Test rim width next! 2.35 tires on 21mm, 24mm, 27mm, and 30mm internal width rims(Easton has 24, 27, 30 internal on their arch line). Decreasing pressure as you increase width to maintain tension(modifying your equation to T=P*((Tire Casing Width+Internal Rim Width)/3.14) )
Hi Ian. Thanks for the mentioned equation. We verified the calculation in an experiment with different rim widths and it works. However, I can't see the mathematical logic behind. Could you give me a hint?
Beat Müller I have a carbon rims with 23mm internal rim, I have serius problems in loose terrain because I’m really “blockish”, 2.35 (rekon, ardent, etc...) in the front will be ok?, or is it too narrow for 2:35?? Thanks
@@alejandrog.c1939 good enough, mayby my comment will help someone. 25mm internal works perfectly for 2,35 Maxxis, 23mm internal should too, aspecially because Maxxis tires are a bit undersized.
This is one of the best efforts to control variables I have seen for this type of video. Well done. I was glad you set the tires to an appropriate pressure for their size, but wouldn't have thought of using Laplace's law!
Different Rim widths would be amazing tests, Old standard of 19mm internal width with a 2.0 tire, and a 2.35 or 2.5 with a 24mm internal width, then you can also include the standard 2.2 tire with a 21mm rim
I'm impressed, you guys have come a long way from your first experiments on the channel! You prefaced the experiment saying that you don't expect your results to be scientific, but I'd say you got some good data. The number of trials you did and the tests you used seemed sufficient. Keep it up!
@@CowneloAlvaroid Ardent has a better rolling, which is suitable for rear wheel and ikon on the front for better grip and controlling. I know it's a 2 year old comment, still this would be helpful to others.
Hey XC rider! I've been used different tyre from early from 1.90/ 95 till now I'm used 2.20 & 2.25 (on different mtb). They are superb and feel the different (track) tyre size from 1.9 till recent 2.2! As I can said for all rounder trail! Greetings from XC rider Kuala Lumpur.
Nice Experiment, your conclusions makes sense to me. This has been my experience. Always used 2.2 X-King but recently tried 2.4 on the front, felted more rolling resistance because of the bigger knobs, but the grip is outstanding. Last year used 2.35 Ikon on the front and the good thing about this specific tire is that is the same size knobs but spreaded on a wider tire = same rolling resistance as 2.2 with better grip. I just ordered Vittoria Mezcal 2.25 because now I'm running Aspen 2.1 and they have very low grip and are really narrow compared with 2.2 Ardent Race on the front (good grip and fast but heavy tire). Thanks for the quality of your content
One possible point to doing experiments is to go outside of what is "normal", i.e. include tire sizes that XC racers aren't even looking at, like 2.6 or even +3.0. Because with 2 data points, (2.0 and 2.35) you're always going to have a straight line. Would multiple widths show a trend from narrow to wide, or would there indeed be a sweet spot. I know it would be a lot of work, but it would also be a lot of downhill runs, so fun.
For the XC lap, best to compare the product of time and power instead, average energy output. It would be better to average the instantaneous energy outputs, but roughly the 2.0 required 179 kJ vs 182 kJ on the 2.3. Makes sense since the 2.3 is heavier. Playing number games, if you applied the same amount of power to the 2.0 as the 2.3, you would have finished the lap faster with 9:14.45
Normalized vs Average Watts. I believe that you should have used average Watts rather than normalized power. Normalized power is analogous to Root Mean Square (RMS), but to the 4th power, then using the 4th root, rather than the second as the RMS. This is done to get an estimate of impact on the body of the Wattage variation or spikiness - physiological impact. This does is not directly the power input that propels the bike, which is what you actually wanted to measure here. That said, there average Watts is also only an estimate to the bike power input in the two comparisons, because it does also depend on under what conditions those Watts were used. For example, you could get the same average Watts in two comparisons, but different outcomes due to variation of application or distribution of the Watts across the rides. It would be very difficult to have meaning of a second and half difference with all these other estimated variables. What I could get out of the experiment is that they appear to perform similarly on time. So then get what otherwise suits you best, comfort, feel, availability, etc.
Just a suggestion, get a really good, stable E-BIKE and then simply put it on max speed of xx and go for 500m without any jumps or stuff like that on a possibly flat terrain with simple line to follow and then measure the speed =)
I find your suggestion pretty worthy, but that would do good for a road bike or a road-race scenario. It wouldn't shed any conclusions on Enduro/All mountain tracks. Plus on enduro, e-bikes wouldn't give you much analysis in terms of power that we throw in.
Dhananjay Bhardwaj Well they said the tyres are made for less rolling resistance and not softening the bumps, jumps, rocks, etc. So you should know which tyre is faster, after all most of the track is flat anyways and maybe I said it in the wrong way i didnt meant road flat i meant small rocks, small roots and stuff like that where the tyre is gonna be most of the time and where you can follow a straight line but yeah then it comes to grips in corners and that chagnes stuff, true
Tony Eatinsky - I scrolled down to the comments to say make this suggestion, thinking I'm gonna have a really witty smart comment...oh well, haha, glad we're both thinking on a similar wave length. I hope they try this test too.
always enjoy these analysis videos! keep them up, you're one of the few cycling channels that provide information this accurate matched with high production value
I think a lot depends upon the terrain. Wide tyres are good for the sort of woodland and tracks that you showed in the video, but for climbing on grass, for example, fatter tyres can slow you down. Am am lucky in that I have winter and summer bikes. The summer machine has 2.1 tyres fitted, with slightly lower pressure. This is because the ground tends to be a bit dryer in the summer and a bit more solid. So a bit of tyre suspension will give a plusher ride. However, in the winter I want a tyre that will cut through the clag, not getting clogged up, but also able to get to the grippy stuff under the mud, rather than floating over the mud. So in winter I run with 1.8 Panaracers. The Fire XC pro also has the benefit of being able to get on and off the rim quite easily, which is handy when you are in the middle of nowhere. So, in Summer I run with 2.1 s with small profile nobblies. A summer tyre. In winter I run with more pressure, but skinnies. Works for me. Luck
Back when I used to actively ride MTB (26ers),I had a preference for wide front tyres & narrow rears...Usually a 2.1 front with a 1.95 rear...And usually a blocky,directional type tread on the rear with a knobbly unidirectional tread on the front...
Dia buat perbandingan masa, keberkesanan, dan wattage.. pada pelbagai permukaan jalan.. antara sepasang 2.0 dgn sepasang 2.3.. ksimpulannya 2.3 lbh efektif dan cepat pd pelbagai permukaan jalan brbanding 2.0.. tp dr segi wattage, 2.3 effort dia lbh byk dr 2.0..
