Wide tyres - I just don't get it

meanredspider

Svetty wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

mean spirit rider

Brilliant!

It’s very old zzzzzz It’s just that Malcolm likes to play the man rather than the ball. It’s why I don’t bother coming on here other than to remind myself why I don’t and see the same old tripe re-cycled.

meanredspider

Svetty wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

The difference in drag by using a narrow tyre is quite measureable. Here is just one set of data from hambini's blog.
What it clearly show is the difference in drag between a narrow and wide tyre is not just down to the width of the tyre but also the width difference between the tyre and rim. the difference may not be huge but if your buying aero wheels it is shame to squander half the gain by fitting a wide tyre.

Gotta love a bit of pseudoscience

The entire Enve data set is something like 183W +/- 1W

He’s used a charting technique that hides how small the difference is. I’d like to see that data with the confidence intervals plotted too. The accuracy of the PM must account for more than the difference let alone the other MSA influences.

I haven’t read the blog (I’m on a phone in Shanghai right now) so I can’t comment on the Shimano data set differences.

The graph is at a relatively modest 19mph and whilst the difference is small it is consistent. At higher speeds it will be more significant and for a serious tester will be worth exploiting as it's 'free speed' albeit small.

How do you KNOW that at higher speeds it will be more significant? It simply isn’t that simple, I’m afraid. These days I manage about 350 engineers testing our products and a good proportion of that is air flow. With insight like yours, I can make all of those guys redundant.... :roll:

svetty

Speaking pedantically you are right - I don't KNOW for sure 100%. But I wouldn't mind betting that a tyre:rim interface/combo that is draggy at 30kph IS going to be more draggy at 50. I've not seen much data on aero wheels that shows that the faster you go the less drag they produce but if you have it I'm sure the industry would be pleased to have the opportunity to expand the existing knowledge base.

rossa867

Hey, im a final year student looking to improving comfort between a bicycle and its user. I would greatly appreciate the time taken to fill in my survey, many thanks. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/FH2W2BR

neeb

rossa867 wrote:

Hey, im a final year student looking to improving comfort between a bicycle and its user. I would greatly appreciate the time taken to fill in my survey, many thanks. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/FH2W2BR

Survey completed, but I had some issues with it:

- For Q3 only one choice is possible for "cause of discomfort" experienced on a bicycle. I answered "fatigue", which I imagine everyone has experienced at one time or another. Some people will also have experienced multiple other causes of discomfort. This question should clearly allow multiple answers.

- On answering this question I was presented with "If you're answer above does not relate to component set-up or selection please skip to the final question". Firstly it would be advisable to correct the grammar here ("you're"). Secondly, as above, this is going to exclude eveyone from the core part of the survey whose single answer to Q3 didn't relate to component / set-up selection, even if they do regularly experience discomfort associated with such things.

First.Aspect

neeb wrote:

Firstly it would be advisable to correct the grammar here ("you're").

Jees, and this from a guy who did a degree requiring use of a crayon set, including several shades of green. Give the guy a break, he is just trying to get a degree.

It is irrational I know, but I've taken a dislike to you since you pulled the "I know more about science than you do" card to support a silly argument.

You probably don't, by the way.

neeb

First Aspect wrote:

neeb wrote:

Firstly it would be advisable to correct the grammar here ("you're").

Jees, and this from a guy who did a degree requiring use of a crayon set, including several shades of green. Give the guy a break, he is just trying to get a degree.

It is irrational I know, but I've taken a dislike to you since you pulled the "I know more about science than you do" card to support a silly argument.

You probably don't, by the way.

Yup, he's trying to get a degree in product design / market research so presentation is important. Do you think it would be better if he didn't change it and no-one told him about it, FFS?

The difference between you and me is that my dislike of you is entirely rational, as anyone can see from the thread above. I didn't "pull" anything, you started out by implying that I didn't know anything about science and I informed you otherwise. And I didn't say what you've mistakenly quoted. Probably I know a lot more about some areas than you do and visa versa.

You are basically just a deeply unpleasant person who can't deal with the fact that your cynical, arrogant and divisive attitudes towards other people don't always have the effects you intend.

