be the best!"


Spot on!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Trust me...wider (to the extent we're talking here) is better.
> 
> 
> Really.


Yes, agreed. The new gravel bike I just bought has 23mm rims (internal) and 36mm tires. Took a test ride which lasted awhile because I didn't want to stop riding it! I was sold!

However, I have my doubts about going wider than this. Don't know what your opinion is of this, but I read an article recently (I think it was Slowtwitch) where they discussed rim sizes for gravel riding. They said they don't recommend rims wider than 21mm due to the increasing possibility of sidewall cuts.

While it's generally accepted that a tire shaped like a lightbulb isn't the best situation, it's probably not a great idea to have a tire shaped like a bell either.

I'd be interested to hear your take on this, CX.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Lombard said:


> Yes, agreed. The new gravel bike I just bought has 23mm rims (internal) and 36mm tires. Took a test ride which lasted awhile because I didn't want to stop riding it! I was sold!
> 
> However, I have my doubts about going wider than this. Don't know what your opinion is of this, but I read an article recently (I think it was Slowtwitch) where they discussed rim sizes for gravel riding. They said they don't recommend rims wider than 21mm due to the increasing possibility of sidewall cuts.
> 
> ...


The go-to reference on this is Bicycle Quarterly magazine. They have done a bunch of tests showing that what counts for speed is a very compliant casing (properly inflated) and NOT rock hard narrow tires. This is because high pressures result in a bouncing effect any time the tire contacts road surface imperfections and that energy is lost. A lower pressure tire is able to absorb that surface roughness and reduce those suspension losses. On perfectly smooth pavement (like a velodrome) high pressures make sense. On the road, wider tires at lower pressures mean more comfort, longer wear, better traction, and no loss in speed. Obviously there is a limit on "wider" but the general recommendation is that if you have to pump to over 100 psi/7 bar to prevent pinch flats then you need wider tires.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Kerry Irons said:


> The go-to reference on this is Bicycle Quarterly magazine. They have done a bunch of tests showing that what counts for speed is a very compliant casing (properly inflated) and NOT rock hard narrow tires. This is because high pressures result in a bouncing effect any time the tire contacts road surface imperfections and that energy is lost. A lower pressure tire is able to absorb that surface roughness and reduce those suspension losses. On perfectly smooth pavement (like a velodrome) high pressures make sense. On the road, wider tires at lower pressures mean more comfort, longer wear, better traction, and no loss in speed. Obviously there is a limit on "wider" but the general recommendation is that if you have to pump to over 100 psi/7 bar to prevent pinch flats then you need wider tires.


I agree with you completely here. Though more to my point was that is doesn't seem prudent to be running ultra-wide rims on the ultra-skinny tires of yesteryear. For example, on my Synapse, I am now running 18mm rims and 28mm tires. If I wanted to run wider rims like the HED Belgium+, which is 21mm, I would need to drop back down to 25mm tires in order for the tires to fit between my chain stays. 

Old habits die hard. Most people I ride with still think more pressure will always make you faster. And I can assure you that is not the case with the condition of the roads in my area! As I have said before, there is a very good reason Mr. Dunlop invented the pneumatic tire and it's not so people could roll on rocks.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

TDFbound said:


> It's funny to take a bike currently valued at around $500 on a hilly century and finish over 2 hours in front of a guy about my same age on a $12,000 Pinarello. Don't believe all the new marketing hype, though some things are worth a try. Everything in moderation!


What's really funny, in a sad sort of way, is getting chased down and passed by someone in an imaginary race with me.

I've passed very expensive bikes, cat 1 cyclists, and sports cars and been passed by grandmothers towing children, skate boarders and walmart mountain bikes. I wasn't racing any of them at the time so what does that mean? Nothing.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

I want to know what I'm doing wrong to NOT notice the difference in comfort between 23s and 28s. I will probably switch to 24s or 25s when I run through my current stock of tires but that will take up to a couple years...

I rode a bike over vacation that was meant to be an endurance frame... came with 28s on it. I did some rides with my own wheelset which had 23s and then also ran the 28s and could honestly not tell the difference one bit on some pretty bumpy roads. And to boot, overall the bike was no more comfortable than my usual ride which is "race geometry" etc.... at the end of the day there's a lot of marketing going on...


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

If you don't notice anything right away, the difference in comfort will likely be noticed after many miles in the saddle on imperfect roads.

Or, you have too much air pressure in the larger tires which will significantly reduce the benefits of the larger tires.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

jetdog9 said:


> I want to know what I'm doing wrong to NOT notice the difference in comfort between 23s and 28s. I will probably switch to 24s or 25s when I run through my current stock of tires but that will take up to a couple years...
> 
> I rode a bike over vacation that was meant to be an endurance frame... came with 28s on it. I did some rides with my own wheelset which had 23s and then also ran the 28s and could honestly not tell the difference one bit on some pretty bumpy roads. And to boot, overall the bike was no more comfortable than my usual ride which is "race geometry" etc.... at the end of the day there's a lot of marketing going on...