Dr segi sedap, rasanya depan 2.1dgn belakang 1.95 mmg sedap tp tidak pada semua permukaan.. ikut pngalaman sy bila masuk seksyen jalan yg agak loose mcm batu2 loose @ pasir2 loose yg libatkan climbing dan descend.. 1.95 samada belakang shj @ dua² pakai 1.95 mmg x sedap.. agak payah nk kontrol.. climbing akan spin sikit2.. berbanding dgn tayar 2.1 ke atas.. sy pernah cuba kedua2 depan belakang sama saiz 1.95 dan 2.1 & combo belakang 1.95 n 2.1 depan.. 2.1 lbh efisien.. sekadar berkongsi
I accidentally ordered 2.125" tires for my 20" GT bmx which I used off and on road. Putting the heavy tires on, the bike was so noisy, like an F250 on TSL Boggers. It was SO SLOW. I had to pedal my legs out to keep up with my friends. I replaced them with 1.50" and got fast. BMX track (hardpacked dirt and little gravel) performance was great. Riding my aluminum GT 24" bmx around the city, switching from 1.75" tires down to 1.50" tires increased speed, acceleration, reduced rider fatigue.
The wider tire was still faster on the last test despite the difference in watts, you would have required 328W on the 2.0 to match the time of the 2.35 tire.
Now do the same thing as a group comparison between the top 10 brands at 2.25 size. This would be a massive undertaking, but super useful to anyone racing XC. Fantastic video, more of this and more real science. It's 2016, real data over individual opinions is vital.
@@hobbesthetiger7468 their tests are not tests most of the time, they are just advertisements pretty much, and they are repeating themselves over and over now, I stopped watching about a year or so ago. I think the issue with this channel is that they are still sticking to that shitload of videos per week formula which is not needed anymore as the channel is big enough, and they are struggling to put out quality/original content.
This is all okay on a trail centre course that has a load of hardcore stone covered fire roads and trails, but come up to the Lake District and ride some natural trails with a load of muddy slop, and you will find that a slim tyre will sink through the mud faster and get to the hard grippy stuff. I used to race xc and had a range of tyres and changed them depending on the track and conditions on the day.
What internal rim width was this test done with? I am wondering if the 2.35 IKON is too wide for my 19mm internal width rim. BTW, ON PAPER if equal wattages would have been layed down I believe the lap time would have been 9:42 on the wider tires. 8 seconds slower than the narrower tire.
@@hulktruck3264 I can read, didn't need to send it twice. Also, that comment was 2 years ago. Also, STFU? Really, you are that upset about a comment on UA-cam? Wow...you need more in your life.
I think rear suspension plays into this also. I suspect the fastest tire size is the lowest volume that reduces general trail chatter to negligible levels, which should be thinner on full sus.
Would be interesting a 5/5 rolling 3/5 grip tires with soft compound vs a wider 3/5 rolling 5/5 grip medium compound tires. What do you think is faster, in general?
By having a lower pressure in the wider tire, there's actually a larger contact patch. I'm not sure how that plays out in terms of rolling resistance. I'm curious how Bontrager came up with that equation. I've never heard of it before. Physics! Hey I don't feel so pissed off about my pristine trails being shredded by loggers. It looks like we've all got forest issues.
They were heavy but I loved the set of Panaracer Fire FR's I had on an old bike. At 2.4" wide and a tread like a motocross tire they could go anywhere, if they were lighter they would have been my perfect tire.
The added weight of larger tires and wheels is negligible when compared to the benefits of reduced rolling resistance and increased grip. And the proof is really simple, just think about what wheel sizes are being raced at world cups nowadays, versus what was being raced ten years ago. Larger wheels do require more energy to get up to speed, but the major difference comes from the increased mass itself and not the fact that it is rotating.
@@enricolionello9044 Nope. The area of the contact surface actually makes less diference on tarmac versus lose soil. On smooth surfaces the friction force depends on the coeficent of friction between the materials and the force perpendicular to the plain, not so much on the area of contact, but on lose soil, since there is very little friction between the materials, the friction depends more on how the tire digs in, and thus on the area of contact, since a larger area means more knobs digging in on the dirt. Just think of ice as an extreme example. The friction between rubber and ice is very low, so the tires have metal spikes to dig into the ice. Meanwhile F1 cars and GP bikes have a plain tires.
Variables: 235 weight changes your suspension preload which translates to minuscule amount of plushness from slower rebound, a slightly larger final circumference, final drive ratio, a higher ride and tiny change in rake, effecting downhill cornering positively at the point of banking in to it with more grip... Basically smoother and confident. More power delivered attributed by percentage of weight gain and final drive circumference ...Hmmmn. Speed through confidence, more power needed at same cadence. Which one would you ride further or longer? Can feel the difference between 195 and 210 for sure!
Easy, just follow the pro on UCI. On a race like that, I think they are not going to take the risk of using a wrong tire. My observation: most of them using narrower tire :)
In our country, our course here has a mixture of road and off-road. I think 2.1 is better. I’ve tried the 2.3 and they are so hard to spin in the rear and very heavy.
Not sure about using that tension formula. As the tire deforms under weight, there is an area contact patch. It's not being supported by a single line across the tire. I suggest squaring the tire width.
This is not just a comparison of wider tire versus narrow. The 2.35 Ikon knobs are taller and more aggressive than the 2.0. Since they grip better a smart rider can carry speed through the rough stuff and corners and waste less energy in braking.
Ikon 2.2 also feel rougher with smaller casing. I think i prefer a 2.25 minimum for varied conditions which is not an Ikon option. The 2.2 do spin up fast though and easy to hold momentum. Ikon is ideal where speed and momentum is the focus, for mostly hardpack to loose. For loose rocks (not gravel size) something more aggressive is ideal maybe like a Rekon. maybe this is where the Ikon 2.3 steps in..
i thought the same, a 29er vs a + in the same frame, thats' what people actually want to know, not if a slightly wider tyre is better, they can do that themselves with minimal outlay compared to a new wheelset & tyres.
Hi James, you're in luck as we've done just that - 29er vs 650B+ (this was the test Seb did that Joe name dropped at the start) ua-cam.com/video/w6TMA2vI8bA/v-deo.html
what about 29+. thinking about buying a trek stache 7 29+ and I want to know how agile it feels in comparison to smaller/thinner wheels. thanks for any reponses BikeRadar
Ultimately the tire style should make more difference. I have Xcaliber 8. 3rd one since 2008. Small Block 8 was my favourite rear tire before. There appears to be a better version the Kozmik lite II. I see no reason to change the front XR2 but 2.2" happens to be available. My old Small Block 8 was a 2.1" You need to compare a long fast sweeping descent on hardpack.
I dig the RoRo's too. But they do not hold up in sharp rocky conditions. I tore off a number of side nobs and had to bin the tires. Great tires though for the right terrain. (hardpack to loose) but not loose rocks or sharp bedrock.
Great video. I was debating between 2.1/2.25 vs 2.35 for Oramm that has almost 11000' of climbing that has some pretty fast and aggressive downhill in 60 miles. This helped solidify my decision to stick with the wider tires Im used to and prefer...
You can't reach a conclusion from that data- you've started to go about measuring things in the right way by recording power output and aiming for consistency, but the differences are so marginal that any difference can be swallowed up by power output differences, timing errors, etc. For example, you're talking 1.5secs difference on a 140sec test, which is 1%- a tiny difference, and not conclusive. The only real way you could do it is by having a rolling resistance rig with defined, constant, measurable power outputs. Sorry to put a downer on things, but I'm a process engineer who works with Six Sigma methodology (worth researching), so had to comment! It's good that these sorts of differences are being explored, at least.
