Tyres 23 v 25mm Pros & Cons

MisterMuncher

Tubeless 25 on wide rims are a revelation. Apart from shaving weight, my desire for tubs is all but gone.

bianchibob

Flasher wrote:

Conti GP4000s 23mm once fitted and inflated measure up to very nearly 25mm, likewise 25's measure nearly 27mm.

You are correct, I measured my Conti 4000 GP 23mm and inflated to around 100psi they came in at just under 25mm. This would mean a 25 mm would be nearer to 27mminflated. Checked my Bianchi and I think the 25 - 27mm would give me minimal clearance .

I have therefore decided to go back to original Continental GP 4000 23mm.

Bonus is they are on clearance with Chain Reaction at £19.99 each. Seems good value.

Will play with pressures to soften ride slightly.

IShaggy

bianchibob wrote:

I have therefore decided to go back to original Continental GP 4000 23mm.

Bonus is they are on clearance with Chain Reaction at £19.99 each. Seems good value.

This is the best thing about the current 25mm mania. Lots of 23mm tyres going cheap. I'm very happy with 23mm tyres. They suit my old-skool narrow rims. So I'm filling my boots.

There's an interrestiung article here - http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle ... e_2014.pdf

1.4w saving in rolling resistance when switching from 23 to 25mm conti 4000 s II's. But stick 25's on a narrow rim and air resistance may increase. They don't say much about their testing protocol, so take the results with a pinch of salt.

Anonymous

bernithebiker wrote:

If you're looking for a smoother ride and a nicer feel, (possibly better handling?) then maybe try a 23 tubular, rather than going for the 25mm clincher.

Obviously this will involve you having to buy some tubular wheels.......

Yeah like thats going to happen

People say they want these things and rave about 25mm, but only because little money, effort and knowledge are required :roll:

Imagine if KFC and Gregs were rumoured to be good for weight loss. Fatties would be straight in their car mouthing off about wanting to be thin.

Going for a run? ......... not so much!

FransJacques

It's a fad with non-racers that's alive and well in the UK but nowhere else. Try finding a 25mm tyre in Bourg d'Oisans or Pollensa.

If you want fatter tyres go for it. But please dont claim it makes you faster. They only measure crr accurately on a steel drum in a lab.

You can also let air out of 20s, 22s, or 23s.

By all means try it. But in the summer when the weather is warm, try your 23s again and enjoy the speed

meanredspider

FransJacques wrote:

It's a fad with non-racers that's alive and well in the UK but nowhere else.

I don't think that's accurate. It maybe taking longer to take hold in some places but my Volagi came fitted with 25c from California 4 years ago and the Dutch guys I ride with are mostly on 25c. Bourg D'Oisans is in a bubble of its own - could hardly find any disc pads to talk of.

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

sloppyschleckonds

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

bernithebiker

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

Strava, innit.

meanredspider

bernithebiker wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

Strava, innit.

Nope - I did my commute over a number of months swapping the tyres backwards and forwards in a pretty random fashion. Not double-blind or especially scientific but the average speeds (Garmin 800) of the round trips (30-mile RT). Same bike, same tubes, same rider, same route - mixed up timings. It's good enough FOR ME to know that 25c are at least as quick for the riding I do. I should clarify that my commute was just a road bike trip - almost no cars, one set of lights, full Lycra, no baggage at all on a Focus Cayo running RS80s. I'd happily listen to anybody that could come up with a more effective practical test to decide which tyres work better for an individual. The average speed of the 25c was 0.5mph faster. Small but I also know how much more effort I needed to put into my commute to achieve 20mph average speed over 19.5mph. I'm sold honestly I don't much give a toss whatever anybody else rides. YMMV

robbo2011

That is not a small difference, 0.5 mph is huge in this context. Not sure it can be explained by a couple of watts difference in rolling resistance between the tyres but hey ho.

apreading

Exactly, as well as the reduction in rolling resistance (which has been measured plenty of times by science, not just blokes with bikes) there is the fact that surface imperfections are handled much better and you can maintain more speed as well as suffering less fatigue.

