Frame stiffeness and use of larger tires

[cnighbor1]

On eBay I often notice for a frame or bicycle for sale that the seller notes that it is a very stiff frame design. Therefore you will noitice every defect in road surface and have it affect your endurance over a long ride. My question is n'tlarger tires ,say at least 25c, and less air pressure ,say 90psi, reduce to that to an acceptable ride.
Charles

[reggiebaseball]

.

[palincss]

Lower air pressure & wider tires will help reduce ride harshness, but ride harshness is not the only reason someone might feel a frame is too stiff.

[tannhauser]

Would you rephrase that into an intelligible question?

[Kontact]

Would you rephrase that into an intelligible question?
Really? Okay, I'll help you get through this very tricky sentence:

My question is: Wouldn't larger tires (say, at least 25c), and less air pressure (say, 90psi), reduce to that to give an acceptable ride?


OP, the answer to your question is; mostly yes.

But there is a lot of debate about the dynamic qualities of frames and forks, and the effect they have on handling, pedaling and all vibrations, including stuff that doesn't come just from the road. But a big, cushy tire will always have the biggest effect - it may just come with a price in terms of rolling resistance and speed (but not always).

[tannhauser]

Really? Okay, I'll help you get through this very tricky sentence:

My question is: Wouldn't larger tires (say, at least 25c), and less air pressure (say, 90psi), reduce to that to give an acceptable ride?


OP, the answer to your question is; mostly yes.

But there is a lot of debate about the dynamic qualities of frames and forks, and the effect they have on handling, pedaling and all vibrations, including stuff that doesn't come just from the road. But a big, cushy tire will always have the biggest effect - it may just come with a price in terms of rolling resistance and speed (but not always).


Really. Just trying to promote a minimum standard of english, but thanks for taking the mantle of know-it-all once again.
Your sarcasm belies some simmering anger, methinks.

This is the original "question": My question is n'tlarger tires ,say at least 25c, and less air pressure ,say 90psi, reduce to that to an acceptable ride.

Like I said, it's gibberish. That you chose to respond to my question to the OP says something about perhaps being shown up in the past regarding carbon rims?

Anyway, not exactly rocket science: larger tires, less pressure, possible speed hit.

[Sandy]

Would you rephrase that into an intelligible question?

Would you rephrase that into a courteous question?


Sandy

[6mt]

i find 25c tires to be a lot more comfortable than 23c tires.

I think I've read an article some where last year that Steve Hed of HED wheels noting that 25c tires at a certain pressure range could have the same riding quality as tubular tires. so to answer your original question, Yes i believe larger tire at the correct Psi could better one's riding experience of overly stiff frame.

[Sandy]

I used to ride with 700X23 tires inflated at approximately 120 psi, higher for some brands. Started lowering the psi. I was approximately 215+ pounds. I switched to 700x25 tires using 95-97 psi front and 105-107 psi rear. The ride quality (harshness....) improved dramatically, with no noticeable decrease in speed. I see no advantage whatsoever with 700x23 tires over 700x25 tires except the minimal aero advantage a narrower tire gives. I will never go back to the 700x23.

You say "stiff frame design". I think you would need to define "stiff". Do you mean harsh riding?


Sandy

PS- I think rims, specific brand of tire, rider weight, ......,all are factors to consider.

[mike p]

That's what I'm talking bout.

Mike

Would you rephrase that into a courteous question?


Sandy

[gearguywb]

Anyway, not exactly rocket science: larger tires, less pressure, possible speed hit.

Really? If you are talking about the extremes of tire size and/or pressure, sure. If comparing a 25/27 properly inflated (100lbs give or take) to a 21/23 at 130.......nope.

[Peter P.]

I don't believe frames (at least the main triangle) offer any meaningful compliance in a vertical plane.

The stiffness likely referred to in the eBay auctions is frame flex under pedalling.

About the only place you can seek some comfort is in fork flex.

That said then yes; your tires and tire pressure are THE component you can fine tune to provide a less jarring ride. Your limitations are your weight and the need to prevent pinch flats.

I think most people overinflate their tires or could stand to use larger tires to take advantage of lower pressures without the risk of pinch flatting.

For what it's worth, I've experimented with lower pressures and have found at my weight (135lbs.), I run 700x23 tires at 80-85psi., much lower than the majority of riders.

[ultraman6970]

Probably the guy is saying that is too stiff just like a catch to get it sold. Since the idea is "as stiff the frame the faster it gets" (instead of less loss of energy while pedaling) guys fall onto this.

There are a bunch of ways to soften a ride tho, some rims flex more than others, some tires are softer than others, even spokes behave different from brand to brand or builder to builder. Even a different handlebar, seatpost and saddle can soften the ride big time.

If the frame is carbon unless it is something super high end doubt is that stiff as the guy says, maybe just normal. If aluminum, well it depends too.

Another thing, maybe the guy has bones problems, the bike is set up wrong or something else is going on and that's why he is saying it is too stiff for him. wonder what bike is it tho, do you have the link?

[Kontact]

Really. Just trying to promote a minimum standard of english, but thanks for taking the mantle of know-it-all once again.
Your sarcasm belies some simmering anger, methinks.

