Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Testing rolling resistance.

Started by Kastnerd · · Last activity · 7 posts · 719 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
29 April 2008
Last activity
30 April 2008
Original author
Kastnerd
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
719
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
    wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.
    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.
    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.
    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small
    little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward
    momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt
    more.

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

  2. Kastnerd said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
    wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.
    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.
    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.
    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small
    little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward
    momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt
    more.

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    The problem is how do you duplicate "real world road conditions?" If
    you're concerned about "every small little bump" then how do you
    duplicate to make sure that each tire, wheelset or whatever you're
    interested in testing are truly tested under the same condition?

    So far, the only real true test seems to be using a steel drum roller.
    Maybe putting cement on the rollers to get that "small little bump"
    effect might give it more "real world road condition," maybe.

    Here's arguably the best test using steel drum rollers. Its pretty old
    and most tires tested are no longer available. Still, it gives a good
    idea of what tires can do:

    http://bike.terrymorse.com/rolres.html

    Discussion of the test:

    http://bike.terrymorse.com/rrdiscuss.html

    Good Luck!

  3. Kast Nerd who? said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i
    was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    When I read this sort of statement I doubt that the writer understands
    what causes tire rolling resistance or that characterization would not
    be mentioned. Rolling resistance arises from hysteretic behavior of
    elastomers, those of which the tire is made, mostly one kind of rubber
    or another. Tires are deformed by the road and do not rebound with
    the same force that was needed to deform them (hysteretic).

    When bending a ride tread or sidewall, the local stretch and
    compression depends on thickness so that the thicker of two, otherwise
    identical tires, has greater losses. In addition, the inner tube is
    pressed against the tire casing with sufficient force that the tube
    becomes essentially a rubber coating (tread) on the inside of the tire
    and causes more losses.

    Quoted message said:

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.

    Quoted message said:

    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.

    Quoted message said:

    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.

    Quoted message said:

    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every
    small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from
    forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful
    you hurt more.

    Quoted message said:

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    I think you are suspecting ghosts. Regardless of the surface of the
    test roller, the tires will perform proportionally the same. IRC a
    noted tire manufacturer performed the most telling test, typically on
    smooth steel drums, shown in curves to be seen at this web site:

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

    This is a selection of popular road tires of that time. All RR tests
    by tire companies are done on smooth steel drums.

    Jobst Brandt

  4. Kast Nerd who? said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i
    was wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    When I read this sort of statement I doubt that the writer understands
    what causes tire rolling resistance or that characterization would not
    be mentioned. Rolling resistance arises from hysteretic behavior of
    elastomers, those of which the tire is made, mostly one kind of rubber
    or another. Tires are deformed by the road and do not rebound with
    the same force that was needed to deform them (hysteretic).

    When bending a road tire tread or sidewall, the local stretch and
    compression depends on thickness so that the thicker of two, otherwise
    identical tires, has greater losses. In addition, the inner tube is
    pressed against the tire casing with sufficient force that the tube
    becomes essentially a rubber coating (tread) on the inside of the tire
    and causes more losses.

    Quoted message said:

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.

    Quoted message said:

    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.

    Quoted message said:

    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.

    Quoted message said:

    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every
    small little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from
    forward momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful
    you hurt more.

    Quoted message said:

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    I think you are suspecting ghosts. Regardless of the surface of the
    test roller, the tires will perform proportionally the same. IRC a
    noted tire manufacturer performed the most telling test, typically on
    smooth steel drums, shown in curves to be seen at this web site:

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

    This is a selection of popular road tires of that time. All RR tests
    by tire companies are done on smooth steel drums.

    Jobst Brandt

  5. Kastnerd said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
    wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.
    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.
    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.
    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small
    little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward
    momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt
    more.

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    Dear K,

    It's darned hard to do a credible practical test, unless there's a
    large difference.

    You could start by coasting down the same very long hill, day after
    day, and checking the max speed on your cyclometer.

    Unfortunately, several details besides tires and pressures may affect
    the maximum speed display and confuse things.

    First, you have to calibrate the cyclometer for each tire and
    pressure. You're looking for a tiny difference in top speed, so tiny
    that 2096 mm versus 2124 mm for the effective roll-out might skew the
    results.

    (You could avoid this by timing between two distant points, but it
    turns out that starting and stopping stopwatches introduces a fair
    amount of variation--the max speed function is automatic.)

    Next, you have to duplicate the temperature and barometric pressure as
    closely as possible. Peek at a few online speed calculators, and
    you'll find that these affect top speed enough to goof things up.

    (One detail not often mentioned is that temperature will change not
    just the wind drag, but how easily the tire rubber flexes.)

    Then there's the wind--a head or tail wind of half a mile per hour is
    undetectable except by watching smoke, but it's going to change your
    results significantly. Early morning is when the wind dies down, but
    anyone who's watched smoke pots at a grass air strip knows how rare
    truly still conditions are.