Unless the bike wont fit bigger tyres, then the only people on 23s are those locked into thats the way it has always been and I am not changing because I would rather stick with what I know or those who want to emulate what they think the pros do (although the pros are increasingly going 25).

meanredspider

robbo2011 wrote:

That is not a small difference, 0.5 mph is huge in this context. Not sure it can be explained by a couple of watts difference in rolling resistance between the tyres but hey ho.

Yup - but I'm not foolish enough to think that's a scientifically accurate number. The point is that they were quicker FOR ME on MY ROUTE. It wouldn't, though, make a lot of sense for me to ride on 23c just because someone else thinks that 25c is a British "fad". Someone made the point earlier in the thread that you should ride the tyres that suit you - I couldn't agree more.

thegreatdivide

apreading wrote:

Unless the bike wont fit bigger tyres, then the only people on 23s are those locked into thats the way it has always been and I am not changing because I would rather stick with what I know or those who want to emulate what they think the pros do (although the pros are increasingly going 25).

A little bit patronising. I started riding 25's in 2010. Went back to 23's after a year or so because I could feel zero benefit to my overall performance. I now ride a range of good quality 23's in tub and clinchers on some very fancy wheels and I'm doing just fine. I can guarantee you my Veloflex Carbon tubs will give a much better road feel than a 25mm Continental hosepipe.

robbo2011

I don't know anybody that is on 25mm tyres over here, but then the roads are glass smooth so in reality i suspect there would be very little difference.

Maybe this is why it is a British fad, the roads are so god damned awful that you benefit from bigger tyres.

meanredspider

thegreatdivide wrote:

I can guarantee you my Veloflex Carbon tubs will give a much better road feel than a 25mm Continental hosepipe.

There's little point in comparing tyre types in this thread.

slam that stem

meanredspider wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

It's a fad with non-racers that's alive and well in the UK but nowhere else.

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

Commendable you actually did some testing in the field to see what worked for you. Some people have only ridden 2 types of tyres - the one their Canyon came with and the ones they bought b/c BR told them 23s were manufactured by an ISIS/Farage joint venture.

I race on 23s b/c I want to go fast and don't care what hurts. When I'm being dropped over the brow of a hill I don't want contact patch and plus 85psi road feel. Time and place for that. Plus I compete against people on 22mm tube who have cornering, weight and suppleness over me in spades. Ultremos are what I trust.

I train on a mix of 23s/25s/28s.

23s or 21s are all I ride at the track. That's one venue where a 25 or 28 would slow you down. When you're going from 45 to 60 when sprinting aero effect is real.

mfin

meanredspider wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I can guarantee you my Veloflex Carbon tubs will give a much better road feel than a 25mm Continental hosepipe.

There's little point in comparing tyre types in this thread.

He's right though.

meanredspider

mfin wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I can guarantee you my Veloflex Carbon tubs will give a much better road feel than a 25mm Continental hosepipe.

There's little point in comparing tyre types in this thread.

He's right though.

Of course he is - in the same way that I don't ride on Bontrager Hardcase tyres - they're like riding in treacle. I doubt anyone would argue that the construction of a tyre doesn't matter though.

bernithebiker

meanredspider wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

Strava, innit.

Nope - I did my commute over a number of months swapping the tyres backwards and forwards in a pretty random fashion. Not double-blind or especially scientific but the average speeds (Garmin 800) of the round trips (30-mile RT). Same bike, same tubes, same rider, same route - mixed up timings. It's good enough FOR ME to know that 25c are at least as quick for the riding I do. I should clarify that my commute was just a road bike trip - almost no cars, one set of lights, full Lycra, no baggage at all on a Focus Cayo running RS80s. I'd happily listen to anybody that could come up with a more effective practical test to decide which tyres work better for an individual. The average speed of the 25c was 0.5mph faster. Small but I also know how much more effort I needed to put into my commute to achieve 20mph average speed over 19.5mph. I'm sold honestly I don't much give a toss whatever anybody else rides. YMMV

Sorry, but unless you rode in a vacuum, you cannot possibly draw the conclusions that you are.

The slightest change in wind strength or direction would have affected you speed far more than 1W of saving from the tyres.

bernithebiker

mfin wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

I can guarantee you my Veloflex Carbon tubs will give a much better road feel than a 25mm Continental hosepipe.