Fat tire lap was 98.4% of the skinny tire lap, faster by 1.6%. Power required for the faster lap was 3.5% greater than the slower lap. Based on this the fatter tires were less efficient.
A ratio of time to watts is not valid because time and power are inversely related. Consider if the times had been identical: by your logic the win would go to the higher wattage, which doesn't make sense.
Meh, constant accelerations mean more fatigue for the rider over longer distances. More rotating weight means more effort to get up to speed - such as when chasing another rider or trying to pull away. 1.5 hours in singletrack at race efforts and an extra pound of rotating weight is a lot.
Ken Goddard I think that difference is much larger between lower end tires. Factor in sealant volume if running tubeless and the weight different is further greater.
The rotating mass argument neglects that once put the energy into the wheel-tire, you'll get to keep it too. This is why the bigger tires did better on the climb test and the fire road descent. There's a bunch of micro decelerations that happen on bumpy track. The bigger tires don't have as much loss there so more of your leg power goes to forward velocity rather than reaccelerating. Bigger tires are more micro suspension and suspension wins.
William Nesse If Nino Schurter were winning on wider tires, I'd believe your argument. Many years ago I went from 1.95 to a knobby 2.1 but felt that the extra weight cost me time, even if it were more comforting. My steel CX with 35c tires are faster on rough gravel than my carbon XTC advanced with smooth 2.0 in tread. The wider tires will get me up loose climbs but it loses in acceleration and that accumulation is more fatigue and slower times overall. Sure enough as I check Nino's bike spec's, his 650b bike has 1.96 inch tires and I myself decided that for XC racing, anything larger than 2.0 would be more heavy than fast.
What wheel size are you running? If rotational weight really is a problem, I presume you are running 26"? If not, well, you get where I'm going. I guess that's the whole "problem" with the bike industry really. If there were a robust testing what is optimum for racing - in terms gear count, ratios, tyre width, wheel diameter, bike dimensions, etc. etc. - we wouldnt have had these arguments. These "innovations" are keeping the bike industry interesting, but at the expense of us as buyers. I know plenty of people who want to sell their 2016 bikes, just to get the latest tech from 2017. Cause Specialized or Trek or whoever threw in a few marketing gizmos. The Apple syndrome. I guess my point is, arguments won't be won over the internet, because no one actually knows what really is the best.
Testing different rim widths would be more interesting. Wide rims are the "it" thing now. See if there is an actual significant difference between going 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, etc wider. Use the same size tire for all rim widths.
my old xc came with 2.0 and I haven't ridden it in years. the I guess the max is a 2.4 so thinking about doing those or 2.35 because it still has the factory tires on it. hopefully I will start riding it again.
The results are confusing because they indicate that the fatter the tire the lower the rolling resistance. Why then are gravel bikes faster than regular mountain bikes? And why are regular mountain bikes faster than fat bikes? According to bicyclerollingresistance.com the resistance starts to increase with balloon tires and fat tires have up to 50 Watts resistance. 40mm gravel tires are below 20 Watts. That's independent of tire profile. Maybe you could explain that in a video? Cheers.
What about rim width, i just changed the stock wheels on my Scott 735 to a set on DT Swiss 1501 22.5 mm and 2.25 Racing Ralph up from 17 mm 2.1 Rocket Ron Ride definitely smoother on a hardtail but can't say faster on the hills possibly in part due to about 800g in weight. Hope to hear from you and keep those hardtail vids coming.
The test is in every way scientific. People seem to not understand what science is or how it works. I think what he meant to say is, although he controls most of the variables, there still remains some things that couldn't be controlled 100%.
Have you guys heard of NOX carbon wheels located in Tennessee? Any feedback on them because I got an amazing deal on a 2016 Focus Raven MAX-SL with XTR and just going to upgrade the DT 1700 wheels
Larger tyres for short distances... MTB over 80km and would you still want the larger tyre? How long can you keep producing increased power to get the heavier tires up to speed and use the momentum...
Experiment. Carry a pump and a pressure gauge with you and adjust on the fly. I'm running tubeless 2.2's, weigh 140lbs and have gone down to 18psi which is probably the absolute low end and probably right around 20psi will be my sweet spot. Depending on how much you weigh, if you're running tubeless, what width (wider = lower psi) and what kind of ride you prefer will dictate your preferred psi.
This seems to contradict other tests floating around youtube that come at it from a "gravel bike versus hardtail" angle. In that realm the gravel bikes are always concluded to be faster, and most of the time the thinner 40c-ish tire of the gravel bike is ID'd as the biggest contributor. So the mountain bike world is going fatter, the gravel bike world is going fatter - but not too fat because MTB's are slow? Then if you go to the rolling resistance website fat knobby tires with cheaper rubber consistently cost watts. Obviously there are too many factors not being accounted for - namely the actual trail/road, and rider fatigue and confidence, would be the too biggest ones. I have been beating on cyclocross bikes for years, but am looking to switch to a 29'r to take it easy on a botched shoulder. I just want to know how much speed I'll be giving up when I make the switch. ???
Long post, but please bare with me... Hmmm...I hate to rain on this parade, but your test doesn't take something into account: if the narrower tire has less rolling resistance, then 300 watts may be underpowering with those tires. What I mean is, you could put out > 300 watts on the narrow tires without feeling the drag associated with the wider ones. For instance, if 300 watts nets you 2:19 on the wide tires, and you attempt to maintain a pace of 300 watts on the narrower tires, then all you've done is deliberately made an effort to maintain a consistent speed on the climb, which would of course tally with your results -- two times that are within 1 second of each other (because your speed was roughly the same both times). The difference in your average is roughly 1 second on the climb, and that's well within a margin of error. Now let me lay this on you... For nearly a year, I've been riding my 29er hardtail on Kenda Nevegals (John Tomac Signature Series) 2.2 in width. The tires were so knobby that I had to run 40 PSI just to cut down rolling resistance. I *_always_* log my rides using Strava. Granted, it's not 100% accurate, but I think we can agree that Strava times are accurate within say, 5 seconds? Hell, I'll be generous -- *_10 seconds?_* With these tires, my best lap time on a 7 mile course was about 50 minutes. Lots of climbs, lots of switchbacks. On that 50 minute attempt, I was huffing and puffing and giving the bike all I could give -- trying to keep pace with a teammate. Recently, I decided to switch back to my WTB Nano 2.1s, which are lighter, narrower, and have a more gentle tread. I inflated them to just 28 PSI (more rolling resistance, correct?). I then returned to my local park and decided to make a few casual laps on these tires to familiarize myself with the handling differences before doing a lap at full tilt. Even on the first 2 casual laps, I came within 1 minute of my best time on the Kendas where I was booking it. Make no mistake; this time, I wasn't even trying -- I was just moping along. So the next time I rode, I again made a lap and didn't hold anything back. The results on my times were positively staggering --- on some segments, I was lopping off whole *_minutes_* off my previous bests, with other sections like punishing climbs seeing improvements as much as 30 to 40 seconds. *_THAT_* is undeniable proof. As I said, a second or two leaves a margin for error, but when you start crushing your previous best times to the tune of *_minutes,_* the debate is over. Each to their own of course, but opinions don't change the laws of physics -- narrower tires will always have less rolling resistance at the expense of traction in corners. Wider tires are heavier and grippy, but have much more rolling resistance. More rolling resistance is going make climbs harder and descents slower. My Strava data aside, the narrower tires have made a difference than can be seen and felt; I can feel the bike's much faster on descents now (where it often felt like it was struggling to keep rolling, it now feels like it's a pissed off bat out of hell), and on relatively flat trails, the bike almost "glides" along on it's own because there's so little resistance. On the Kendas, I'd be pedaling in these sections to maintain speed. Other noticeable differences are the distance the bike travels at the bottom of a downhill before I have to start pedaling; on one trail, this difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 feet further on the WTBs.
