Science
 

The truth according to science is interesting. We can debate the scientific method and it's accuracy. But even if we came to some kind of agreement - crank length, tire size, aero efficiency - what grand difference does it make to the non-professional, or even the occasional racer? The differences are so, so marginal (my opinion.) And we pay a lot of $ converting tires, wheels, equipment to chase such improvements. Why? To set a new pr? To impress the group ride? I suspect the bike industry and bike media push the latest for obvious reasons. Every little "improvement" becomes the "next" thing and the next article. It will never end. That is not to write some improvements are not worth it, but one needs to be discerning and for me the issue is cost. We can pay a lot for a little. But - each to his or her own.

I am not sure why you are conflating the Scientific Method with how people want to use the things we learn from it.

It does prove at least one thing. The longest distance ridden in one hour on a track was done on 27s

If you only had one data point it is a good one

It you're just getting into wider tires, try the pressure calculator at Zipp.com. It's worked well for me. I'm running 28mm front and 30mm rear at the same 52 psi for my 135 lb weight, plus another 5 for shoes and gear and an 18 pound bike.

I ride a lot of chip sealed asphalt in good condition. If my roads were rougher, I'd move up to 30/32 at lower pressure.

25mm? No thanks.

Ganna produced the ride on Princeton CarbonWorks wheels attached to a 3D printed frame bearing Pinarello labels. It was also Ganna’s horsepower and preparation. Can we isolate tire width and say it’s the reason he’s the current record holder? I’d ask the same question about any single component in competition, including the rider.

We certainly can not :) all we can say is that each one of those elements worked well enough for him to put in the best distance. We can’t say how much each of those elements helped or hindered .

You think those crazy huge wheels moser used helped?
I think that Russian guy used weighted rims , wonder if that helped

Team Ganna with an all but unlimited budget could have chosen almost any tyre width. If they chose 27s over 23s, or 30s for that matter, it was only after drawing upon a large part of all research, experience and science available to date.

On that basis I’m more than happy to look at their tyre choice in isolation.

If the next Hour Record is set on 19s I’ll have a rethink then.

I don't get it. Skepticism that causes inaction is indeed a problem but to me it looks like the world has been made by people with a healthy skepticism of "the way things are". Making something new requires faith in the tools we have received and also a skepticism as to their completeness.

I do not deny the existence of bicycle tires. I buy them and use them. I do not refute all of the information about those tires, in fact I use that information to buy tires.

I also think we / I have a hilariously bad understanding of some of the most basic question one might ask about bicycle tires, like what is the ideal width tire for traveling on smooth tarmac.

My skepticism does not require I renounce tires or clothing or anything else.

The best benefit of being a grownup :)

At what speed? Under what load? How smooth is the tarmac? What cornering or braking forces will be required?

It is generally understood that the lowest rolling resistance wheels in common use are solid steel wheels on steel rails. Comparatively, tarmac is quite rough, and has a wide range of roughness. Add in all the other variables (such as the ones mentioned above), and you find that there is no one single ideal width for all scenarios. Apparently, some racing teams actually do rolling resistance testing for different courses to find the best width/pressure combinations. While most of that data is confidential, the Silca tire pressure calculator was created from the aggregation of that data.

the comical thing about most of this, and I mean this will all due respect ;), we are all just amateurs out riding a bike.. I mean I know there are a couple of ex-pros and some elite racers, but most of use are just out to enjoy the bike/scenery and for fitness.. I, like many, also enjoy the "stuff" aspect of cycling..

it's fun to try the new tech and "argue" the merits over your beverage of choice, but, in the end, it's all just for fun right? At the end of the day, very, VERY few of us will probably ever reach the limits of our bikes where some marginal gains from a tire or pair of aero socks is really going to make a difference.. but I do love the feeling of my Vittorias rolling on latex tubes mounted to Hed Belgium wheels.. no idea if they make me faster and couldn't care less if they do, I'm in for the comfort!

:banana:

Your attempts to muddy the issue do not make the situation any less silly. We aren't talking about trains or chip seal.

I repeat, the radical changes in "facts" about what the most efficient tire width / pressure, even in a limited variable environment like the track, is shocking.

They didn't even make high end tires in sizes above 25mm for years, now that is the smallest "experts" recommend.

this is a huge change that is way outside of your "well different variables call for different solutions excuse making" :)

The whole world of cycling was just way wrong about tire widths and pressures, or maybe was right and now we are wrong, I don't know but it is crazy.

Agree

I don’t really think it is all just bs. Some. You have to start somewhere.

I’m easily drawn to shiny objects and like to try new things like most here. There is nothing that I use that is bs on my bike and some are on your list - wide hookless tubeless wheel setups, 165mm cranks… I’ve rarely purchased anything that I can call true bs. The only recent one that comes to mind is an Enve stem:

“Over rough roads the carbon fiber laminate helps absorb vibration and reduce hand and upper body fatigue. ”

I didn’t expect it to make a difference but I tested it all the same. It looked pretty neat so I kept it for a bit but eventually decided I couldn’t use a product that makes bs claims.

This isn't correct. There was vocal opposition to narrow/hp as the best. For example, Jobst Brandt was besieged often for his views that max pressure narrow tires were fastest even on the rough unpaved tracks he rode between pavement sections. Bicycle magazines sometimes printed letters arguing against the experts from users arguing that they had better road results on 28/29/30mm tubulars than expected.

I don't disagree with your broad point, but glossing everything from the post together as a monolith isn't an accurate representation. We can look back at the past as settled science based on the idea that what we know now had to be the most common and accepted because, we know about it now, but that isn't correct. So much information from the past never made it into the computer age, and so much of that information was from the outskirts, the opposition, the smaller groups of minority thought.

You can find all sorts of scans from old bicycle magazines and catalogs of marketing materials or reviews or technical details but it's very hard to find scans of letters and op-eds from the public which were also published in every issue.

I'm reminded of a short anecdote I experienced last year. I was loaned a big batch of Bicycle Guide issues from the early-mid-1990s.

Bicycle Guide covered road and mountain and eventually spun off the road stuff into Bicyclist. The first issue of Bicyclist the editor Garrett Lai wrote an introduction to the new magazine and how the Road-Only direction was going to go. He mentioned that the magazine was successful covering both MTB and Road back when it was Bicycle Guide, that nobody complained and the spin-off was to better serve each group of cyclists.

Well, as I worked through the magazines I found that wasn't true. Almost every issue from the early 1990s had letters to the editor complaining about MTB coverage and how the subscriber wanted less or no MTB and more Road. Dozens and dozens of letters.

My point is that it's easy to view the past from a forward looking perspective. It's easy to get caught up in the current messaging and marketing. It's easy to forget that people in the past may have been just as curious and disagreeable as they are today and done the best with the information and iteration they were able to generate. We will never know every opinion or idea from the past but we can be sure that our view of what it was like will most likely get worse as it recedes into the distance.