First.Aspect

In just said "for example, speed" and then you just went rouge. I have said absolutely nothing about my own background or qualifications, because honestly it is irrelevant. Only you did that and only you suggested that I'm a lowly embittered lab tech.

Design is nothing to do with grammar.

It wasn't that bad a questionairre. I tried to be helpful to him.

neeb

First Aspect wrote:

In just said "for example, speed" and then you just went rouge. I have said absolutely nothing about my own background or qualifications, because honestly it is irrelevant. Only you did that and only you suggested that I'm a lowly embittered lab tech.

Design is nothing to do with grammar.

It wasn't that bad a questionairre. I tried to be helpful to him.

Like most truly unpleasant people you use sarcasm and passive-agressive tactics to make your points and then use that indirectness as a basis for denial and distortion later on.

Your "for example, speed" comment was obviously highly sarcastic.

Your "What do I know about Science and Engineering" comment was clearly communicating "I know far more about Science and Engineering than you do".

Show me where you were trying to be helpful to rossa867. I was offering constructive criticism.

neeb

P.S.

First Aspect wrote:

I have said absolutely nothing about my own background or qualifications, because honestly it is irrelevant. Only you did that and only you suggested that I'm a lowly embittered lab tech.

I agree it's irrelevant. The only reason it came up was because you asked directly - you said "Are you are scientist then"?

Obviously my particular qualifications are (almost) entirely irrelevant here. I suspect that yours aren't, which makes your attitude all the more arrogant and unpleasant.

First.Aspect

neeb wrote:

P.S.

First Aspect wrote:

I have said absolutely nothing about my own background or qualifications, because honestly it is irrelevant. Only you did that and only you suggested that I'm a lowly embittered lab tech.

I agree it's irrelevant. The only reason it came up was because you asked directly - you said "Are you are scientist then"?

Obviously my particular qualifications are (almost) entirely irrelevant here. I suspect that yours aren't, which makes your attitude all the more arrogant and unpleasant.

Not sure why asking you, in response to prompting, if you are a scientist, is arrogant. Also not sure why pointing out that your entire premise was possibly, but not necessarily, flawed, is either arrogant or unpleasant.

I would guess that you have a PhD and a 2.1 from somewhere respectable, and that you work for either a university or more likely in industrial r&d. I'd plump for the latter, on account of the chip on your shoulder.

neeb

First Aspect wrote:

neeb wrote:

P.S.

First Aspect wrote:

I have said absolutely nothing about my own background or qualifications, because honestly it is irrelevant. Only you did that and only you suggested that I'm a lowly embittered lab tech.

I agree it's irrelevant. The only reason it came up was because you asked directly - you said "Are you are scientist then"?

Obviously my particular qualifications are (almost) entirely irrelevant here. I suspect that yours aren't, which makes your attitude all the more arrogant and unpleasant.

Not sure why asking you, in response to prompting, if you are a scientist, is arrogant. Also not sure why pointing out that your entire premise was possibly, but not necessarily, flawed, is either arrogant or unpleasant.

I would guess that you have a PhD and a 2.1 from somewhere respectable, and that you work for either a university or more likely in industrial r&d. I'd plump for the latter, on account of the chip on your shoulder.

I didn't say that your asking that was arrogant, that's an obvious diversionary tactic falsely conflating the two points I was making.

And it wasn't the pointing out of potential flaws in my premise that was arrogant or unpleasant, it was the way that you went about it. I like having my thinking/assumptions modified or improved, it's why I posted my (admittedly initially not fully-baked) ideas in the first place. I was puzzled by the discrepancy between my impressions and those of others and wanted to learn stuff. In the end I did, but you didn't help much.

I don't work in industrial r&d, that might actually be vaguely relevant here, my speciality certainly isn't.

First.Aspect

Okay.

pblakeney

Oh come on, have a fight , or get a room together.
One of the two.

cycleclinic

I put a 22mm gatorskin tub in place of a 25mm gatorskin tub that punctured on the front wheel After the first ride on that, I could have easily conned myself into thinking the 22mm tyre was faster. It felt more lively. I don't think it was faster but it felt less dead. That's gator skin tubs for you though. I hate them. I love to hate them, so I keep riding them. Is there something wrong with me? No need to answer that.