Lower pressures don't always increase rolling resistance. Especially when riding on rough ground, because energy gets wasted by the wheel generating vibration. Also mtb tires mostly aren't really as wide as manufacturer claim and the difference between 2.1 and 2.2 tires of different manufacturers can be very small to nun. So no this is far from beeing an "undeniable truth".
Tobias Gratzer Agree to disagree. I have 2 sets of tires (2.1 & 2.2) and putting them side by side, it's abundantly clear even with the naked eye that one is narrower than the other. Further, the time difference after swapping to the 2.1s is 5 minutes or more. Generally, in any form of racing or timed event, that's not what is considered "very small to nun." Shaving 30 seconds off your best time is considered a sizable chunk. Unless you're prepared to say I somehow became a significantly stronger rider in the span of 1 week just by sitting behind my desk at work, I think we have to assume it was the tires that made the difference. I agree that higher pressures means energy is wasted through vibration, but energy is also lost through softer pressures absorbing the brunt of the blows. Since making my original comment, I've continued to see giant leaps in my lap times. My absolute best on the Kendas, where I was giving it my all until I was ready to keel over was 51 minutes. This past weekend, I dropped into the mid 42 mins. Having rode on both sets, I can tell you with confidence there's no way in hell I would've been able to get 10 minutes faster on those Kendas. 2 minutes, maybe. But 51 was the outlier; every other attempt I made on the Kendas was > one hour. Since swapping to the WTBs, every attempt --- even laps where I was "slagging off" were < 1 hour. So yes, I'm afraid the laws of physics _make it_ "undeniable truth."
Help me I am 14 years old so I will still grow I will be building a bike (a non cheap high end xc bike build) so I wanna make it count because I don’t wanna spend more money switching from 27.5 to 29 once I grow (frame, fork, wheelset and etc) so even If i am small will you tolerate mo to go 29? I actually tested a 29er and kinda liked it it’s not that heavy for climbs like they tell me but problem is steering is kinda more controlling me not me controlling the bike should I get 29 or 27.5 because every xc bike I see is 29
I have serius problems in all the descents (small equilibrium problems), which do you prefer on the front for stability ?, ikon 2.35, Ardent 2.25, Ardent Race 2.35, Rekon 2.25 or Xking 2.4??, this is for loose terrain (deep gravel ) long descents with 8/10% inclination and curves. But I need good rolling resistance for climb. Thanks a lot Ed: Carbon Rims, 23mm internal wide"
Hi Alex, what did you choose and how did it goes? I love to hear from you. I am in the middle to figure out. I am same thoughts at starting point and now I am considering Forekaster 2.35 front (735g) decent rolling speed, and Aspen 2.25 rear (650g) fast rolling speed. This is a super light weight and it should feel lively on the trail. But - I have not tried it yet. I want to hear what you tried.
Test rim width next! 2.35 tires on 21mm, 24mm, 27mm, and 30mm internal width rims(Easton has 24, 27, 30 internal on their arch line). Decreasing pressure as you increase width to maintain tension(modifying your equation to T=P*((Tire Casing Width+Internal Rim Width)/3.14) )
Hi Ian. Thanks for the mentioned equation. We verified the calculation in an experiment with different rim widths and it works. However, I can't see the mathematical logic behind. Could you give me a hint?
Beat Müller I have a carbon rims with 23mm internal rim, I have serius problems in loose terrain because I’m really “blockish”, 2.35 (rekon, ardent, etc...) in the front will be ok?, or is it too narrow for 2:35??
Thanks
@@alejandrog.c1939 good enough, mayby my comment will help someone. 25mm internal works perfectly for 2,35 Maxxis, 23mm internal should too, aspecially because Maxxis tires are a bit undersized.
This is one of the best efforts to control variables I have seen for this type of video. Well done. I was glad you set the tires to an appropriate pressure for their size, but wouldn't have thought of using Laplace's law!
Different Rim widths would be amazing tests, Old standard of 19mm internal width with a 2.0 tire, and a 2.35 or 2.5 with a 24mm internal width, then you can also include the standard 2.2 tire with a 21mm rim
I'm impressed, you guys have come a long way from your first experiments on the channel!
You prefaced the experiment saying that you don't expect your results to be scientific, but I'd say you got some good data. The number of trials you did and the tests you used seemed sufficient. Keep it up!
Thanks!
The Ikon 2.35 is such a versatile tire that rolls fast and provides enough grip for a ton of riding scenarios. Thanks for the test video!
Which is better, Ikon or regular Ardents?
@@CowneloAlvaroid Ardent has a better rolling, which is suitable for rear wheel and ikon on the front for better grip and controlling. I know it's a 2 year old comment, still this would be helpful to others.
Hey XC rider! I've been used different tyre from early from 1.90/ 95 till now I'm used 2.20 & 2.25 (on different mtb).
They are superb and feel the different (track) tyre size from 1.9 till recent 2.2! As I can said for all rounder trail!
Greetings from XC rider Kuala Lumpur.
Nice Experiment, your conclusions makes sense to me.
This has been my experience.
Always used 2.2 X-King but recently tried 2.4 on the front, felted more rolling resistance because of the bigger knobs, but the grip is outstanding.
Last year used 2.35 Ikon on the front and the good thing about this specific tire is that is the same size knobs but spreaded on a wider tire = same rolling resistance as 2.2 with better grip.
I just ordered Vittoria Mezcal 2.25 because now I'm running Aspen 2.1 and they have very low grip and are really narrow compared with 2.2 Ardent Race on the front (good grip and fast but heavy tire).
Thanks for the quality of your content
One possible point to doing experiments is to go outside of what is "normal", i.e. include tire sizes that XC racers aren't even looking at, like 2.6 or even +3.0. Because with 2 data points, (2.0 and 2.35) you're always going to have a straight line. Would multiple widths show a trend from narrow to wide, or would there indeed be a sweet spot. I know it would be a lot of work, but it would also be a lot of downhill runs, so fun.
I absolutely love my set of Ikon 2.35"s
Interesting results. I'm riding 2.25 wide at the moment and I have found it to be a good sweet spot for my riding.