This is the original "question": My question is n'tlarger tires ,say at least 25c, and less air pressure ,say 90psi, reduce to that to an acceptable ride.

Like I said, it's gibberish. That you chose to respond to my question to the OP says something about perhaps being shown up in the past regarding carbon rims?

Anyway, not exactly rocket science: larger tires, less pressure, possible speed hit.
I would have to do a search to find out what you are talking about vis carbon wheels.

I am just the first poster to think your post was unnecessarily discourteous in the face of a few typing errors. So you can take it up with Sandy and Mike, too.

[palincss]

i find 25c tires to be a lot more comfortable than 23c tires.


I don't really want to pick nits, especially not in a thread that's already veering into unpleasantness, but those are 25mm and 23mm tires, not 25c and 23c; the wheel size is 700C. Once upon a time, that distinguished between the 700A, 700B and 700C sizes. While those designations no longer survive in the 700 size, the 650 A, B and C sizes are still with us today.

[mister]

facepalmin @ tannhauser :rolleyes:

cahrles, yes a larger tire and lower pressure will make a frame feel like a softer ride
but there are other areas of frame flex some people might desire, think jan heine...
also the fork is going to make a very noticeable difference in the ride, just like the wheelbase will, BB height too probably. head and seat tube angles and also how much setback the rider rides with.
then also the wheels, spokes and lacing pattern as well as rim choice. it all matters.

also, a true 25mm tire is about the largest i like (personal preference of course). too much deflection.
i prefer a nice 23mm tire, not sure what the pressure i ride is, my pump says 130psi in the rear but that's not what the actual pressure is...

[Kontact]

I don't really want to pick nits, especially not in a thread that's already veering into unpleasantness, but those are 25mm and 23mm tires, not 25c and 23c; the wheel size is 700C. Once upon a time, that distinguished between the 700A, 700B and 700C sizes. While those designations no longer survive in the 700 size, the 650 A, B and C sizes are still with us today.
All manufacturers refer to their 25mm and 23mm 700c tires as 700x25c and 700x23c.

Are you objecting to abbreviating these designations by dropping the 700x, or are you saying the tire makers are stupid and aren't using the proper designations in the first place? Everybody I know seems very comfortable knowing was "23c" means.

[FlashUNC]

http://prodigalthought.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/wrong.jpg

[palincss]

All manufacturers refer to their 25mm and 23mm 700c tires as 700x25c and 700x23c.

Are you objecting to abbreviating these designations by dropping the 700x, or are you saying the tire makers are stupid and aren't using the proper designations in the first place? Everybody I know seems very comfortable knowing was "23c" means.

The "C" goes with the 700, not with the width. It refers to a distinction in the rim's diameter, not to the width. The width is measured in mm. "Everyone you know" may be comfortable with an incorrect abbreviation, but that doesn't make it right.

A couple of years ago, someone went to a frame builder to get his canti posts moved. He wanted to do a 650B conversion of a frame, most likely originally made for 27 x 1 1/4" tires. As I recall the report (here, the iBOB list or the 650B list) he spoke of "650" -- and the builder set the canti posts to the right position for 650C, which he was "comfortable" with the only "650" he know of. Oopsie...!

[Fixed]

frame stiffness and the use of larger gear
cheers :beer:

[AngryScientist]

is the OP's assumption that if a seller states that a bike frame is "stiff" that is necessarily a bad thing? if so, i dont think that's necessarily the case, some might view a stiff frame as a very good thing. in the early days of titanium, i remember, lots of people said Ti was "flexy" or "noodly" or whatever. in that context a stiff frame would be a good thing. same for a climbing or sprinting bike, stiff = good.

but really, there are a ton of variables, rider perception among the biggest. i'm a pretty lightweight rider, and i find most frames are pretty stiff, someone twice my weight might find the same frames i ride to be more flexy. yes, wheels and tire size (pressure more importantly) can noticeably affect the ride of a bike. a good fork can go a long way too.

[Kontact]

The "C" goes with the 700, not with the width. It refers to a distinction in the rim's diameter, not to the width. The width is measured in mm. "Everyone you know" may be comfortable with an incorrect abbreviation, but that doesn't make it right.

A couple of years ago, someone went to a frame builder to get his canti posts moved. He wanted to do a 650B conversion of a frame, most likely originally made for 27 x 1 1/4" tires. As I recall the report (here, the iBOB list or the 650B list) he spoke of "650" -- and the builder set the canti posts to the right position for 650C, which he was "comfortable" with the only "650" he know of. Oopsie...!
I know how it works, but the normal designation is not 700c x 23, it is 700x23c.

So who are you taking issue with; the tire makers for putting the c after 23, or everyone else for using the designation as presented? Because this is not a problem that causes tire or wheel size errors like the one you mention - you are just taking to task a very minor nomenclature issue that the industry is equally guilty of in not locating the c after 700. I just want to know who's the bad guy here, because "23c" is the most obvious abbreviation for "700x23c".