Some of us are more or less sensitive to these things than others. And as Pete implied, if you are running the same high pressures in the wider tires that you're running in the narrower tires, you might not notice a difference.


----------



## harryman (Nov 14, 2014)

Since I have no way of measuring or interested in running accurate tests , I can't tell you if I'm truly faster or slower on 28/30s than I was on 23's. I can tell you it's more comfortable and after 3 years on bigger tires, I have no intention of going back. I get where I'm going at a speed that is dependant on my fitness and intent, and is more enjoyable. The biggest eye opener for me as far as tire pressure goes is when I was riding them at 85 psi when I first switched, neglected to check my pressure, went for a 75 mile ride with big climbs in the alps and realized the next morning that they had been in the 50's and hadn't felt low at all. Now I run my 30's at 50 up front and 55 in the back, I weigh 190.


----------



## bvber (Apr 23, 2011)

Lombard said:


> Some of us are more or less sensitive to these things than others. And as Pete implied, if you are running the *same high pressures in the wider tires* that you're running in the narrower tires, you might not notice *a difference*.


That difference is supposed to be on the rolling resistance.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

changingleaf said:


> If you don't notice anything right away, the difference in comfort will likely be noticed after many miles in the saddle on imperfect roads.
> 
> Or, you have too much air pressure in the larger tires which will significantly reduce the benefits of the larger tires.


Also possible is that you're not comparing apples to apples. Going from 23mm Vit Corsa, for example, to 28mm isn't going to be an improvement with just any 28mm tire.


----------



## bobf (Apr 3, 2015)

changingleaf said:


> Or, you have too much air pressure in the larger tires which will significantly reduce the benefits of the larger tires.


Yup. My take is that tire width is not the primary factor but tire pressure. When I switched to 25mm it felt the same as 23mm. When I dropped the pressure by 15psi or so it was an immediate revelation. Lower psi makes the difference, and wider tires make it safe.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

Talking road bikes and light gravel bikes below, with tubular tires. --

I have only a little experience on Schwalbe S-1 tubular, 30mm. My 200# body likes 70psi r/65f. But i can see lower pressures, esp if the route is familiar and generally smooth.

I agree with many that the diff between 23&25 can be minimal, and is highly dependent on the tire pressure and between tire models. Again the 25 to 27mm, is incremental given the same variables of pressure & tire models. For me, those 2 incremental jumps make a world of added comfort for longer rides between 22mm Conti Sprinters @ 105# and 28mm Veloflex Valanderan (sp?) @ 90#.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Interesting posts. 

I did pick up a Michellin PR4 service course 25mm for the rear (not the endurance) to try out.. I've ended up with bubbles in at least 4-5 rear tires over the last few years with the PR3/23mm... - and one even blew out while I was relaxing at home. That scared the crap out of me and caused ringing in my ears!


I see someone is looking 32's: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...modate-700-x-32-tires-361592.html#post5170369


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

bas said:


> I did pick up a Michellin PR4 service course 25mm for the rear (not the endurance) to try out.. I've ended up with bubbles in at least 4-5 rear tires over the last few years with the PR3/23mm... - and one even blew out while I was relaxing at home. That scared the crap out of me and caused ringing in my ears!


I think I would have sworn off Michelin after the second tire that had a bubble. You kept buying these?


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

bas said:


> What happened? I've been riding 23mm since like 2002, and 25mm was for heavier people, now new Trek Bikes come with 28mm ? What did I miss being out of touch for so long?


experiment if you will and ride what you like.

i've been on 23s since i started riding again and won't be changing anytime soon.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

blackfrancois said:


> experiment if you will and ride what you like.
> 
> i've been on 23s since i started riding again and won't be changing anytime soon.


There are lots of people that ignore technology and/or realizations of what is actually better in some way. They either figure it out eventually or they don't. Doesn't really matter, they will still ride and be happy.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

jetdog9 said:


> I want to know what I'm doing wrong to NOT notice the difference in comfort between 23s and 28s. I will probably switch to 24s or 25s when I run through my current stock of tires but that will take up to a couple years...
> 
> I rode a bike over vacation that was meant to be an endurance frame... came with 28s on it. I did some rides with my own wheelset which had 23s and then also ran the 28s and could honestly not tell the difference one bit on some pretty bumpy roads. And to boot, overall the bike was no more comfortable than my usual ride which is "race geometry" etc.... at the end of the day there's a lot of marketing going on...


You don't mention tire pressure. If the wider tires were at the same pressure as the narrower tires, then they would be LESS comfortable with worse traction. Rough guide is to drop 10 psi/0.6 bar for each tire size increase.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> i've been on 23s since i started riding again and won't be changing anytime soon.