Maxxis aspen 2.25 front and rear FTW
@@Fred_the_1996 Sounds terrifying haha. Aspens in my area are a death sentence
For the XC lap, best to compare the product of time and power instead, average energy output. It would be better to average the instantaneous energy outputs, but roughly the 2.0 required 179 kJ vs 182 kJ on the 2.3. Makes sense since the 2.3 is heavier. Playing number games, if you applied the same amount of power to the 2.0 as the 2.3, you would have finished the lap faster with 9:14.45
Despite you say this is not science, the procedure was much more scientific than almost anything I've seen in this sort of videos. Thumbs up!
Normalized vs Average Watts. I believe that you should have used average Watts rather than normalized power. Normalized power is analogous to Root Mean Square (RMS), but to the 4th power, then using the 4th root, rather than the second as the RMS. This is done to get an estimate of impact on the body of the Wattage variation or spikiness - physiological impact. This does is not directly the power input that propels the bike, which is what you actually wanted to measure here. That said, there average Watts is also only an estimate to the bike power input in the two comparisons, because it does also depend on under what conditions those Watts were used. For example, you could get the same average Watts in two comparisons, but different outcomes due to variation of application or distribution of the Watts across the rides. It would be very difficult to have meaning of a second and half difference with all these other estimated variables. What I could get out of the experiment is that they appear to perform similarly on time. So then get what otherwise suits you best, comfort, feel, availability, etc.
Great job on this guys. Fat=smooth, smooth=fast, Fast=fun
But more data! Those last two tests a comparison don't make. Need more data points.
There is a cut-off or sweet spot. If it is too fat 3.0" for example, it becomes too slow. Need a sweet spot 2.35"?
Just a suggestion, get a really good, stable E-BIKE and then simply put it on max speed of xx and go for 500m without any jumps or stuff like that on a possibly flat terrain with simple line to follow and then measure the speed =)
I find your suggestion pretty worthy, but that would do good for a road bike or a road-race scenario. It wouldn't shed any conclusions on Enduro/All mountain tracks. Plus on enduro, e-bikes wouldn't give you much analysis in terms of power that we throw in.
Dhananjay Bhardwaj Well they said the tyres are made for less rolling resistance and not softening the bumps, jumps, rocks, etc. So you should know which tyre is faster, after all most of the track is flat anyways and maybe I said it in the wrong way i didnt meant road flat i meant small rocks, small roots and stuff like that where the tyre is gonna be most of the time and where you can follow a straight line but yeah then it comes to grips in corners and that chagnes stuff, true
Tony Eatinsky Totally agreed :)
Tony Eatinsky - I scrolled down to the comments to say make this suggestion, thinking I'm gonna have a really witty smart comment...oh well, haha, glad we're both thinking on a similar wave length. I hope they try this test too.
The roll down test is more consistent.
always enjoy these analysis videos! keep them up, you're one of the few cycling channels that provide information this accurate matched with high production value
Thanks. Good to know the hard work is appreciated!
I think a lot depends upon the terrain. Wide tyres are good for the sort of woodland and tracks that you showed in the video, but for climbing on grass, for example, fatter tyres can slow you down. Am am lucky in that I have winter and summer bikes. The summer machine has 2.1 tyres fitted, with slightly lower pressure. This is because the ground tends to be a bit dryer in the summer and a bit more solid. So a bit of tyre suspension will give a plusher ride. However, in the winter I want a tyre that will cut through the clag, not getting clogged up, but also able to get to the grippy stuff under the mud, rather than floating over the mud. So in winter I run with 1.8 Panaracers. The Fire XC pro also has the benefit of being able to get on and off the rim quite easily, which is handy when you are in the middle of nowhere.
So, in Summer I run with 2.1 s with small profile nobblies. A summer tyre. In winter I run with more pressure, but skinnies.
Works for me.
Luck
It will help me to buy my first tyres after my currently stock 2.0 will wear off. Thanks for useful info, guys! Great job!
No worries, thanks for watching!
Back when I used to actively ride MTB (26ers),I had a preference for wide front tyres & narrow rears...Usually a 2.1 front with a 1.95 rear...And usually a blocky,directional type tread on the rear with a knobbly unidirectional tread on the front...
Dia buat perbandingan masa, keberkesanan, dan wattage.. pada pelbagai permukaan jalan.. antara sepasang 2.0 dgn sepasang 2.3.. ksimpulannya 2.3 lbh efektif dan cepat pd pelbagai permukaan jalan brbanding 2.0.. tp dr segi wattage, 2.3 effort dia lbh byk dr 2.0..
Dr segi sedap, rasanya depan 2.1dgn belakang 1.95 mmg sedap tp tidak pada semua permukaan.. ikut pngalaman sy bila masuk seksyen jalan yg agak loose mcm batu2 loose @ pasir2 loose yg libatkan climbing dan descend.. 1.95 samada belakang shj @ dua² pakai 1.95 mmg x sedap.. agak payah nk kontrol.. climbing akan spin sikit2.. berbanding dgn tayar 2.1 ke atas.. sy pernah cuba kedua2 depan belakang sama saiz 1.95 dan 2.1 & combo belakang 1.95 n 2.1 depan.. 2.1 lbh efisien.. sekadar berkongsi
Keep up these types of tests. Thanks!
I accidentally ordered 2.125" tires for my 20" GT bmx which I used off and on road. Putting the heavy tires on, the bike was so noisy, like an F250 on TSL Boggers. It was SO SLOW. I had to pedal my legs out to keep up with my friends. I replaced them with 1.50" and got fast. BMX track (hardpacked dirt and little gravel) performance was great. Riding my aluminum GT 24" bmx around the city, switching from 1.75" tires down to 1.50" tires increased speed, acceleration, reduced rider fatigue.
Briliant!
This is how test should look like.
Cheers.
Thanks for watching and glad you enjoyed it!
The wider tire was still faster on the last test despite the difference in watts, you would have required 328W on the 2.0 to match the time of the 2.35 tire.
Is it because 2.35 tires have larger diameter than 2.0? Meaning less angle of attack on 2.35 than 2.0?
I run 2.25 back and 2.4 front. Very good combo
Now do the same thing as a group comparison between the top 10 brands at 2.25 size. This would be a massive undertaking, but super useful to anyone racing XC. Fantastic video, more of this and more real science. It's 2016, real data over individual opinions is vital.
Great test! Glad GMBN didn't test this. They would change the bike, tire tread, and rider when comparing wider vs narrower.
Mmmmmm don't think they would.... They're not idiots.....
+Will Menday they will, they do it everytime
I like their videos but their tests are just stupid :D
@@hobbesthetiger7468 their tests are not tests most of the time, they are just advertisements pretty much, and they are repeating themselves over and over now, I stopped watching about a year or so ago. I think the issue with this channel is that they are still sticking to that shitload of videos per week formula which is not needed anymore as the channel is big enough, and they are struggling to put out quality/original content.
This is all okay on a trail centre course that has a load of hardcore stone covered fire roads and trails, but come up to the Lake District and ride some natural trails with a load of muddy slop, and you will find that a slim tyre will sink through the mud faster and get to the hard grippy stuff. I used to race xc and had a range of tyres and changed them depending on the track and conditions on the day.
