Best tire for a SRAM S60 wheel
- Thread starter awilki01
- Start date
Ride anything you like. ask 10 people and you might get 15 answers depending on the day or the mood, the type of ride, weather, surface type etc. etc, ad nausium. Aerodynamic profile would only trump rolling resistance in a time trial I would think. Who really knows what the differences are between the two in a particular tire comaprison? I prefer tires; with flexible sidewalls as they give a smoother ride, found vs oval cross-section as cornering is better and moe predictable, and use a size that is at least slightly wider than the rim as I feel it protects the rim better and seems to ride and corner better. On my road bike I use 700 X 23, 24 25, and 28. I'll use the larger sizes for training or rougher roads, the smaller for faster group rides or races. My favorite tire is the Vittoria Pave' (700X24) I have it in both clincher and tubular it has a very smooth ride and works well for the rougher "chip seal" surfaces in some areas near here, and is good for dry or wet. My main riding partner swears by Continental 4000s 23s (good tires) until I convinced him to try a 25 now he loves those more, he won't try the Pave' as he had a flat issues etc on a lower line Vittoria, as have I. Challange tires are inexpensive and have great ride but are a touch "delicate", they make the only latex tube without a seam by the way. The Panaracer Pariba, in the foldable flat resistant version, rides surprising well an inexpensive heavier duty touring/trianing/utility tire and comes in a huge range of sizes and seem to be "bobmbproof" I've had good luck with Michelin and Gommitalia tires as well. If were more "well off" I would definately ride Silk tubulars in 23 and 25, "nothing rides like silk", and Cottons too in 28
There is no question: aero drag will dominate at any speed above roughly 5 mph (for 180lb rider; 18lb bike; air density at STP; cRR=0.01, aero area of 0.5m). Given, the aero cross section of your tires will be the thing that slows you the most, except in the case where you've got lots of turning and handling becomes an issue. A narrow front tire will serve you best aerodynamically, so you may want to look at using something like the Conti Attack (22mm wide) on the front. Also, Vittoria clinchers tend to run a bit narrow and come in narrow sizes. For instance the Vittoria Open Corsa series of tires come in widths as narrow as 21mm. Another reason for running a 21 or 22mm wide tire on the front is that older style aero wheels (as opposed to the new wider wheels like the Zipp Firecrest and Enve SSC wheels) were optimized using 21 or 22mm wide tires. For those older style wheels, 23mm wide tires decreases the aero performance of the wheels a bit (in most cases), and the performance gets worse the wider the tire gets. Note I'm only suggesting the narrow tires for the case of a TT.
Yup. Check the "aero width" of the rim - the widest section, not the width of the tire bed. Anything narrower than that will not hurt the aerodynamics, anything wider, will.
Btw, Zinn put out an article on tire width and speed (aero vs RR) and mentioned tires get faster as they get wider BUT the weight and width offset this advantage at a certain point. With the advent of wider rims it now takes a much wider tire to start killing the aero benefit with the "light bulb" effect. Not sure what the aero width is on those S60's, but they look like new generation rims... just a thought.
Edit: FWIW -
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-faq-again-bigger-tires-roll-faster_209888
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/tech-faq-more-on-fast-rolling-tires_210962
By the specs their pretty similar to the old 404 hybrid clincher. That was 22.45mm wide, while the S60 is 22mm wide (both measured at widest point). The 404 was 58mm tall, while the S60 is 60mm tall. The S60, however, is about 250g heavier, at 1900g or so, than the old 404.danfoz said:
I actually think it's better to measure the width at the brake track. Measuring at thickest part of the rim and buying a tire of that width may result in airflow detaching after the tire, which is about the opposite of what you want. In Zipp's rim profile, the ideal situation is to have laminar flow from the tire to the widest point on the rim and then to have flow detach somewhere after that. This is just like what you want with a wing. With that said, if you've got 23mm clinchers around, spoon 'em on, and give 'em a try. You might also try something like the Continental Attack/Force combo which has a 22mm front and a 24mm rear. Having a wider on the rear is less of a problem aerodynamically because air flow incident on the rear wheel is turbulent, as opposed to the front wheel which sees clean air. That means with the same type and size rim on the front and back, the back will reduce drag less, all else being equal. As always, the perfect solution is a balance between aerodynamic benefits, rolling resistance, handling, and ride quality.....and that means rider preference is an important factor.awilki01 said:
Is there a label on the rim which indicates either 622-13, or something similar?
If so, that is the bead-to-bead measurement ... THAT is as important a dimension as the brake surface width, IMO, because it impacts how much the tire is squeezed ... and, some beads on a similarly wide rim may be deeper or shallower.
FWIW. A 19mm wide brake surface 'complies' with the width of a traditional tubular rim ... and so, is still the de facto standard for competition wheels because it allows a rider to swap between clinchers & sew-ups without changing the brake pad clearance.
- in the past few years, people have rediscovered the FAT tubulars which used to be the norm before the FIRST (?) age of aero befell the cycling world back in the early 80s
YOU should choose the tire which suits YOUR specific riding needs ...
If you are a Peleton-weight rider, then a 700x19 tire will work for you ...
If you are more normal weight rider, then you may want to settle for a 700x23 tire ...
My limited observation is that Continental tires often sit taller (i.e., larger circumference) for a given nominal size when mounted on a given rim than some other brands of tires ... presuming the same volume of air (give-or-take) for the nominal size, then that might (but, maybe not) suggest a slightly narrower profile ... but, maybe not!
So, a 700x23 Continental seems to me to have about the same circumference as a 700x25 Michelin, but with a narrower profile.
YOUR observations may be different.
I looked up the rolling resistances for various tires. I went with a 20mm continental supersonic and some Michelin latex tubes. This will be a race only tire for TTs. You mention weight. I'm a heavier rider around 185 lbs. Is a wider tire more for comfort or safety?