It's always great to see someone who can laugh in the face of facts.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

blackfrancois said:


> i've been on 23s since i started riding again and won't be changing anytime soon.


Shame you didn't start sooner. You would have been using 19mm tires and been even faster (now that we've established narrow is better


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

I just mounted a new set of HED Ardennes+ wheels with 23mm tires on my relic of a 92 Merlin Extralight inflated to 70/80 and it has totally transformed the bike. Have always run 20mm tires and had planned to mount 25's but did not have chainstay clearance on the right side. It is hard to describe the difference but it is really something. Compliance is greatly improved, of course, but the bike still feels light and responsive and fast. Cornering really inspires confidence. 

I really didn't want to believe what some will call hype about wider wheels and lower pressures. I bought these wheels for my cross bike but decided to try them on the road bike first. They will be staying on the road bike and I'm building wheels with HED Belgian+ rims for the cross bike.


----------



## Fit4Life (Sep 11, 2009)

At 180 lbs, I've found the best combination is 23mm front and 25mm rear.


----------



## bas (Jul 30, 2004)

Fit4Life said:


> At 180 lbs, I've found the best combination is 23mm front and 25mm rear.


At 210 lbs, that's were I'm headed...

and this just showed up in my utuber feed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrHxQg1OW0A


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Kerry Irons said:


> It's always great to see someone who can laugh in the face of facts.


sorry, kerry. the facts are i like what i like. if you have facts that prove differently, please provide them.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Shame you didn't start sooner. You would have been using 19mm tires and been even faster (now that we've established narrow is better


probably not. i've tried 20s (once) and realized 23s are for me.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

cxwrench said:


> There are lots of people that ignore technology and/or realizations of what is actually better in some way. They either figure it out eventually or they don't. Doesn't really matter, they will still ride and be happy.


and there are others that follow what is "best" for themselves without regard for the most advanced tech in a 100 year old sport in order to "ride and be happy."


----------



## ceugene (Jun 20, 2015)

Depends what your goals are. Some info:

- All other aspects being equal wider tires have less rolling resistance at the same PSI as narrower tires. However half the point of going wider is to run lower pressures for a more comfortable ride.

- Those other aspects. Construction and tire compound matter just as much as size. A tire with a layer of armor/aramid won't be as supple, will be heavier, and have worse rolling resistance. A 32mm Clement Strada LGG pumped to 100psi will have worse rolling resistance than a 23mm Schwalbe Pro One at 85psi because rubber compounds matter.

- Aero wheel, aero tires. If you are using deep sectioned carbon rims, then you'll want the tire to interface with the rim with as little overhang as possible. If your rims are 27mm at their widest point, and 25mm at the brake track, then your tire should also be 25mm wide, not 27mm.

- Measured widths vary. My ENVE SES 5.6 Disc rims are 28mm and 28.75mm at their widest, closer to 26.75mm at the edge. At 100psi "25mm" Schwalbe Pro Ones actually measure 29mm on these rims while "25mm" Zipp Tangente Speed RT25s measure 26.75mm.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> There are lots of people that ignore technology and/or realizations of what is actually better in some way. They either figure it out eventually or they don't. Doesn't really matter, they will still ride and be happy.


There are also people who still use a stove with a bellows and are happy too.  To each his or her own.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Kerry Irons said:


> It's always great to see someone who can laugh in the face of facts.


3 for 3 today, Kerry!  I can only rep you once!


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Fit4Life said:


> At 180 lbs, I've found the best combination is 23mm front and 25mm rear.


I'm right at 200 and that's the combo I run also, 80f/85r tubed (about 6psi less when running tubeless), I only miss the ability to rotate tires front to back.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm running 32mm tires on my Domane. I inflate them to 60psi front, 65psi rear. I weigh 175lbs. I've ridden about 2,500 miles on them.

Observation 1: They are more comfortable than 23 or 25 mm tires. Much more. Obviously, emphatically more. No doubt about it more.

Observation 2: Rolling resistance is not greater. On yesterday's group ride we encountered several descents with long runouts that were faster than we could pedal. My speed was equivalent to that of the riders on 23s and 25s. 

Observation 3: I feel more confident in corners. I'm running Bontrager R2 tires, which are not high thread count, highly supple tires. Nonetheless, handling on mountain roads is very sure footed, which I attribute to the wide contact patch.

Observation 4: Replacement 32mm tires are spendy and nice ones are hard to find. Prices can easily reach $90 to $100. 28s are more readily available - I think Conti GP 4K goes to 28, but not 32.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Lombard said:


> Fixed.
> 
> I remember a couple of years ago, a delicious moment when I toasted a 30 something guy with $3,000 zip carbon wheels climbing this steep hill while I was on an entry level wheel set. He had a look on his face like "that old geezer passed me?!?!?!"
> 
> You can't buy speed. It's all in the engine.


