How wide is too wide?

[Cookster15]

The linked article in CyclingNews today got me thinking. I am sceptical of these claims about ever wider tyres. And if the benefits are so clear why does it take such a long article to argue the case?

The industry are experts at marketing new stuff, everyone wants the new stuff but few question how much faster (if any) it makes you for the money you were enticed to part with.

Anyone who has been involved in road cycling since the mid/late 80s will know why I am sceptical. Back then there were articles in cycling magazines about lower rolling resistance of new clinchers compared to the then ubiquitous tubulars.

Then the industry pushed aero everything. They even claimed wider tyres were more aero - thankfully the linked article admits greater frontal area increases drag.

But now we have moved a full circle and the industry now claims we should ditch our 25mm tyres for 40mm? But reading this the advantage in rolling resistance watts saved is mostly on cobbles or unpaved surfaces. Why should 95% be disadvantaged by benefits that only apply to the (very) small minority who might ride cobbles. It’s marketing nonsense.

It’s getting out of hand. Not only tyres but rims to accommodate 40mm tyres. In my opinion tyre width for road racing should be limited to 26mm max except for cobbled races like PR and Flanders. Interested to know what others think?

Lab tested: 40mm road tyres are faster for nearly everyone, and here's why

Comparing wind tunnel and rolling resistance data on a variety of tyre widths, rims, surfaces and speeds to find out what is the future of road tyres

www.cyclingnews.com

 

[Divergence]

I think you said it yourself, it is all about marketing.
It seems to me that a good portion of hight end equipment is bought by large and relatively unathletic individuals who are having trouble riding stiff and fast bikes. Therefore, it makes sense to introduce such tires for this group of people because they act as a suspension and thus the ride is gentler. This is the same reason disk brakes were introduced (along with one more point).
A 55kg climber is perfectly fine braking on carbon rims with rim brakes, but a 80kg rider might find it a bit more challenging. However, in order to use the potential of the disk brakes to the fullest one needs a bigger contact surface between the tires and the road and therefore the wider tires.
The only thing I do no understand is why the bike industry is introducing this tech without spelling these things out. I guess they are worried about fat shaming.
In any case, wider tires are not faster (unless riding on cobbles) and neither are disk brakes.

 

[RedheadDane]

10 metres!

 

[42x16ss]

They need to get us all to turn over our frames every 2-3 years somehow...

 

[11-34]

Well disc brakes indirectly are faster. Unless you are using rim brakes with a tubeless setup you are forced to use butyl tubes, which are significantly slower than latex. The difference in braking power make rim brakes a nostalgia product in my eyes.

 

[Divergence]

Well disc brakes indirectly are faster. Unless you are using rim brakes with a tubeless setup you are forced to use butyl tubes, which are significantly slower than latex. The difference in braking power make rim brakes a nostalgia product in my eyes.

TPU inners work great with rim brakes.

 

[Sciatic]

Dang, checked out this thread 'cause I thought you might have photo entries to demonstrate "too wide."

 

[11-34]

TPU inners work great with rim brakes.

Not all of them though, the thinner ones are disc brake only, but true.

 

[Cookster15]

Well disc brakes indirectly are faster. Unless you are using rim brakes with a tubeless setup you are forced to use butyl tubes, which are significantly slower than latex. The difference in braking power make rim brakes a nostalgia product in my eyes.

What do you mean by “indirectly”?

Braking power is limited by the tyre / road interface not the braking system.

Disc brakes don’t make you faster except in limited circumstances. Like wet weather and long mountain descents both of which skilled riders can overcome. Probably why Ineos were the last pro team to switch. The rest of the time you are lugging around half a kilo of dead weight.

 

[Divergence]

Not all of them though, the thinner ones are disc brake only, but true.

I am using the Pirelli ones and I believe they are quite thin. And I have never had a problem in 2 years doing Alpine descents among others.
I guess it comes down to how much does the rider weigh. For a lighter rider there is no problem with the heat build up. It also probably helps to know how to properly use the brakes, i.e., brake hard and do not drag the brakes unnecessarily.

 

[jmdirt]

No science here, just some fun thinking...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdvVOgXZiWw&t=3s

 

[Unchained]

No science here, just some fun thinking...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdvVOgXZiWw&t=3s

I watched this and enjoyed it. I also liked seeing pro riders at Paris Roubaix keep it together, after tires would blow bead and they were riding the rim..I have for limited distance and it soils my shorts when bike is moving all around..I do mostly road..I know about dead tires when sidewall and casing are too stiff..and I know the all over the place when you are riding a 2.8 mountain bike tire on pavement at 40,45 doing a little cornering!! Scares me just thinking about it!!!

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/szln_xQeoS0

 

[topt]

Well disc brakes indirectly are faster. Unless you are using rim brakes with a tubeless setup you are forced to use butyl tubes, which are significantly slower than latex. The difference in braking power make rim brakes a nostalgia product in my eyes.

this is total crap, breaking power is meaningless with such a small patch of tyre