There's little point in comparing tyre types in this thread.

He's right though.

+1

ai_1

bernithebiker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

Strava, innit.

Nope - I did my commute over a number of months swapping the tyres backwards and forwards in a pretty random fashion. Not double-blind or especially scientific but the average speeds (Garmin 800) of the round trips (30-mile RT). Same bike, same tubes, same rider, same route - mixed up timings. It's good enough FOR ME to know that 25c are at least as quick for the riding I do. I should clarify that my commute was just a road bike trip - almost no cars, one set of lights, full Lycra, no baggage at all on a Focus Cayo running RS80s. I'd happily listen to anybody that could come up with a more effective practical test to decide which tyres work better for an individual. The average speed of the 25c was 0.5mph faster. Small but I also know how much more effort I needed to put into my commute to achieve 20mph average speed over 19.5mph. I'm sold honestly I don't much give a toss whatever anybody else rides. YMMV

Sorry, but unless you rode in a vacuum, you cannot possibly draw the conclusions that you are.

The slightest change in wind strength or direction would have affected you speed far more than 1W of saving from the tyres.

To be fair, as I understand it he's averaged this over numerous rides of the same route on each setup so the effects of varying form and weather conditions between rides will be largely mitigated. Also he's stated that he doesn't claim this to be a scientifically rigorous analysis.
However, 0.5mph is a significant difference, far too much in my opinion to be due to the tyres alone.

IShaggy

robbo2011 wrote:

That is not a small difference, 0.5 mph is huge in this context. Not sure it can be explained by a couple of watts difference in rolling resistance between the tyres but hey ho.

15 to 20 watts according to this - http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

bernithebiker

IShaggy wrote:

robbo2011 wrote:

That is not a small difference, 0.5 mph is huge in this context. Not sure it can be explained by a couple of watts difference in rolling resistance between the tyres but hey ho.

15 to 20 watts according to this - http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

By going from 23 to 25? No way.

meanredspider

Ai_1 wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I did the test of 23c and 25c back and forth with no prejudice - 25c were quicker for me. No reason to go back.

What type of 'test' was this?

Strava, innit.

Nope - I did my commute over a number of months swapping the tyres backwards and forwards in a pretty random fashion. Not double-blind or especially scientific but the average speeds (Garmin 800) of the round trips (30-mile RT). Same bike, same tubes, same rider, same route - mixed up timings. It's good enough FOR ME to know that 25c are at least as quick for the riding I do. I should clarify that my commute was just a road bike trip - almost no cars, one set of lights, full Lycra, no baggage at all on a Focus Cayo running RS80s. I'd happily listen to anybody that could come up with a more effective practical test to decide which tyres work better for an individual. The average speed of the 25c was 0.5mph faster. Small but I also know how much more effort I needed to put into my commute to achieve 20mph average speed over 19.5mph. I'm sold honestly I don't much give a toss whatever anybody else rides. YMMV

Sorry, but unless you rode in a vacuum, you cannot possibly draw the conclusions that you are.

The slightest change in wind strength or direction would have affected you speed far more than 1W of saving from the tyres.

To be fair, as I understand it he's averaged this over numerous rides of the same route on each setup so the effects of varying form and weather conditions between rides will be largely mitigated. Also he's stated that he doesn't claim this to be a scientifically rigorous analysis.
However, 0.5mph is a significant difference, far too much in my opinion to be due to the tyres alone.

Yup - you understood what I wrote. I swapped the tyres backwards and forwards too in a pseudo-random manner. By doing a regular route, I mitigated the effects of riding it in a different way. The times were generally very similar. I think the steel roller tests actually understate the real effects of tyres. It's only measuring one aspect of rolling resistance on a "perfect" surface. One of the theories related to wider tyres is that more compliance uses up less energy in vertical movement on rough surfaces. Correct or not, there's no doubt that tyre dynamics are far more complex than a steel drum (unless you ride on a steel drum normally). Anyhow, the results told me that I'm unlikely to be wrong in using 25c myself.

bernithebiker

For your test to have any real meaning, you would need to average out the mean wind speed for each tyre.