Amen. The only thing I am willing to pay a little extra for at this point is more comfort. I am over everything else. Their are free/cheap ways to achieve most of it now days anyway.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

JSR said:


> I'm running 32mm tires on my Domane. I inflate them to 60psi front, 65psi rear. I weigh 175lbs. I've ridden about 2,500 miles on them.
> 
> Observation 1: They are more comfortable than 23 or 25 mm tires. Much more. Obviously, emphatically more. No doubt about it more.
> 
> ...


Ah... here it is, the unaltered truth. Me likes...


----------



## bobf (Apr 3, 2015)

JSR said:


> Observation 1: They are more comfortable than 23 or 25 mm tires. Much more. Obviously, emphatically more. No doubt about it more.


With you on all counts. I think my Domane (2013, Ultegra brakes) can't fit wider than 28mm, so that's what I use. But as I said before, I think it's psi that matters more than tire width in itself. I weigh 195 pounds bone dry, and I'm running 60/80 psi front/rear.

I'm running Compass ultralights and latex tubes. The tires are not cheap, but the supple sidewalls are great. I immediately felt them to be an improvement over Vittoria Corsa G+. A bonus is that they are pretty light for their size: A 28mm tire came in at 217 grams.

Regarding your Observation 4, Compass has a 32mm ultralight priced at $76.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

blackfrancois said:


> sorry, kerry. the facts are i like what i like. if you have facts that prove differently, please provide them.


I obviously can't prove that you like something different from what you like. What I can prove is that 25 mm tires are more comfortable, last longer, have better traction, and no higher rolling resistance. You like "features" other than those. Have at it.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

Kerry Irons said:


> I obviously can't prove that you like something different from what you like. What I can prove is that 25 mm tires are more comfortable, last longer, have better traction, and no higher rolling resistance. You like "features" other than those. Have at it.


maybe it depends on the rim.

i've tried wider tires and have always gone back to 23s. i'm happy and very comfortable with my choices.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

blackfrancois said:


> maybe it depends on the rim.
> 
> i've tried wider tires and have always gone back to 23s. i'm happy and very comfortable with my choices.


You've never said why you like them better. If you did it's surely likely that physics would easily prove your perceptions to be wrong. If you like them better 'just because' that's fine, but it's not proof of anything at all. Well...other than your ability to make a rational, fact based decision.


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

blackfrancois said:


> maybe it depends on the rim...


Yes, the rim width makes a big difference on the ultimate width of the tire and the many ride characteristics.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

cxwrench said:


> You've never said why you like them better. If you did it's surely likely that physics would easily prove your perceptions to be wrong. If you like them better 'just because' that's fine, but it's not proof of anything at all. Well...other than your ability to make a rational, fact based decision.


i ride steel too. and those frames aren't really "better" nor "faster" than carbon.

sorry, i like what i like. 23s fit my rims well, and the soft sidewalls of the tires i use are plenty comfy.

my apologies for not going along with the crowd and latest trends.

thanks for the parting shot, though. i expect nothing less from you.


----------



## ceugene (Jun 20, 2015)

Turner said:


> Yes, the rim width makes a big difference on the ultimate width of the tire and the many ride characteristics.


Hell, it depends on the tire model. 23mm Pro Ones, GP4K S IIs, Power Comps measure 26 on even fairly narrow rims. It would make more sense if blackfrancois referred to a specific tire that he liked, then we could get really critical of his choice.


----------



## blackfrancois (Jul 6, 2016)

ceugene said:


> ... then we could get really critical of his choice.


no, that's ok. i'm critical enough about my own choices, which are mine alone.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

blackfrancois said:


> i ride steel too. and those frames aren't really "better" nor "faster" than carbon.
> 
> sorry, i like what i like. 23s fit my rims well, and the soft sidewalls of the tires i use are plenty comfy.
> 
> ...


Good to know I'm consistent.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Fit4Life said:


> At 180 lbs, I've found the best combination is 23mm front and 25mm rear.


120 lbs here and I use 23mm soft tire up front and 25mm harder tire rear, too. 23mm tire with a triangular profile up front makes the bike turn in sharply, and 25mm out back for longevity. For all the talk about science and rolling resistance, not many folks think about using a different front/rear combo for maximum performance. Do Motogp bikes use the same tire for front and rear? No.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> 120 lbs here and I use 23mm soft tire up front and 25mm harder tire rear, too. 23mm tire with a triangular profile up front makes the bike turn in sharply, and 25mm out back for longevity. For all the talk about science and rolling resistance, not many folks think about using a different front/rear combo for maximum performance. *Do Motogp bikes use the same tire for front and rear? No.*


That's not even apples to oranges, it's more like apples to steaks.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> That's not even apples to oranges, it's more like apples to steaks.