What internal rim width was this test done with? I am wondering if the 2.35 IKON is too wide for my 19mm internal width rim. BTW, ON PAPER if equal wattages would have been layed down I believe the lap time would have been 9:42 on the wider tires. 8 seconds slower than the narrower tire.
This video is great, please do the updated test so we can see if anything is different
Thanks for watching! What would you like to see tested next?
so guys looks like xc hardtails Start to become rowdy with wider tyres and dropper posts
Hey man I’m from 2021.
Congratulations you predicted the future!
Great idea but I was hoping to see a 2.2 or 2.3 tire up against a plus tire, 3.0. I would love to see a test like that.
Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc
Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc
@@hulktruck3264 I can read, didn't need to send it twice. Also, that comment was 2 years ago. Also, STFU? Really, you are that upset about a comment on UA-cam? Wow...you need more in your life.
@@johngraham6506 Stfu no one uses 3.0 on xc
I think rear suspension plays into this also. I suspect the fastest tire size is the lowest volume that reduces general trail chatter to negligible levels, which should be thinner on full sus.
Would be interesting a 5/5 rolling 3/5 grip tires with soft compound vs a wider 3/5 rolling 5/5 grip medium compound tires. What do you think is faster, in general?
I like to consider myself a mix between XC and trail riding on a hard tail and wanted to find the right size between 2.1-2.4 for me!
By having a lower pressure in the wider tire, there's actually a larger contact patch. I'm not sure how that plays out in terms of rolling resistance. I'm curious how Bontrager came up with that equation. I've never heard of it before. Physics! Hey I don't feel so pissed off about my pristine trails being shredded by loggers. It looks like we've all got forest issues.
They were heavy but I loved the set of Panaracer Fire FR's I had on an old bike. At 2.4" wide and a tread like a motocross tire they could go anywhere, if they were lighter they would have been my perfect tire.
The added weight of larger tires and wheels is negligible when compared to the benefits of reduced rolling resistance and increased grip.
And the proof is really simple, just think about what wheel sizes are being raced at world cups nowadays, versus what was being raced ten years ago.
Larger wheels do require more energy to get up to speed, but the major difference comes from the increased mass itself and not the fact that it is rotating.
I would be interesting with a mud test to see how the wider tires performs. Also a XC rim width test would be interesting.
please make the same test with some 3.0 inch tires included
Bummer you didn't test the 2.2 Ikon vs the 2.35 but in any case, GREAT test. :)
Wouldn't the wider tyres, with less pressure, give far better grip when breaking? Meaning you can go faster for longer before braking?
The ChaosEngine that would be a motorbike on a tarmac circuit
@@enricolionello9044 Nope. The area of the contact surface actually makes less diference on tarmac versus lose soil.
On smooth surfaces the friction force depends on the coeficent of friction between the materials and the force perpendicular to the plain, not so much on the area of contact, but on lose soil, since there is very little friction between the materials, the friction depends more on how the tire digs in, and thus on the area of contact, since a larger area means more knobs digging in on the dirt.
Just think of ice as an extreme example. The friction between rubber and ice is very low, so the tires have metal spikes to dig into the ice. Meanwhile F1 cars and GP bikes have a plain tires.
Variables: 235 weight changes your suspension preload which translates to minuscule amount of plushness from slower rebound, a slightly larger final circumference, final drive ratio, a higher ride and tiny change in rake, effecting downhill cornering positively at the point of banking in to it with more grip... Basically smoother and confident. More power delivered attributed by percentage of weight gain and final drive circumference ...Hmmmn.
Speed through confidence, more power needed at same cadence.
Which one would you ride further or longer?
Can feel the difference between 195 and 210 for sure!
Easy, just follow the pro on UCI. On a race like that, I think they are not going to take the risk of using a wrong tire. My observation: most of them using narrower tire :)
In our country, our course here has a mixture of road and off-road. I think 2.1 is better. I’ve tried the 2.3 and they are so hard to spin in the rear and very heavy.
compare the Ikons with the Ardent Races
Hey guys... What about on tarmac? & what about mixed - Wide front\Thin rear - tyres? O.O
Several people I know run 2,0 in the rear and 2,2 up front (XC).
What about All Mountain & Enduro? Thanks...
I run 2.25 rear 2.35 front on velocity P35 rims, bike just rolls over everything
My plan is a 2.4f\2.2r on 25mm internal width - I hope they are adequate... =]
I run 2.2 for my XC bike and dirtjumper because they feel perfect for crosscountry, dirtjumps and street.
Not sure about using that tension formula. As the tire deforms under weight, there is an area contact patch. It's not being supported by a single line across the tire. I suggest squaring the tire width.
Narrow tires ar often used by xc racers because they can be firmer because of the air volume. For example a 2.1 tire can be pumped up more.
This is not just a comparison of wider tire versus narrow. The 2.35 Ikon knobs are taller and more aggressive than the 2.0. Since they grip better a smart rider can carry speed through the rough stuff and corners and waste less energy in braking.
Ikon 2.2 also feel rougher with smaller casing. I think i prefer a 2.25 minimum for varied conditions which is not an Ikon option. The 2.2 do spin up fast though and easy to hold momentum. Ikon is ideal where speed and momentum is the focus, for mostly hardpack to loose. For loose rocks (not gravel size) something more aggressive is ideal maybe like a Rekon. maybe this is where the Ikon 2.3 steps in..
2.25 was standard for XC, already 10 years ago.
please do tests with a plus bike, something around 3 inches?
i thought the same, a 29er vs a + in the same frame, thats' what people actually want to know, not if a slightly wider tyre is better, they can do that themselves with minimal outlay compared to a new wheelset & tyres.
Hi James, you're in luck as we've done just that - 29er vs 650B+ (this was the test Seb did that Joe name dropped at the start) ua-cam.com/video/w6TMA2vI8bA/v-deo.html
what about 29+. thinking about buying a trek stache 7 29+ and I want to know how agile it feels in comparison to smaller/thinner wheels. thanks for any reponses BikeRadar
We've had a look at the Stache 9 before but we're certainly keen to explore some more tyre tests ua-cam.com/video/7hj0JWqo0kE/v-deo.html
BikeRadar thanks. would you say that the review and your thoughts of the stache 9 applies to the stache 7 as well?
Ultimately the tire style should make more difference. I have Xcaliber 8. 3rd one since 2008. Small Block 8 was my favourite rear tire before. There appears to be a better version the Kozmik lite II. I see no reason to change the front XR2 but 2.2" happens to be available. My old Small Block 8 was a 2.1"
You need to compare a long fast sweeping descent on hardpack.
I have a 25mm inner rim with, on my Trek XC bike, and I am running 2,25 Rocket Ron tyres. I feels SO damm nice :-)
I dig the RoRo's too. But they do not hold up in sharp rocky conditions. I tore off a number of side nobs and had to bin the tires. Great tires though for the right terrain. (hardpack to loose) but not loose rocks or sharp bedrock.
Awesome video, exceptional data. Thanks guys.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video. I was debating between 2.1/2.25 vs 2.35 for Oramm that has almost 11000' of climbing that has some pretty fast and aggressive downhill in 60 miles. This helped solidify my decision to stick with the wider tires Im used to and prefer...
did you prefer the feel or comfort of the bigger tires as well? as a secondary aspect of riding, perhaps more important for marathon type races?