For example; 23's, 10 rides, wind speed 12mph, from 240'.

Then 25's, 10 rides, wind speed 14mph from 190'.

See what I mean? Unless you have that info (which I doubt), and unless the 2 mean windspeeds are very similar, you can't really draw conclusions about the 1 or 2 watts that might come from the tyres. Aero factors have vastly more impact on your speed.

And lets not even get into fitness levels, fatigue, rain on road, etc. etc.

mfin

Why don't you swap one of them back and see if you're only 0.25mph quicker? ...sorry forget that, that's not scientific as your methods. Oh hang on, that's exactly what it is.

napoleond

Meh. I think this fat tyre business is a marketing fad.

apreading

Yeah, what will they come up with next... First they said wheels should be round, then they invented pneumatic tyres, now they are telling us that wider tyres are better - all just fads!

meanredspider

bernithebiker wrote:

For your test to have any real meaning, you would need to average out the mean wind speed for each tyre.

For example; 23's, 10 rides, wind speed 12mph, from 240'.

Then 25's, 10 rides, wind speed 14mph from 190'.

See what I mean? Unless you have that info (which I doubt), and unless the 2 mean windspeeds are very similar, you can't really draw conclusions about the 1 or 2 watts that might come from the tyres. Aero factors have vastly more impact on your speed.

And lets not even get into fitness levels, fatigue, rain on road, etc. etc.

Actually wind had very little impact on my commute speeds, full stop, maybe because the prevailing winds were generally at 90deg to the route and because the route is pretty sheltered by forests and hills. As for the other factors, that's exactly why a commute is a good test: fitness, fatigue etc are mitigated by the fact that it's a very regular ride. Besides that, mixing up the rides further mitigates all effects.

But let's be clear about what I'm saying: the 25c is no slower so it suits me better. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp. Maybe I should recruit 100 riders and do a double-blind (if that's possible with tyre width) test of a year of riding using top notch power meters, weather measurement, fitness test etc etc?? Since no-one else on here seems to have even tried testing this, you might not like my approach or result, but if you have better data that flies in the face of my result, feel free to share it.

bernithebiker

meanredspider wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

For your test to have any real meaning, you would need to average out the mean wind speed for each tyre.

For example; 23's, 10 rides, wind speed 12mph, from 240'.

Then 25's, 10 rides, wind speed 14mph from 190'.

See what I mean? Unless you have that info (which I doubt), and unless the 2 mean windspeeds are very similar, you can't really draw conclusions about the 1 or 2 watts that might come from the tyres. Aero factors have vastly more impact on your speed.

And lets not even get into fitness levels, fatigue, rain on road, etc. etc.

Actually wind had very little impact on my commute speeds, full stop, maybe because the prevailing winds were generally at 90deg to the route and because the route is pretty sheltered by forests and hills. As for the other factors, that's exactly why a commute is a good test: fitness, fatigue etc are mitigated by the fact that it's a very regular ride. Besides that, mixing up the rides further mitigates all effects.

But let's be clear about what I'm saying: the 25c is no slower so it suits me better. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp. Maybe I should recruit 100 riders and do a double-blind (if that's possible with tyre width) test of a year of riding using top notch power meters, weather measurement, fitness test etc etc?? Since no-one else on here seems to have even tried testing this, you might not like my approach or result, but if you have better data that flies in the face of my result, feel free to share it.

The reason I haven't tried testing it is because it's impossible to test outside of a lab.

You cannot simply palm off the wind by saying 'it had very little impact'. A slight breeze (5mph) headwind, versus the same as a tailwind makes a big difference to your speed, maybe you don't think so, but it does.

Have you even considered temperature? This can add up to 2.5km/h for a change of 30'C, so work back proportionally. Was your chain equally clean for each ride ( +/- 1W).??

It is hard enough trying to discern the effects of something major like body position, or aero wheels (where you might hope to gain 1 or 2km/h, or 20W or so).

Trying to measure 1 or 2W of difference due to tyres (which would possibly give you 0.1km/h) is nigh on impossible on the open road. That is what I'm trying to say.