23mm rims, 23 or 25mm tyres?

opusver21

I have 45mm Gigantex clinchers which are 23mm wide.

I’ve read a lot of the benefits of 25mm tyres although the 25mm GP4000’s I have currently are quite large and ballooned out to nearer 28mm.

I’m wondering wider rims are all the rage then 23’s would be better choice as on these rim’s I guess they would turn out as effectively 25’s anyway? If the width has increased i'm assuming the diameter has also? hence 23's have the benefits (perceived or not) of 25's?

Calpol

23mm soul s3.0 rims + 23mm Michelin SC Pro4 = 25mm tyre max width. Works well for me. To be fair I havent tried 25mm tyres but they are nearly always harder to find and more expensive and presumably offer marginal benefit.

ugo.santalucia

This question is becoming recurrent and insisting... do as you please... the very nature of the rim is to make the tyre a bit bigger and a bit rounder.
If you believe in aerodynamics, 23 mm rims have been optimised for 23 mm tyres

mamba80

How does a wider rim make a narrower tire "wider" ? Surely a narrower rim would balloon out the tire and wider one flatten it out?
Have nt 18/19mm rims been optimised for 22/23mm tires ? this has been the industry standard for many years and amazing times and races have been won on 23mm tubs and clinchers.

to me this is all marketing BS to make us buy into a technology we don't actually need?

ugo.santalucia

mamba80 wrote:

to me this is all marketing BS to make us buy into a technology we don't actually need?

Plenty of marketing literature on the topic... read and filter off the BS.

My take: 100% of the folks on Archetype will tell you they do feel different and handle better than a narrow rim. But you don't have to believe them and you can stick to narrow rims... which is absolutely fine.

PS: a tubular is a self contained tyre that has a constant shape, a clincher's shape is affected by the rim it sits on.

meanredspider

I can imagine that this is similar to me swapping my 6" wide race car wheels for 7" wide. The tyre will fit both but is more stable and less likely to roll on the 7" rim - leads to better handling and tyre wear

furiousd

ugo.santalucia wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

to me this is all marketing BS to make us buy into a technology we don't actually need?

Plenty of marketing literature on the topic... read and filter off the BS.

My take: 100% of the folks on Archetype will tell you they do feel different and handle better than a narrow rim. But you don't have to believe them and you can stick to narrow rims... which is absolutely fine.

PS: a tubular is a self contained tyre that has a constant shape, a clincher's shape is affected by the rim it sits on.

As per Paolo. I run 23mm tyres on Archetype rims and they are much more comfy than Fulcrum Ones or R500. I have done back to back rides recently.
D

cycleclinic

I am replacing all my narrow rims now they have worn out with wider ones they just are better. As for tyre width use what ever you like. I put 27mm tyres on my archetypes.

The only opinion that really matters though is your own. you just need to try new stuff sometimes. some of it you will like other kit you will give a pass - for me thats veloflex tyres, we just didn't get on.

opusver21

looking closely at my tyres they are definitely extending over the rim in a bit of a bulb effect. I have some identical tyres in the gp4000's in 23mm so will try those first before then deciding on a different brand, looking at all great bike radar tour bikes a lot of examples of the rim and tyre being as one in terms of a shape starting at the widest point being the rim...assuming for the best advantage of aerowheels...not that bothers massively, more of a feel thing

ianbar

i have 25mm 4000s's on my archetypes, never tried 23s on them to be fair, but i personally find the comfort benefit in wider rims is massive! plus on a lot of local decants i have found the wheels are more planted with more rubber on the road and so i am going noticeably faster. this is certainly good for a near 16st poor climber ;-)

mamba80

I have used them and was recently talking to a couple who had wider rims and 25mm tires... their conclusion... no difference in handling, marginally better comfort, but a 5 or 10psi drop would no doubt do the same thing.
I do not believe a 2mm difference is going to have a great difference on pinch punctures.

Personally the best handling tire I have used is a Pro4 comp, vitt latex tubes (I have no idea if these make a difference) on a 18mm rim, comes up as a 22, gave amazing grip and sharp instance handling with great stability. Used at 105/115 f/r the ride was on par with any tub I ve used.

I dont see the correlation between 6" and 7" car wheels, bikes don't produce many Gs of cornering and neither do they produce 100s of hp or torque and they don't weigh 1/2 a ton +.

As has been said it s a personal thing and no doubt if you ve spent £500 on wheels and tires, they will feel better esp if you are running them at 15psi below your normal 23mm pressures.

I am all for improvements in technology but this strikes me as, at best, marginal gain for quite a lot of outlay.

Bar Shaker

mamba80 wrote:

I am all for improvements in technology but this strikes me as, at best, marginal gain for quite a lot of outlay.

All gains are marginal and incremental in a sport where the materials science is reasonably well established.

I think the point is that there is an improvement and if you are buying new wheels, 23mm are the ones to go for.

ugo.santalucia

mamba80 wrote:

I have used them and was recently talking to a couple who had wider rims and 25mm tires... their conclusion... no difference in handling, marginally better comfort, but a 5 or 10psi drop would no doubt do the same thing.
I do not believe a 2mm difference is going to have a great difference on pinch punctures.