    Of course, the rider's aerodynamics make a huge difference--even
    slight changes in your posture show up in wind tunnels, which is why
    top riders spend money on such testing. Tuck your shirt in
    differently, and you may see a difference.

    And the rider's weight varies, too. It's normal to vary a pound or two
    either way from the weight on your driver's license, depending on what
    you ate and drank last and when you last visited the bathroom. Again,
    the calculators will show speed differences for 139 versus 141 pounds.

    Here's a few calculator that shows the predicted differences for even
    small changes, including rolling resistance:

    http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

    If you reduce the default 0.0050 RR 10% to 0.0045, holding everything
    else the same, the calculator predicts a 0.28 km/h difference for the
    default values, a little less than 0.2 mph.

    Set the watts to 0 and roll the two bikes down a -6% grade, and the
    predicted speeds are 51.43 and 51.20 km/h, a 0.23 km/h difference for
    a 10% improvement in RR.

    An undetectable 0.23 km/h headwind will erase that difference. (It's
    not a straight loss of exactly 0.23 km/h top speed for 0.23 km/h
    headwind, but the difference is less than 0.01 km/h.)

    A temperature drop from 25 C to 22.5 C (77.00 F to 72.50 F) will also
    erase the tiny effect of 10% less rolling resistance.

    Changing frontal area from 0.40000 m^2 to 0.40355 m^2 wipes out the
    speed gain from a 10% RR reduction.

    Raising the altitude from 100 meters above sea level to 163 meters has
    the same effect on speed as a 10% RR reduction.

    Adding 0.73 kg (1.6 pounds) to the rider will let reach the same top
    speed with the 10% worse RR tires.

    In other words, real world variation in wind, temperature, air
    pressure, rider posture, and rider weight are all likely to have more
    effect on top speed down a 6% grade than the rolling resistance of
    roughly similar road tires.

    Plus you'll roll down the same road faster if rain or street sweepers
    have cleaned the winter sand off the surface, or if you pick a
    slightly different line to avoid the rougher patches and hit the
    cracks where they're smallest.

    You can get larger absolute differences at lower speeds, where rolling
    resistance is greater. On a -1% grade, the theoretical speeds drop to
    16.19 and 15.44 km/h, a whopping 0.75 km/h (just under 0.5 mph)
    difference for 10% less rolling resistance. But few people are willing
    to roll repeatedly down 1% grades at 10 mph--and holding the same tuck
    for long enough to reach top speed at such a snail's pace (without
    swerving, which will goof things up) is awfully hard.

    That's why spin-down tests on drums are generally considered to be
    more reliable than real-world efforts for RR, even though they factor
    out such things as the increased drag of wider tires and the effect of
    higher pressures causing bouncing.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  6. Kastnerd said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
    wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.
    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.
    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.
    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small
    little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward
    momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt
    more.

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    All you need are a set of rollers with a pivoting fork mount, a scale,
    a power meter, and a LOT of spare time ;-)

    A description/explanation: http://www.mediafire.com/?mzlj1v1ntet
    A handy spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ceo4sngarj

    And a plethora of data already taken:
    http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

    Alternatively, one can measure Crr differences using a power meter
    outside with the following method by keeping the aerodynamics of the
    situation (i.e, the Cda) constant: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

    I've used the "Chung method" above to look at "total non-aero
    resistance to forward motion" vs. tire pressure on "real roads to some
    success.

  7. Tom_A said:
    Kastnerd said:

    I know there has been many discussion on rolling resistance. But i was
    wondering how it would be best to test tires for real world
    conditions.

    Quoted message said:

    I would like to test it with the mavic ksyrium wheels.
    I would test the difference of tubed vs tubeless.
    Hutchinson makes the Fusion 2 tire for tubes (220g) and tubeless
    (295g) both are triple compound.
    I would like to test tubeless vs tubed at the same psi at the same
    weight.
    Test it at 80psi, 100psi and 120psi. i weight 140lbs.
    The biggest factor will be the real world road conditions. Every small
    little bump that is not absorbed by the tire losses from forward
    momentum, also loss of traction and if the ride is painful you hurt
    more.

    Quoted message said:

    What would be the best way to test these conditions?

    All you need are a set of rollers with a pivoting fork mount, a scale,
    a power meter, and a LOT of spare time ;-)

    A description/explanation: http://www.mediafire.com/?mzlj1v1ntet
    A handy spreadsheet: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ceo4sngarj

    And a plethora of data already taken:http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

    Alternatively, one can measure Crr differences using a power meter
    outside with the following method by keeping the aerodynamics of the
    situation (i.e, the Cda) constant: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

    I've used the "Chung method" above to look at "total non-aero
    resistance to forward motion" vs. tire pressure on "real roads to some
    success.

    Oops...that last link should have been: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.