Where were you the last time you got a flat tire?

[Drewdane]

My last flat tire was actually a side effect of a different issue; my rear rim blew out last December on the WOD around three miles from my destination. Luckily, it was an unseasonably nice day for a walk.

[hozn]

My previous to last flat was during Kill Bill. I assume I was the only one riding road tubeless (Hutchinson Fusion 3 RT) and the only one to get a flat. Then the other morning, I was heading out to see if the mythical Hell of the North group ride still takes place from Java shack (fyi, it doesn’t) and my rear tire exploded on me a few blocks from home. (Same one that I had put a tube in at Kill Bill) The tire just separated near the bead — but not actually where it interfaces the rim or anything. This was at my normal 100psi.

Take from that what you will. In general my experience with Hutchinson tires has not been favorable. I bought some Conti Gatorskins that had served me well for years before I jumped on this “road tubeless” bandwagon. The Gatorskins with tubes are lighter than the Fusions anyway. And if I keep my tires pumped up, I don’t expect more flats with the Contis [than with the Fusions].

I will say that my commuter is still tubeless with Hutchinson Intensives; those haven’t let me down yet (this is my 2nd or 3rd set) and seem to do a good job at resisting puncture flats. Of course, it’s also annoying that it’s cheaper to order replacement tires from France (Hutchinson is a French company).

[jnva]

As a commuter, I have wondered why so many people choose to have such thin skinny tires. Ive seen two people recently have blowouts near me. It is loud! That’s never happened to me and I think it’s because I have thick schwalbe tires on my mountain bike. I’ve had one flat in the last 10k miles, but never a blowout.

[dasgeh]

@jnva 54368 wrote:

As a commuter, I have wondered why so many people choose to have such thin skinny tires.

We want to get home faster, but we don’t have your quads

[TwoWheelsDC]

@jnva 54368 wrote:

As a commuter, I have wondered why so many people choose to have such thin skinny tires. Ive seen two people recently have blowouts near me. It is loud! That’s never happened to me and I think it’s because I have thick schwalbe tires on my mountain bike. I’ve had one flat in the last 10k miles, but never a blowout.

All but one of my flats over the last two years were on my commuter with 28s (previously 32s). My skinny-tired bike picked up a small thorn that just barely punctured the tube, but never had a blowout. That said, my wife and I were on the W&OD a few weeks ago and stopped at the Smith Switch rest stop and a woman’s skinny tire blew out while her bike was just sitting there. She had just picked it up at the shop that day and was on her first ride.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 54372 wrote:

We want to get home faster, but we don’t have your quads

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence that skinny tires make you faster, and at least some evidence to the contrary. As I’ve been experimenting with gradually moving to wider and wider tires, my commuting speeds have been pretty constant. There are a couple of cases where that might not be true: the smaller tires accelerate faster, which may help you stay in a paceline; at high speeds the skinny tires are more aerodynamic; and on very smooth surfaces (like a track) high pressure tires have an advantage. For commuting on trails or the lousy local roads, it’s all in the head.

@TwoWheelsDC 54373 wrote:

That said, my wife and I were on the W&OD a few weeks ago and stopped at the Smith Switch rest stop and a woman’s skinny tire blew out while her bike was just sitting there. She had just picked it up at the shop that day and was on her first ride.

Installation error.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 54378 wrote:

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence that skinny tires make you faster, and at least some evidence to the contrary. As I’ve been experimenting with gradually moving to wider and wider tires, my commuting speeds have been pretty constant. There are a couple of cases where that might not be true: the smaller tires accelerate faster, which may help you stay in a paceline; at high speeds the skinny tires are more aerodynamic; and on very smooth surfaces (like a track) high pressure tires have an advantage. For commuting on trails or the lousy local roads, it’s all in the head.

So I’m really interested in this. On the bikes I’ve ridden, the ones with skinny tires are SO MUCH FASTER, than the ones with wider tires. Would they be faster than the same set up (position, weight) with wider tires? Hard to know (I don’t think my skinny tire bikes will take wider tires).

But, if they do help with acceleration, then they may be better for city riding, as much (most?) of the energy spent is accelerating out of a stop (for a light) or slow (for a ped/because you don’t trust cars).