This ia great way more scientific than other channels tests (gmbn)
+1 for Thomas McNeice - Neon Lights (instrumental) music in the beginning of the video.
Do you have already an test of 2.25 vs 2.35 »?
You can't reach a conclusion from that data- you've started to go about measuring things in the right way by recording power output and aiming for consistency, but the differences are so marginal that any difference can be swallowed up by power output differences, timing errors, etc. For example, you're talking 1.5secs difference on a 140sec test, which is 1%- a tiny difference, and not conclusive. The only real way you could do it is by having a rolling resistance rig with defined, constant, measurable power outputs. Sorry to put a downer on things, but I'm a process engineer who works with Six Sigma methodology (worth researching), so had to comment! It's good that these sorts of differences are being explored, at least.
how about using a wider in the back and a narrow in the front, will it have better handling?
How about this test with a full suspension xc bike?
for the last test : just make a time (in seconds for instance) / watts ratio. the lower ratio should give you the fastest tyre
Fat tire lap was 98.4% of the skinny tire lap, faster by 1.6%. Power required for the faster lap was 3.5% greater than the slower lap. Based on this the fatter tires were less efficient.
A ratio of time to watts is not valid because time and power are inversely related. Consider if the times had been identical: by your logic the win would go to the higher wattage, which doesn't make sense.
Thank you very much. Very good article. Very scientific. Just what I was looking for.
I have 26x2.1 and 26x2.3 tires. Should I put the larger one in the front or back?
Meh, constant accelerations mean more fatigue for the rider over longer distances. More rotating weight means more effort to get up to speed - such as when chasing another rider or trying to pull away. 1.5 hours in singletrack at race efforts and an extra pound of rotating weight is a lot.
An extra 320 grams (0.7 lb) of rotating weight
Ken Goddard I think that difference is much larger between lower end tires. Factor in sealant volume if running tubeless and the weight different is further greater.
The rotating mass argument neglects that once put the energy into the wheel-tire, you'll get to keep it too. This is why the bigger tires did better on the climb test and the fire road descent. There's a bunch of micro decelerations that happen on bumpy track. The bigger tires don't have as much loss there so more of your leg power goes to forward velocity rather than reaccelerating. Bigger tires are more micro suspension and suspension wins.
William Nesse If Nino Schurter were winning on wider tires, I'd believe your argument. Many years ago I went from 1.95 to a knobby 2.1 but felt that the extra weight cost me time, even if it were more comforting. My steel CX with 35c tires are faster on rough gravel than my carbon XTC advanced with smooth 2.0 in tread. The wider tires will get me up loose climbs but it loses in acceleration and that accumulation is more fatigue and slower times overall.
Sure enough as I check Nino's bike spec's, his 650b bike has 1.96 inch tires and I myself decided that for XC racing, anything larger than 2.0 would be more heavy than fast.
What wheel size are you running? If rotational weight really is a problem, I presume you are running 26"? If not, well, you get where I'm going.
I guess that's the whole "problem" with the bike industry really. If there were a robust testing what is optimum for racing - in terms gear count, ratios, tyre width, wheel diameter, bike dimensions, etc. etc. - we wouldnt have had these arguments.
These "innovations" are keeping the bike industry interesting, but at the expense of us as buyers. I know plenty of people who want to sell their 2016 bikes, just to get the latest tech from 2017. Cause Specialized or Trek or whoever threw in a few marketing gizmos. The Apple syndrome.
I guess my point is, arguments won't be won over the internet, because no one actually knows what really is the best.
I ride 60% on pavement/tarmac and 40% off-road/. Is the 2.4 Maxxis Holy Rollers great for my riding style?
Testing different rim widths would be more interesting. Wide rims are the "it" thing now. See if there is an actual significant difference between going 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, etc wider. Use the same size tire for all rim widths.
my old xc came with 2.0 and I haven't ridden it in years. the I guess the max is a 2.4 so thinking about doing those or 2.35 because it still has the factory tires on it. hopefully I will start riding it again.
which is best for day to day drive of 32 miles
The results are confusing because they indicate that the fatter the tire the lower the rolling resistance.
Why then are gravel bikes faster than regular mountain bikes? And why are regular mountain bikes faster than fat bikes?
According to bicyclerollingresistance.com the resistance starts to increase with balloon tires and fat tires have up to 50 Watts resistance. 40mm gravel tires are below 20 Watts. That's independent of tire profile. Maybe you could explain that in a video? Cheers.
What do you think of 2.35 tires on 19c rims? Is it stable, or I better stick to the 2.25 tires?
I think 2.25" tires is your max for 19mm rim. It is probably very light and fun.
i use the swchalbe Nobby Nic 29" 2.35 and i must say they are fast on the road and off-road
nice test, but maybe 2.0 to 2.35 was too big of a jump. it's possible that a sweetspot 2.15 or 2.2 would be faster than both of these.
so what about comfort and road feel/feedback? Should have better feel of whats going on w the surface w the 2.0
Maybe another test is a wider rim with the 2.35 width tire. I would be interested in the results.
What's the rim width use in both tires and all of the tires? don't you think we deserve to know?
What about rim width, i just changed the stock wheels on my Scott 735 to a set on DT Swiss 1501 22.5 mm and 2.25 Racing Ralph up from 17 mm 2.1 Rocket Ron
Ride definitely smoother on a hardtail but can't say faster on the hills possibly in part due to about 800g in weight. Hope to hear from you and keep those hardtail vids coming.
Try playing tire pressure. 25 psi front and 27psi back is a good starting point. up 2psi and down 2psi.
Please do this test with an OPEN 1+ 29 X 2.35 vs 27.5 X 2.8 tires
The test is in every way scientific. People seem to not understand what science is or how it works. I think what he meant to say is, although he controls most of the variables, there still remains some things that couldn't be controlled 100%.
SRAM ROAM40 has 21mm inner width. with 2.35 tire, that is too narrow, isn't it?? how is the cornering??
which one front and back? im planning to put up also.crossmark II 29.2.25 front and aspen 29.2.1 back. any thoughts? thank you.
Where is this video you wanted to film for 2.25 Vs 2.3+ tyres and therefore finding arguably better XC tire width??
Have you guys heard of NOX carbon wheels located in Tennessee? Any feedback on them because I got an amazing deal on a 2016 Focus Raven MAX-SL with XTR and just going to upgrade the DT 1700 wheels
To clear out the little doubt, you could just go back and try another round, this time trying to get the normalized power closer to each other
KB said Laplace said t= pressure * radius, not diameter
excellent artical but come on guys it was your article.
Larger tyres for short distances... MTB over 80km and would you still want the larger tyre? How long can you keep producing increased power to get the heavier tires up to speed and use the momentum...
how do I find the correct pressure? looks like I'm still running my tyres too hard.
