Jan Heine on wide tires for the road

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Michael D

17.8 mph for 60 miles on a relatively flat paved ride in a group is really slow

I would not say riding 100k in 17.8mph average that included a snack stop; when there is another 200k of riding ahead including a monster climb is "really slow"

[bshell]

Good questions.

Different bikes, same gearing and fit w/in a degree or so. The cogs I end up using on the ride are different based on increased tire diameter covering more distance per revolution and the increased tire weight (25mm tires are slicks and 35mm are almost totally slick).

And probably more important -I hadn't considered the wheels. Both tubeless carbon in the 35-45mm depth but I imagine the CX are a bit heavier/more robust and lack bladed spokes...

[merckx]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

I would not say riding 100k in 17.8mph average that included a snack stop; when there is another 200k of riding ahead including a monster climb is "really slow"

This puts it in the right perspective.

I also believe that narrow and wide tires are efficient. Maximizing the efficiency depends on the motor you have on board, the age of the chassis, the surface beneath your tires, and the duration of your movement.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by Loren090

I would love if RH open source published their tire testing data though. There has been a push for this in the sciences. With how much misleading info there is in the bike industry, I've always been sort of surprised to read past RH blog comments about not posting the data. Why not take this a step further and be fully transparent?

More than the data, the methods and the code used to do the analysis. In Jan's case these are very simple methods that for the most part have been described in BQ and elsewhere. But from what I have seen of the criticisms here, having the data and the code and producing the exact same results would not satisfy people that have accused him of making things up, fudging the data, etc, or, in more charitable cases, of having bad data due to poor collection methods. Plus, I can see some reasons for a for-profit entity to protect their data as they would any other proprietary asset. For profits dont generally do this, and when they do make data available it is sold as a product. Also, in Jan's case, with abuse and misuse of statistics pervasive even among professional scientists, why turn internet trolls armed with excel spreadsheets lose on your data? I dont see an up side.

[Michael D]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

I would not say riding 100k in 17.8mph average that included a snack stop; when there is another 200k of riding ahead including a monster climb is "really slow"

That's why I said power numbers would be illuminating. It's impossible to say how hard he's trying, but in my experience it's really easy to go that fast on a road bike with a couple people.

And before everyone piles on me he's the one trying to tell everyone his bike is fast, I didn't start this.

[palincss]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

huh?

From across the hall.

[palincss]

Originally Posted by d_douglas

Ugh, that Pegoretti hurts my eyes. Should not have zero saddle to bar drop on a race bike! I would chop that HT as well. Is that Jan's old ride? gasp...

No, it's a bike he reviewed years ago, and did not like. Across the Hall they did not like his review at all, and publicly lynched him. They even immortalized the thread as one of their finest for a while, but I don't see that "greatest discussions ever" forum anymore.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by marciero

More than the data, the methods and the code used to do the analysis. In Jan's case these are very simple methods that for the most part have been described in BQ and elsewhere. But from what I have seen of the criticisms here, having the data and the code and producing the exact same results would not satisfy people that have accused him of making things up, fudging the data, etc, or, in more charitable cases, of having bad data due to poor collection methods. Plus, I can see some reasons for a for-profit entity to protect their data as they would any other proprietary asset. For profits dont generally do this, and when they do make data available it is sold as a product. Also, in Jan's case, with abuse and misuse of statistics pervasive even among professional scientists, why turn internet trolls armed with excel spreadsheets lose on your data? I dont see an up side.

^this!! Either you enjoy reading Jan's stuff, appreciate his reviews and testing, or you don't.. I appreciate that he tries to test a product in a real-world environment and I feel he does his best to provide true results based on as scientific a method as you can in a non-research-funded, real world scenario..

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by palincss

From across the hall.

yep, that says a lot.. like most places, there's some good folks over there, but man oh man..

[palincss]

Originally Posted by Michael D

17.8 mph for 60 miles on a relatively flat paved ride in a group is really slow so I'm not sure if he's proving what he thinks he's proving here. Would be more illuminating if he had power numbers.

The narrower handlebars thing combined with the barn door of a bag gave me a chuckle though. Glad he enjoyed his bike.

And yet, he's done wind tunnel tests that show a front bag doesn't increase wind resistance with a rider on board, because the bag is entirely within the outline of the rider.

Also, perhaps you didn't notice that those 60 miles aren't the entire ride. They are but the start of a 400K ride, immediately followed by a 5,476 ft climb that goes on for 60K.

[Michael D]

Originally Posted by palincss

And yet, he's done wind tunnel tests that show a front bag doesn't increase wind resistance with a rider on board, because the bag is entirely within the outline of the rider.

I can't even

[ripvanrando]

Jan was a Cat 1 and me a lowly cat 3.

My 25mm tires made the 447 km ride to Loudeac on PBP 30 minutes faster than his 42 mm tires.

So, let's do some science.

(CAT3 minus Cat 1) x 30 minutes = 1 hour faster on appropriate tires.

Nonsensical article.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by palincss

And yet, he's done wind tunnel tests that show a front bag doesn't increase wind resistance with a rider on board, because the bag is entirely within the outline of the rider.

Also, perhaps you didn't notice that those 60 miles aren't the entire ride. They are but the start of a 400K ride, immediately followed by a 5,476 ft climb that goes on for 60K.

I recall he did roll down tests measuring speed with GPS to determine a handlebar bag is faster. GPS. Real sciency.

[EB]

Never forget

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=260641

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

I would not say riding 100k in 17.8mph average that included a snack stop; when there is another 200k of riding ahead including a monster climb is "really slow"

Another 300K...