[hozn]

@mstone 54378 wrote:

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence that skinny tires make you faster, and at least some evidence to the contrary. As I’ve been experimenting with gradually moving to wider and wider tires, my commuting speeds have been pretty constant. There are a couple of cases where that might not be true: the smaller tires accelerate faster, which may help you stay in a paceline; at high speeds the skinny tires are more aerodynamic; and on very smooth surfaces (like a track) high pressure tires have an advantage. For commuting on trails or the lousy local roads, it’s all in the head.

I don’t have anything to cite, so take this with a grain of salt, but I’ve read a number of things on this topic. While rolling resistance is less with wider tires (at the same pressure) due to the difference in contact patch shape, I think the idea that wider tires are just as fast or faster is generally misleading due to:
– People often run wider tires at lower pressures. Indeed, my T-Serv 28c tires want to be run at 105psi, whereas my 23c tires want 120psi.
– Wider tires often have more aggressive tread for all-weather riding which is not going to have the low rolling resistance of racier 23c tires.
– Aerodynamics are more significant than rolling resistance at anything but very slow speeds. It’d be nice to know (and I’m sure someone does) where that line is, but I’m assuming that if I’m riding at a normal cruising speed of 16-18mph, then aerodynamics have won.
– Weight. I don’t know how this trades off with rolling resistance.

And anecdotaly, my bike definitely feels faster and lighter when I swap my tires. It’s hard to look at commute times, though, since that also corresponds with change from winter to spring. I don’t mind commuting on larger-volume tires due to the increased comfort, though. (I will say, though, that I can’t believe Dirt commutes on a fat-tire bike.)

@mstone 54378 wrote:

Installation error.

Perhaps (and probably likely), but my tire splitting apart was almost definitely not installation error. It was perhaps age (2k miles doesn’t seem too much to ask…) and poor build quality.

[bikeeveryday]

@jopamora 54326 wrote:

Yesterday afternoon the Georgetown Branch claimed another tube. Ended up walking home since it would have taken me the same amount of time to patch the tube.

Bummer!

[mstone]

@dasgeh 54380 wrote:

So I’m really interested in this. On the bikes I’ve ridden, the ones with skinny tires are SO MUCH FASTER, than the ones with wider tires. Would they be faster than the same set up (position, weight) with wider tires? Hard to know (I don’t think my skinny tire bikes will take wider tires). [/quote]

That’s the big issue: people are generally comparing apples and oranges rather than skinny and wide. A stiff-sidewall, low pressure, knobby mountain tire is going to be slower than a slick road tire–regardless of the width. It’s actually relatively hard to find fast/wide tires, but I think maybe getting easier. It’s a slow change, because we went through a period of ridiculously narrow tires being fashionable (18mm? give me a break) and the market for bikes that can take fast wider tires got really small to the point where there’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

Quote:

But, if they do help with acceleration, then they may be better for city riding, as much (most?) of the energy spent is accelerating out of a stop (for a light) or slow (for a ped/because you don’t trust cars).

It’s not that much of an effect, and is dwarfed by the advantage of a wider/lower pressure tire on crappy streets. I think it’s most significant if you’re trying to stay 3 inches off someone’s tire in competition, rather than trying to accelerate from a stop in the city.

@hozn 54384 wrote:

I don’t have anything to cite, so take this with a grain of salt, but I’ve read a number of things on this topic. While rolling resistance is less with wider tires (at the same pressure) due to the difference in contact patch shape, I think the idea that wider tires are just as fast or faster is generally misleading due to:
– People often run wider tires at lower pressures. Indeed, my T-Serv 28c tires want to be run at 105psi, whereas my 23c tires want 120psi.

That’s a common response, but not actually true. There is no testing of ultra narrow tires at 150psi vs wide tires at 150psi because the latter would explode any available rim. The test data showing wider tires to be as fast or faster is with an optimal pressure in each tire. (As is my experience–the wider tires run at significantly lower pressures than the narrower ones; the narrow ones are inflated to max pressure, and need to be in order to prevent pinch flats, but the wide ones are generally at least 20 pounds under max unless I’m loaded.)

Quote:

– Aerodynamics are more significant than rolling resistance at anything but very slow speeds. It’d be nice to know (and I’m sure someone does) where that line is, but I’m assuming that if I’m riding at a normal cruising speed of 16-18mph, then aerodynamics have won.

I think the aerodynamic affect of tire width alone isn’t going to be significant until you’re going at a much higher speed. (30? 40?) The tires are not usually the least aero feature of a commuting bike. I actually think that nobody really knows where that line is, because it’s darn near impossible to test for experimentally. (You’d need a double blind wind tunnel pedaling test over a real road.)