More like apples to bologna.


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

bas said:


> What happened? I've been riding 23mm since like 2002, and 25mm was for heavier people, now new Trek Bikes come with 28mm ?
> 
> What did I miss being out of touch for so long?
> 
> (2003 Trek Madone 5.2)


Hi. 
Things change. That is the only constant in the universe. "Change"

There is a Swiss company that posted the spread sheets of rolling resistance a while back. I read the data and it made sense. This was done For different tires and widths of the same tires. I believe they did this on their own. As an independent party. 
What has become common knowledge is the fact that there is a correlation between your tire width, the tire pressure and rolling resistance. 
In a nut shell. 
While rolling on a road where the surface is irregular there are power losses due to loss of contact of the tire with the road. This loss of contact is due to the irregularities pushing the tire up against gravity. 
The higher the pressure on the tires the more accentuated this effect becomes. 
The old argument was that since you had less surface contact because the tire was thinner you will have less rolling resistance. This holds true for smooth surfaces like an indoor velodrome where the surface is polished regularly. 
On the road is different. The increase contact surface of the tire allows for lower tire pressures. This turns into the tire being able to suck up the micro bumps better, leading to less traction loss from bouncing. Understand this is micro bouncing. It becomes significant after many miles or hours on the bike.
At some point the wider the tire is, the more losses due to Increased contact surface will increase to the point of the losses being higher that the losses due to micro loss of traction. This holds true for a mountain bike tire and so on. 
Another factor to consider is tire weight. The wider the tire the heavier the tire due to more material being used. Weight will add rolling resistance in the form of more mass to move. 
In addition , rider weight is a big factor here as well. The heavier the rider the more tire deflection. I believe 15% deflection is the max amount for good tire operation before you start messing the sidewalk thread. 
For me @200lbs I was running 23F/25B at 90psi/95psi. Contis 4000S. This worked for me. The ride felt suppler and more comfy. 
Could I tell the difference? Other than felling more cushy and comfortable I don't know if I was going faster with that setup. I believe the gains are there based on te studies, but we are unable to feel them physiologically. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> That's not even apples to oranges, it's more like apples to steaks.


idk man, i think it's steak to beef jerkey


----------



## robm90 (Aug 5, 2010)

My 2007 Synapse came with 23 tires. I used them for many tire changes. When I switched to 25's at 90 rear 80 front the ride improved tremendously. I felt like the bike had a suspension put on it. I wish I had made the switch years ago. Never going back to 23's.


----------



## 4slomo (Feb 11, 2008)

The following video summarizes much of the relevant science I use in wheel design:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtl_aI0q3VAhVGiVQKHbDUDkIQtwIIJjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCoABOk_8KH8&usg=AFQjCNH3FgrwiWx7dc0ndCWjrjjcAR51Fw


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

4slomo said:


> The following video summarizes much of the relevant science I use in wheel design:
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...k_8KH8&usg=AFQjCNH3FgrwiWx7dc0ndCWjrjjcAR51Fw


Interesting. So in the end it seems the biggest wattage gains to be made are in *tire compounds and rim/tire combo*. Weight made no difference and tire width and tire aerodynamics made negligible difference. Too high pressure is just as bad as too low pressure.


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

4slomo said:


> The following video summarizes much of the relevant science I use in wheel design:
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtl_aI0q3VAhVGiVQKHbDUDkIQtwIIJjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCoABOk_8KH8&usg=AFQjCNH3FgrwiWx7dc0ndCWjrjjcAR51Fw


The video was very good. I never thought that the worn out tire will need more watts from wind resistance. 
Interesting how up to 100 grams of added weight on the tire are negligible for acceleration. And based on his computation of optimal psi I should be running 100. That is what I do. 
Thanks for sharing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bobf (Apr 3, 2015)

4slomo said:


> The following video summarizes much of the relevant science I use in wheel design:
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...k_8KH8&usg=AFQjCNH3FgrwiWx7dc0ndCWjrjjcAR51Fw


Great video. However it seems to leave room for each person to hear what they want to hear when it comes to tire pressure. 100psi or so is best, but then so is running super low pressure over cobbles, to the point where your rim bangs on the pavement once in a while. It made me think that on a typical ride that takes me over a variety of pavements, I'm sometimes too low, sometimes too high, and sometimes about right.

Over time I've moved to lower psi (60 to 80 range on 25 or 28mm ties) because it feels good and makes my riding more fun. After seeing the video I suspect I often lose Watts to low psi, but since I'm not a racer I'm not worried about it.