Does the word "alloy" bother you? ;)

[zmudshark]

I don't really want to pick nits, especially not in a thread that's already veering into unpleasantness, but those are 25mm and 23mm tires, not 25c and 23c; the wheel size is 700C. Once upon a time, that distinguished between the 700A, 700B and 700C sizes. While those designations no longer survive in the 700 size, the 650 A, B and C sizes are still with us today.
Not to further pick nits, but my tires (tyres) from Continental have the designation 700X23c and 700x25c. same with Veloflex and Vredestein. I don't have any Michelin's, but suspect they are the same.

Perhaps you should take up the nits with the tire (tyre) manufacturers.

As far as the OP, I have good friends that know him and have done business with him. He is quite intelligent, and also elderly. His typing skills may be on a par with mine, but cut him some slack. You should hope to be riding when you are his age.

[mister]

^ he has a quite a few nice bikes too

[nightfend]

And to further confuse things, I have some tubulars that say 28" on them.

[mister]

^ and i have some tubs that say 27x1
and they'll fit the same rims yours will...

[palincss]

I know how it works, but the normal designation is not 700c x 23, it is 700x23c.

So who are you taking issue with; the tire makers for putting the c after 23, or everyone else for using the designation as presented?

So should I speak of the tires on my MAP Randonneur as "42b"?

Calling the size 700x25c doesn't bother me. Abbreviating it as "25c" does. Tire makers do not do that. People who live in a 700C bubble do that. There are other sizes besides 700C.

[palincss]

Not to further pick nits, but my tires (tyres) from Continental have the designation 700X23c and 700x25c. same with Veloflex and Vredestein. I don't have any Michelin's, but suspect they are the same.

Perhaps you should take up the nits with the tire (tyre) manufacturers.



Tire manufacturers do not abbreviate the size as "23c" as though the entire world was "700".


As far as the OP, I have good friends that know him and have done business with him. He is quite intelligent, and also elderly. His typing skills may be on a par with mine, but cut him some slack. You should hope to be riding when you are his age.

Since you brought it up, what is his age?

[Mark McM]

650b, 650c, 700c etc. are obsolete French standards, and the numbers on tire labels that use these systems often have no physical meaning (how many times have we complained that one manufacturer's 700cx25 is as wide as another manufacturer's 700cx23?).

Instead, we should use ISO (ERTRO) tire size (http://www.bicycletires.com/a_27/tire_size/article.htm) designations. The ISO system uses a standardized method to measure tires, so one 23x622 tire should actually be the same size as any other 23x622 tire.

Almost all modern tires are ISO tire designations either printed or molded onto them, in addition to the obsolete French designation.

[tannhauser]

It's hard to tell a person's age through electrons, but it's not impolite to ask a person whose age or medical condition isn't known widely to write intelligibly.

Charles, keep posting.

[Kontact]

So should I speak of the tires on my MAP Randonneur as "42b"?

Calling the size 700x25c doesn't bother me. Abbreviating it as "25c" does. Tire makers do not do that. People who live in a 700C bubble do that. There are other sizes besides 700C.
You shouldn't do anything you don't want to. I just wonder if you should bother correcting a ubiquitous contraction that everyone understands, just on principle. I don't get why you bothered.

Alloy, carbon, 35mm instead of 34.9mm, Ti, cork, ceramic, are all slightly inaccurate terms that are broadly accepted stand ins for longer or better terms. As long as the terminology fails to confuse, then the terms are accurately conveying information. And "twenty five see" is easier to say and type than "twenty five millimeters", which is probably what led to its popularity.

I'm sorry if you feel your 650b tires get unfair treatment, but I really don't understand what's achieved by correcting anyone about their casual use of a common abbreviation, aside from making threads longer and making someone feel like you are possibly being superior. Can't you pick on spelling and punctuation instead? :)

[palincss]

It's hardly ubiquitous; but it is wrong, it sounds wrong and it grates like fingernails on blackboard. Why defend it so very, very hard?

[tannhauser]

..., aside from making threads longer and making someone feel like you are possibly being superior. Can't you pick on spelling and punctuation instead? :)

Can't let it go, can you?

Dude, every thread you're in you do this superior thing. Strikes me as the kettle calling the kettle a kettle.

[CNY rider]

So this thread is what happens when they add an extra day to February!
In a few hours it will be March. Practically spring.
Let's all go ride our bikes and come back and chat afterwards. How 'bout it?

[zmudshark]

It's hard to tell a person's age through electrons, but it's not impolite to ask a person whose age or medical condition isn't known widely to write intelligibly.

Charles, keep posting.

Thank you. Much less snarky than anything I would have posted.

I'm guessing that the 'not' was inadvertent.

[Kontact]

It's hardly ubiquitous; but it is wrong, it sounds wrong and it grates like fingernails on blackboard. Why defend it so very, very hard?
Because correcting people about non-issues makes for a combative atmosphere, the 23c thing causes zero miscommunications and I think you're the first person I've ever heard making an objection to it. It is a term I hear every day in the shops I've worked in. Why publicly correct something that isn't demonstrably and provably wrong?

Maybe neither of us should get our underpants in a twist about this. But maybe underpants is incorrect, since pants go the ankles.

[gearguywb]

Way to take the thread in a totally different direction than the OP's question!