Quote:

– Weight. I don’t know how this trades off with rolling resistance.

Much lower factor. There’s just not that much difference unless you’re doing an apples-to-oranges knobby to slick comparison.

Quote:

And anecdotaly, my bike definitely feels faster and lighter when I swap my tires. It’s hard to look at commute times, though, since that also corresponds with change from winter to spring. I don’t mind commuting on larger-volume tires due to the increased comfort, though. (I will say, though, that I can’t believe Dirt commutes on a fat-tire bike.)

“feels” is probably true. In general, speedometer and “feels” don’t necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Quote:

Perhaps (and probably likely), but my tire splitting apart was almost definitely not installation error. It was perhaps age (2k miles doesn’t seem too much to ask…) and poor build quality.

That certainly seems reasonable. But if it’s brand new and on its first ride, it’s almost certainly not seated properly or the tube is pinched.

[Tim Kelley]

Why don’t you just buy the tire that is a color that matches your bike and ride it until it wears out and then get a new one?

[mstone]

@Tim Kelley 54395 wrote:

Why don’t you just buy the tire that is a color that matches your bike and ride it until it wears out and then get a new one?

Because my bike is black! Also, most of the colorful tires are too skinny.

[Tim Kelley]

@mstone 54399 wrote:

Because my bike is black! Also, most of the colorful tires are too skinny.

My bike is black too. EVERYTHING goes with black. Even pink. ESPECIALLY pink.

[hozn]

@mstone 54393 wrote:

That’s a common response, but not actually true. There is no testing of ultra narrow tires at 150psi vs wide tires at 150psi because the latter would explode any available rim. The test data showing wider tires to be as fast or faster is with an optimal pressure in each tire. (As is my experience–the wider tires run at significantly lower pressures than the narrower ones; the narrow ones are inflated to max pressure, and need to be in order to prevent pinch flats, but the wide ones are generally at least 20 pounds under max unless I’m loaded.)

I am fairly sure that I was basing this off of Leonar Zinn’s post on the topic: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-faq-seriously-wider-tires-have-lower-rolling-resistance-than-their-narrower-brethren_209268 . Specifically “’Wider is faster’ holds for clincher and tubular tires under the condition of the same air pressure.” Although he later goes on in another thread to say that lower pressure means lower rolling resistance (but obviously that is only true to a point).

Here’s some more on the topic including discussion of the aerodynamics tradeoff, though no numbers:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-faq-again-bigger-tires-roll-faster_209888

I think the aerodynamic affect of tire width alone isn’t going to be significant until you’re going at a much higher speed. (30? 40?) The tires are not usually the least aero feature of a commuting bike. I actually think that nobody really knows where that line is, because it’s darn near impossible to test for experimentally. (You’d need a double blind wind tunnel pedaling test over a real road.)

Here’s a fun tool to calculate forces http://analyticcycling.com/ForcesSource_Page.html

Naively filling out the form (leaving defaults) and entering a wind speed of 16mph head-on, I get a % forces due to rolling resistence of 2.5% and forces due to drag (totaled for both wheels) of 10.7%. However, I realize that does not imply that the advantage gained in rolling resistence will be less than the disadvantage due to increased frontal area. From Zinn/Zipp article it sounds like the returns in rolling resistance are diminishing with tire width, so maybe jumping up to a 25mm tire will outweigh the 2mm width aero penalty.

Of course rim width is relevant here for the aerodynamics too.

“feels” is probably true. In general, speedometer and “feels” don’t necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Yeah, I know. At the end of the day we’re talking about really small wattage numbers here either way (when apples to apples), so it does seem likely that the feel is due to spinning up quicker or different tread patterns as opposed to actual rolling speed.

[Hancockbs]

Put a new Schwalbe Ultremo on, rode one 83 mile day and has the sidewall cut by something on the next 20 miles ride. Tube was protruding when I out more than 80 pounds in it. Put on replacement Ultremo and rode 50 miles the next day with the Ride2Recovery guys. Had someone contact my rear tire at about 15 MPH (neither one of us crashed thankfully) and it put a flat spot and bulge in the tire. Since I was headed out on a century in a few days, I decided to swap tires, planning to use the old one for shorter rides, but found it had a cut sidewall as well, so I tossed it. Two $45 tires for about 150 miles. That’s an expensive ratio.

[Author]

Posts