Wondering about worn tires, too. The video says a flat profile costs a little power. But I know I'm not alone in liking the feel of worn tires. Could it be that the flatter profile is more than compensated by less hysteresis loss? ​


----------



## dcb (Jul 21, 2008)

bobf said:


> Wondering about worn tires, too. The video says a flat profile costs a little power. But I know I'm not alone in liking the feel of worn tires. Could it be that the flatter profile is more than compensated by less hysteresis loss? ​


I was thinking the same thing. I've had some worn tires that "felt" pretty fast compared to newly installed tires. I do seem to remember someone doing a rr test on a new and worn Conti gp and finding that the worn tire did roll easier. I'll see if I can find that.


----------



## ceugene (Jun 20, 2015)

dcb said:


> I was thinking the same thing. I've had some worn tires that "felt" pretty fast compared to newly installed tires. I do seem to remember someone doing a rr test on a new and worn Conti gp and finding that the worn tire did roll easier. I'll see if I can find that.


Every time I install a new tire, it's never quite round and it takes a bit of time for some of the flatter portions to stretch out. Sometimes tires also ship with a coating to prevent the rubber from drying out. Michelin tires have this thick layer of wax on them out of the box and it's super annoying.

Anyway fretting over all of this, you may as well start cutting the whiskers off new tires left over by the sprues/vents in the mold...or stop caring and ride a tire is known to be fast in roll-down tests.


----------



## Fajita Dave (Dec 1, 2015)

ceugene said:


> Anyway fretting over all of this, you may as well start cutting the whiskers off new tires left over by the sprues/vents in the mold...or stop caring and ride a tire is known to be fast in roll-down tests.


I cut them off. They make an irritating noise rubbing on my frame. 25c rolls so nice but Conti 23c tires are the largest that will fit in my Fuji SST. I still need to let air out of the rear tire to remove it.


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

*Dimension*

I am with the OP, first post. After 5 years and probably 4,000 miles at over 190lbs rider weight most of the time, some at 200 lbs, I finally broke my rear wheel. The aluminum rim fatigued and the nipple area cracked and Mr spoke poke through. New wheel or wheels time. The wheel set is an old Neuvation 28SL something. Really light, and up until it died, never trued or tightened. Ever, zero maintenance. New wheel time. It is thin, IIRC a 19 or 23mm rim width ? The labeling is long gone. _To consider a wider more comfortable new wheel, I want to compare it to what I have now, what fits._

Where exactly are we measuring the rim ? Exterior or interior or exactly what ? I have calipers, mocrometer etc. - thanks


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

skitorski said:


> ...Where exactly are we measuring the rim ? Exterior or interior or exactly what ? I have calipers, mocrometer etc. - thanks


Both. The inside width is what determines tire width but both are often given by the manufacturer. The difference between inner and outer width is much greater on carbon rims.


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

skitorski said:


> I am with the OP, first post. After 5 years and probably 4,000 miles at over 190lbs rider weight most of the time, some at 200 lbs, I finally broke my rear wheel. The aluminum rim fatigued and the nipple area cracked and Mr spoke poke through. New wheel or wheels time. The wheel set is an old Neuvation 28SL something. Really light, and up until it died, never trued or tightened. Ever, zero maintenance. New wheel time. It is thin, IIRC a 19 or 23mm rim width ? The labeling is long gone. _To consider a wider more comfortable new wheel, I want to compare it to what I have now, what fits._
> 
> Where exactly are we measuring the rim ? Exterior or interior or exactly what ? I have calipers, mocrometer etc. - thanks


You mean 40,000 miles right? Unless you ride very little like once or twice a week 4K miles in 5 years is very very little per week about 19 miles per week? 
If that is the case then those rims were weak or got rusted at the nipples from lack of use. 
I highly recommend prowheelbuilder from GA. I have got all my rims done with them. About 3 sets. My Reynolds assault SLG (old racing wheels at 1450gm set) have over 25k-30k miles in them and are still going strong. now they are my everyday wheels. 
There was a post here about a very light aluminum clincher at 29 deep I think. Prowheelbuilder has them. I think it was a start up or something. They have them rated at 4 out of 5 in strength. I might get a set in the future. 
They aré toroidal wide and at 465gm. Very light for an aluminum rim. That is if you want aluminum. 
I'm into custom made carbon wheels. The key is to find a strong rim. Now days most high en rims are pretty wide. But make sure you check the internal/external widths. 
Probikekit has a special on Reynolds at 1099 for the assault set shimano plus 5% off. That is a steal for this rims. 
Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

Char, I have never heard of any wheels lasting that long. That is amazing. I might have had 6-7,000 miles. One year was about 2,500. Weekend rides. So I just estimated and my free map ride app got discontinued. But lots of impacts, road cracks, all kinds of badness. My weight, or mass if you prefer has to be a factor. Anyways, if I get 4-6,000 miles on the replacements I will be happy, and about 25 lbs lighter. So a "23" is a 23mm wide rim ////////////////////?????????????????????