Personally the best handling tire I have used is a Pro4 comp, vitt latex tubes (I have no idea if these make a difference) on a 18mm rim, comes up as a 22, gave amazing grip and sharp instance handling with great stability. Used at 105/115 f/r the ride was on par with any tub I ve used.

I dont see the correlation between 6" and 7" car wheels, bikes don't produce many Gs of cornering and neither do they produce 100s of hp or torque and they don't weigh 1/2 a ton +.

As has been said it s a personal thing and no doubt if you ve spent £500 on wheels and tires, they will feel better esp if you are running them at 15psi below your normal 23mm pressures.

I am all for improvements in technology but this strikes me as, at best, marginal gain for quite a lot of outlay.

Recently I was in Italy, doing all the climbs and descents I used to do with narrower rims/tyres. I have exceeded all the top speeds I used to clock on the downhills by 2-5 Kmh... whether it is down to better handling/less braking or lower rolling resistance I can't tell for sure, being skeptical myself about the RR argument, I tend to think it's the former.

drlodge

If you are in the market for a new pair of wheels, why get narrower Open Pro or Excellight rims when you can get the wider archetypes for the same money...the gains may be marginal, but even marginal gains for no additional outlay is a benefit.

mamba80

drlodge wrote:

If you are in the market for a new pair of wheels, why get narrower Open Pro or Excellight rims when you can get the wider archetypes for the same money...the gains may be marginal, but even marginal gains for no additional outlay is a benefit.

I do agree with this, i am just sceptical about some of the claims made.

No doubt if you believe in something like your wheels/tires, then corner speeds increase, top speeds down passes go up.... as they did with me, on skinny pro4 comps and 18 mil rims.... either that or me an Ugo have become fat bas'terds

ugo.santalucia

mamba80 wrote:

either that or me an Ugo have become fat bas'terds

Speak for yourself, I look awesome! 8)

mamba80

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

I dont see the correlation between 6" and 7" car wheels, bikes don't produce many Gs of cornering and neither do they produce 100s of hp or torque and they don't weigh 1/2 a ton +.

A bike wheel is very narrow (18-23mm vs 170mm - circa 1/10th) and the tyre wall very thin and the tyre section very tall (there's also only two wheels rather than 4). So the bike and rider maybe 1/10th the weight, and the speeds may not be as high but I think it will make more different than you imagine - especially as the ratio of width of tyre to rim gets bigger. The HP and torque is pretty irrelevant.

robbo2011

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Recently I was in Italy, doing all the climbs and descents I used to do with narrower rims/tyres. I have exceeded all the top speeds I used to clock on the downhills by 2-5 Kmh... whether it is down to better handling/less braking or lower rolling resistance I can't tell for sure, being skeptical myself about the RR argument, I tend to think it's the former.

Ugo, when you say better handling, do you mean that you were on the limit of the cornering capability of the narrow rim/tyres and could not corner any faster? Or do you mean that the wider rims/tyres give you the extra confidence to corner faster, but you are still nowhere near the limits of traction with either?

I suspect it is the latter, unless you are descending at pro speeds. Nothing wrong with that, but I think the gains might be being slightly overstated.

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I dont see the correlation between 6" and 7" car wheels, bikes don't produce many Gs of cornering and neither do they produce 100s of hp or torque and they don't weigh 1/2 a ton +.

A bike wheel is very narrow (18-23mm vs 170mm - circa 1/10th) and the tyre wall very thin and the tyre section very tall (there's also only two wheels rather than 4). So the bike and rider maybe 1/10th the weight, and the speeds may not be as high but I think it will make more different than you imagine - especially as the ratio of width of tyre to rim gets bigger. The HP and torque is pretty irrelevant.

fwiw many cyclists cant ride down hill or corner and they are far away from the limits of their bike and wheel/tire technology.
there are no comparisons between motor sport - car or m/c - tire/wheel technologies, the demands on the systems are entirely different.
You can however think what ever you like about what I may or may not imagine, I have used both and I prefer a narrower tire/rim (nor could I tell any difference) and do not swallow this imo marketing BS but as always, if you can provide any scientific evidence, then I will reconsider, many top wheel and rim manufactures do not offer wider rims, why might that be?
If I need new wheels, then I would look at wider options, for a similar price.

ugo.santalucia

robbo2011 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Recently I was in Italy, doing all the climbs and descents I used to do with narrower rims/tyres. I have exceeded all the top speeds I used to clock on the downhills by 2-5 Kmh... whether it is down to better handling/less braking or lower rolling resistance I can't tell for sure, being skeptical myself about the RR argument, I tend to think it's the former.

Ugo, when you say better handling, do you mean that you were on the limit of the cornering capability of the narrow rim/tyres and could not corner any faster? Or do you mean that the wider rims/tyres give you the extra confidence to corner faster, but you are still nowhere near the limits of traction with either?

I suspect it is the latter, unless you are descending at pro speeds. Nothing wrong with that, but I think the gains might be being slightly overstated.

The latter of course. Knowing where the limit is, means going down quite a few times... I think we all play it safe for very obvious reasons.

meanredspider

mamba80 wrote:

there are no comparisons between motor sport - car or m/c - tire/wheel technologies, the demands on the systems are entirely different.

Do you want to expand on this a bit? I'd say (using both) that there are a number of similarities - they're doing the same job after all. The only big difference that I can see is temperature changes.