Experiment. Carry a pump and a pressure gauge with you and adjust on the fly. I'm running tubeless 2.2's, weigh 140lbs and have gone down to 18psi which is probably the absolute low end and probably right around 20psi will be my sweet spot. Depending on how much you weigh, if you're running tubeless, what width (wider = lower psi) and what kind of ride you prefer will dictate your preferred psi.
I use the icon 2.6 and it’s great except for hard braking but you get used to sliding
MTB lastikleri ile asfalt kullanımı yorucu olur mu?
This seems to contradict other tests floating around youtube that come at it from a "gravel bike versus hardtail" angle. In that realm the gravel bikes are always concluded to be faster, and most of the time the thinner 40c-ish tire of the gravel bike is ID'd as the biggest contributor. So the mountain bike world is going fatter, the gravel bike world is going fatter - but not too fat because MTB's are slow? Then if you go to the rolling resistance website fat knobby tires with cheaper rubber consistently cost watts. Obviously there are too many factors not being accounted for - namely the actual trail/road, and rider fatigue and confidence, would be the too biggest ones. I have been beating on cyclocross bikes for years, but am looking to switch to a 29'r to take it easy on a botched shoulder. I just want to know how much speed I'll be giving up when I make the switch. ???
This tire is beautiful
3 minutes in and I am getting nerdgasms. Tickles me in all the right places.
so should i scrap my 1.9 and back to 2.1 again?
what rim. width are they using in 2.3 tires.. thanks!
Which tire were you using when you scraped up your left elbow?
Joe had a very silly slow speed crash when a kerb jumped out in front of him on his road bike. First one in years, apparently!
Long post, but please bare with me...
Hmmm...I hate to rain on this parade, but your test doesn't take something into account: if the narrower tire has less rolling resistance, then 300 watts may be underpowering with those tires. What I mean is, you could put out > 300 watts on the narrow tires without feeling the drag associated with the wider ones. For instance, if 300 watts nets you 2:19 on the wide tires, and you attempt to maintain a pace of 300 watts on the narrower tires, then all you've done is deliberately made an effort to maintain a consistent speed on the climb, which would of course tally with your results -- two times that are within 1 second of each other (because your speed was roughly the same both times). The difference in your average is roughly 1 second on the climb, and that's well within a margin of error.
Now let me lay this on you...
For nearly a year, I've been riding my 29er hardtail on Kenda Nevegals (John Tomac Signature Series) 2.2 in width. The tires were so knobby that I had to run 40 PSI just to cut down rolling resistance. I *_always_* log my rides using Strava. Granted, it's not 100% accurate, but I think we can agree that Strava times are accurate within say, 5 seconds? Hell, I'll be generous -- *_10 seconds?_* With these tires, my best lap time on a 7 mile course was about 50 minutes. Lots of climbs, lots of switchbacks. On that 50 minute attempt, I was huffing and puffing and giving the bike all I could give -- trying to keep pace with a teammate.
Recently, I decided to switch back to my WTB Nano 2.1s, which are lighter, narrower, and have a more gentle tread. I inflated them to just 28 PSI (more rolling resistance, correct?). I then returned to my local park and decided to make a few casual laps on these tires to familiarize myself with the handling differences before doing a lap at full tilt. Even on the first 2 casual laps, I came within 1 minute of my best time on the Kendas where I was booking it. Make no mistake; this time, I wasn't even trying -- I was just moping along.
So the next time I rode, I again made a lap and didn't hold anything back. The results on my times were positively staggering --- on some segments, I was lopping off whole *_minutes_* off my previous bests, with other sections like punishing climbs seeing improvements as much as 30 to 40 seconds. *_THAT_* is undeniable proof. As I said, a second or two leaves a margin for error, but when you start crushing your previous best times to the tune of *_minutes,_* the debate is over.
Each to their own of course, but opinions don't change the laws of physics -- narrower tires will always have less rolling resistance at the expense of traction in corners. Wider tires are heavier and grippy, but have much more rolling resistance. More rolling resistance is going make climbs harder and descents slower.
My Strava data aside, the narrower tires have made a difference than can be seen and felt; I can feel the bike's much faster on descents now (where it often felt like it was struggling to keep rolling, it now feels like it's a pissed off bat out of hell), and on relatively flat trails, the bike almost "glides" along on it's own because there's so little resistance. On the Kendas, I'd be pedaling in these sections to maintain speed. Other noticeable differences are the distance the bike travels at the bottom of a downhill before I have to start pedaling; on one trail, this difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 feet further on the WTBs.
Lower pressures don't always increase rolling resistance. Especially when riding on rough ground, because energy gets wasted by the wheel generating vibration. Also mtb tires mostly aren't really as wide as manufacturer claim and the difference between 2.1 and 2.2 tires of different manufacturers can be very small to nun. So no this is far from beeing an "undeniable truth".
Tobias Gratzer
Agree to disagree. I have 2 sets of tires (2.1 & 2.2) and putting them side by side, it's abundantly clear even with the naked eye that one is narrower than the other.
Further, the time difference after swapping to the 2.1s is 5 minutes or more. Generally, in any form of racing or timed event, that's not what is considered "very small to nun." Shaving 30 seconds off your best time is considered a sizable chunk. Unless you're prepared to say I somehow became a significantly stronger rider in the span of 1 week just by sitting behind my desk at work, I think we have to assume it was the tires that made the difference. I agree that higher pressures means energy is wasted through vibration, but energy is also lost through softer pressures absorbing the brunt of the blows.
Since making my original comment, I've continued to see giant leaps in my lap times. My absolute best on the Kendas, where I was giving it my all until I was ready to keel over was 51 minutes. This past weekend, I dropped into the mid 42 mins. Having rode on both sets, I can tell you with confidence there's no way in hell I would've been able to get 10 minutes faster on those Kendas. 2 minutes, maybe. But 51 was the outlier; every other attempt I made on the Kendas was > one hour. Since swapping to the WTBs, every attempt --- even laps where I was "slagging off" were < 1 hour.
So yes, I'm afraid the laws of physics _make it_ "undeniable truth."
Help me I am 14 years old so I will still grow I will be building a bike (a non cheap high end xc bike build) so I wanna make it count because I don’t wanna spend more money switching from 27.5 to 29 once I grow (frame, fork, wheelset and etc) so even If i am small will you tolerate mo to go 29? I actually tested a 29er and kinda liked it it’s not that heavy for climbs like they tell me but problem is steering is kinda more controlling me not me controlling the bike should I get 29 or 27.5 because every xc bike I see is 29
I have serius problems in all the descents (small equilibrium problems), which do you prefer on the front for stability ?, ikon 2.35, Ardent 2.25, Ardent Race 2.35, Rekon 2.25 or Xking 2.4??, this is for loose terrain (deep gravel ) long descents with 8/10% inclination and curves. But I need good rolling resistance for climb. Thanks a lot Ed: Carbon Rims, 23mm internal wide"
Hi Alex, what did you choose and how did it goes? I love to hear from you. I am in the middle to figure out. I am same thoughts at starting point and now I am considering Forekaster 2.35 front (735g) decent rolling speed, and Aspen 2.25 rear (650g) fast rolling speed. This is a super light weight and it should feel lively on the trail. But - I have not tried it yet. I want to hear what you tried.