Exterior ????????????????????????????

Should be a universal term.



> Both. The inside width is what determines tire width but both are often given by the manufacturer.


This is what is confusing and misleading. So a "23" is wut ??

If I order a 205/55/15 tire from anywhere in the world in any language and ship around the equator twice, I have a 100% chance it will fit my wheel and car. Bike wheel, still don't have a straight answer.


----------



## Hellgate64 (Aug 7, 2017)

With Vittoria CX 23s at $26 why would I need to go wider? 

The last century I rode on them was a 4:35, last 6 off road. No worries. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

Mic'd the wheel. 0.748 inches 18.9 inches Maybe a little worn. 

OUTSIDE MEASUREMENT 

a "23" or "25" would be considerably wider.


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

skitorski said:


> Char, I have never heard of any wheels lasting that long. That is amazing. I might have had 6-7,000 miles. One year was about 2,500. Weekend rides. So I just estimated and my free map ride app got discontinued. But lots of impacts, road cracks, all kinds of badness. My weight, or mass if you prefer has to be a factor. Anyways, if I get 4-6,000 miles on the replacements I will be happy, and about 25 lbs lighter. So a "23" is a 23mm wide rim ////////////////////?????????????????????
> 
> Exterior ????????????????????????????
> 
> ...


Hahaha you are funny but right. Any rim with an external width of 23mm and up is good. 
Picture that the standard tires are 23mm width mostly so the tire will be flush with the rim. There won't be light bulb effect that creates drag. 
Some manufacturers are going all the way to 25mm with the new trends. Which should be nice. I installed a 25mm tire conti4000s yesterday and it is wider than the rim. Not by much but I might be going back to 23s. 
About wheels lasting that long I learned like you the hard way. After 1 factory stans, mavic cósmics , and zipp 404, all cracked and lasting less than a year I decided to go custom. 
Like I said on my post above, I use prowheelbuilder to build my rims. They have strength ratings for their rims, rider weight and will talk to you about how strong you want them if needed be. 
Yes my current carbon custom Reynolds have over 20k on them. 200 miles per week average x 52 for 3 years or more. 
High Spoke count, brass nipples, good spokes and strong rims are the key. I run 24F/28R when available. Right now the Reynolds SLG are 24/24. 28 was n/a with the new models. I use American classic hubs always. 
I paid 1400-1500 for them and it was worth it as you can see they have lasted a long time. 
I am going to dismantle my old training aluminum rims 19mm external width and get the American classic hubs and build another set of carbon wheels. I wish they would have Reynolds at prowheel but alas no luck. 
Brother, spend the money on a good set of hand made custom wheels with at least 24 spokes each. 28 in the Back is ideal for us 195-200lbs guys although I am good with the 24 so far. 
Let me know man I am happy to help. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

skitorski said:


> I am with the OP, first post. After 5 years and probably 4,000 miles at over 190lbs rider weight most of the time, some at 200 lbs, I finally broke my rear wheel. The aluminum rim fatigued and the nipple area cracked and Mr spoke poke through. New wheel or wheels time. The wheel set is an old Neuvation 28SL something. Really light, and up until it died, never trued or tightened. Ever, zero maintenance. New wheel time. It is thin, IIRC a 19 or 23mm rim width ? The labeling is long gone. _To consider a wider more comfortable new wheel, I want to compare it to what I have now, what fits._
> 
> Where exactly are we measuring the rim ? Exterior or interior or exactly what ? I have calipers, mocrometer etc. - thanks


You measure outside distance from flange to glance as exterior width and inside from flange to flange as interior width. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

skitorski said:


> ... So a "23" is a 23mm wide rim ////////////////////?????????????????????
> 
> Exterior ????????????????????????????
> 
> ...


In the past manufacturers just gave the outer width dimension for rims. That is all anybody really cared about back then. 19mm was very common on lighter aero rims. People found through experimentation that if you mounted a particular tire on a wider rim the tire would be wider. This increases air volume which is really what supports the load. This allows you to run lower pressure than you would on the narrow rim. The manufacturers who are really at the forefront of this trend - HED is one - will give both the inner width and the outer width of their rims. The inner width is the one that is going to determine the inflated width of any given tire. Ideally in the end you want the outer width of the rim and tire to be the same or close to for best aerodynamics. You will only find the mounted outer width of the tire on a particular rim by mounting and measuring.

For example I have HED Ardennes wheels that are 25mm outside and 21mm inside. I mounted Schwalbe One 23mm tires and they measure 25mm on these rims. 

I understand the desire for universality but the technology is in a period of change right now.


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

The Neugent wheels I am going to order are "24" exterior. I tried to post the schematic of his wheels but it 404's. So these are less expensive light weight alloys and will be substantially wider than my current "19". This is adding weight, in the rim and the tires but I am sure I will survive the 85g penalty. I don't ride hard or often or long enough on my $399 Bikes Direct with $700 in upgrades to justify throwing more $$ at this. So Mr Nugent says with his wheels almost anything is Ok. Here's a link . .. 

Specifications

Thanks for the advice and information. Better than the industry does. The Vuelta site does not easily disclose the simple width of their wheels. What I was considering purchasing from them turns out to have a width of 19mm %$#@ I also have thought quite a bit over the softer is faster and I may even grudgingly agree on that. Sort of like comparing rolling a ball bearing and soft basketball on a glass surface and a gravel road. So I hope to find a little softer ride at 90 instead of 120 psi heh heh heh.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> 120 lbs here and I use 23mm soft tire up front and 25mm harder tire rear, too. 23mm tire with a triangular profile up front makes the bike turn in sharply, and 25mm out back for longevity. For all the talk about science and rolling resistance, not many folks think about using a different front/rear combo for maximum performance.


You seem to assume everyone's definition of maximum performance is the same as yours and/or has the same bike geometry you do. No everyone is looking to increase or maximixe the turning sharpness of their bike.


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

skitorski said:


> The Neugent wheels I am going to order are "24" exterior.




Should be a noticeable improvement.


----------



## Turner (Sep 30, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Not everyone is looking to increase or maximixe the turning sharpness of their bike.


Yeah, I like to keep it as slow as possible since any bicycle steers so quickly. 73 degrees steering angle or less and no more than 40mm rake. Nice and stable and relaxed but quick enough for anything.


----------



## charlitin (Oct 2, 2011)

skitorski said:


> The Neugent wheels I am going to order are "24" exterior. I tried to post the schematic of his wheels but it 404's. So these are less expensive light weight alloys and will be substantially wider than my current "19". This is adding weight, in the rim and the tires but I am sure I will survive the 85g penalty. I don't ride hard or often or long enough on my $399 Bikes Direct with $700 in upgrades to justify throwing more $$ at this. So Mr Nugent says with his wheels almost anything is Ok. Here's a link . ..
> 
> Specifications
> 
> Thanks for the advice and information. Better than the industry does. The Vuelta site does not easily disclose the simple width of their wheels. What I was considering purchasing from them turns out to have a width of 19mm %$#@ I also have thought quite a bit over the softer is faster and I may even grudgingly agree on that. Sort of like comparing rolling a ball bearing and soft basketball on a glass surface and a gravel road. So I hope to find a little softer ride at 90 instead of 120 psi heh heh heh.


I'm glad you found your wheel. I would love to know how many miles you get out of them. The only thing I don't like is the reduced spoke count in the front. Enjoy them!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

skitorski said:


> Char, I have never heard of any wheels lasting that long. That is amazing. I might have had 6-7,000 miles. One year was about 2,500. Weekend rides. So I just estimated and my free map ride app got discontinued. But lots of impacts, road cracks, all kinds of badness. My weight, or mass if you prefer has to be a factor. Anyways, if I get 4-6,000 miles on the replacements I will be happy......


Huh?? I would be p!ssed as hell if I didn't get at least 10K miles out of a wheel set. They would never have me as a customer again. And that 10K mile game ender must be brake track wear which I consider normal wear and tear. If a disc wheel, I would expect it to last much longer than that. It is not unusual for quality wheels to last 20K+ miles. 40K is less common, but not unheard of. If you're getting spoke hole cracks, it's time to move on to a better quality product. Not sure what you're mass is, but if you're a clyde, you may want to skip the ultra-lightweight wheels all together unless you don't mind replacing wheels a lot.




skitorski said:


> So a "23" is a 23mm wide rim ////////////////////?????????????????????
> 
> Exterior ????????????????????????????
> 
> Should be a universal term.


Hah! Nothing is universal regarding wheel and tire sizes except possibly that print on the rim itself that uses the ETRTO 622x??. That ?? would be the internal width which is the one that matters as that will make the difference between whether your tires fit between your stays or not. External width is a useless measurement, but is still used to market to the aero fans.



skitorski said:


> If I order a 205/55/15 tire from anywhere in the world in any language and ship around the equator twice, I have a 100% chance it will fit my wheel and car. Bike wheel, still don't have a straight answer.


Mostly yes. But just for S&G's, go to Tirerack.com sometime and look up specs on two different 205/55/15 tires. You will find slight differences in width and diameter between, for example, a Michelin vs. a Goodyear vs. a Yokohama, etc. But yes, I get your point that the sizing methods for cars is universal. Definitely not so for bikes!


----------



## skitorski (Dec 4, 2012)

Yes Lombard, I always use Tire Rack Specs to check rubber. Only reliable place I know for dimension, weight, rim fit, and even country of manufacture. Unfortunately for us cycling consumers, there is no such resource.


----------

