Ewwww....

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?

Wow.

Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.

The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
likely offer some speed advantage.

Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.

Any test data to show this?

Quoted message said:

So for a very light rider (women in particular) on smooth roads, in
tirme trials, the narrower tire can and often is a better choice.

Better hope the road is really smooth and debris free, if one is riding
what must be necessity be a fragile tire.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).

What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
They had a good racing team.
They were sought after for their symbolism.
They had mystique and reputation.
I also heard that you needed two,
so one could be in the shop.

The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
finest engine (victories at Le Mans) and the finest suspension of any
saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
(state ownership) the cars were poorly made. Ford took over and
straightened out the quality and made Jaguar again into cars to be
proud of. Ford must be also be commended for pulling Volvo, the
Swedish maker of tractorlike quality cars (you can see I'm a big fan,
and have been since i was college) into the modern age. (GM by
contrast has done very badly by SAAB, once one of the most innovative
car makers in the world, turning SAABs into badge-engineered Opel/
Vauxhalls.) BMW pulled Range Rover into the modern age and made their
trucks reliable, but Ford is doing a good job with another iconic
brand there. By the way, whatever people may say about Ford's own
brands in the States, in Europe they make and sell very fine cars; a
European Mondeo in terms of build quality and performance leaves many
a small Mercedes standing in the taxi ranks (where it anyway properly
belongs).

Andre Jute
Who gave up the car altogether in 1992

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>
> Wow.
>
Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.

The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
likely offer some speed advantage.

Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.

Any test data to show this?

Not handy. Where's yours?

PS what i describe is well known.

Quoted message said:

Better hope the road is really
smooth and debris free, if one is riding
what must be necessity be a fragile tire.

People do it all the time in certain races. They don't hope - they
know and they choose. That's what it's about. Not FUD and fear when
it's unnecessary.

PS how much do you weigh? For some reason I think you weigh too much.

Andre Jute said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Chalo said:

I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).

What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
They had a good racing team.
They were sought after for their symbolism.
They had mystique and reputation.
I also heard that you needed two,
so one could be in the shop.

The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
finest engine (victories at Le Mans)

Was not Jaguar's first victory at Le Mans mostly due to having superior
brakes (discs) to the competition (drum brakes)?

Quoted message said:

and the finest suspension of any
saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
(state ownership) the cars were poorly made.

You don't say! I had a British Leyland era MG Midget, which I almost
spent more time repairing than driving.

Quoted message said:

Ford took over and
straightened out the quality and made Jaguar again into cars to be
proud of. Ford must be also be commended for pulling Volvo, the
Swedish maker of tractorlike quality cars (you can see I'm a big fan,
and have been since i was college) into the modern age. (GM by
contrast has done very badly by SAAB, once one of the most innovative
car makers in the world, turning SAABs into badge-engineered Opel/
Vauxhalls.)

Yes, when they moved the ignition key from the console to the column,
that was the end.

Quoted message said:

BMW pulled Range Rover into the modern age and made their
trucks reliable, but Ford is doing a good job with another iconic
brand there. By the way, whatever people may say about Ford's own
brands in the States, in Europe they make and sell very fine cars; a
European Mondeo in terms of build quality and performance leaves many
a small Mercedes standing in the taxi ranks (where it anyway properly
belongs).

Most USians buy Mercedes-Benz vehicles as status symbols.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:53:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:01:20 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> 19 mm is a silly width for a tire anywhere but the velodrome.
>> Anywhere? For anyone? For any purpose?
>>
>> Wow.
>>
> Since the testing that has been done determined that the lower rolling
> resistance of the 23-mm tires more than made up for the slightly greater
> aerodynamic drag and weight compared to narrower tires as pressures
> usable on the road, what would be the point of narrower tires? More
> pinch flats, harsher ride, and worse handling on loose surfaces combined
> with slower overall speed? Wow, indeed.
>
> The velodrome is a different matter, since the very smooth surfaces
> allow for very high inflation pressures, so the narrower tires would
> likely offer some speed advantage.
Thanks for mixing in some disinformation. Between two tires of equal
construction in tersm of casing and tread at 19 and 23, the 23 will
have lower rolling resistance. But 19s can and sometimes are built
with thinner casing and that will roll faster than a comparable 23.

Any test data to show this?

Not handy. Where's yours?

Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

Quoted message said:

PS what i describe is well known.

Quoted message said:

Better hope the road is really
smooth and debris free, if one is riding
what must be necessity be a fragile tire.

People do it all the time in certain races. They don't hope - they
know and they choose. That's what it's about. Not FUD and fear when
it's unnecessary.

PS how much do you weigh? For some reason I think you weigh too much.

About 0.6 Chalo.

I have a skinny 35-mm wide Primo Comet on the front of one of my
bicycles, which is about as small as can be reasonably used when I could
kit a pothole at 80 or more kph.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman said:

Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
fastest and I believe it.

That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
certain widths but fine in narrower widths.

[Sherman's weight]

Quoted message said:

About 0.6 Chalo.

What is that? 150#? 200#?

In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
needs vary based on the rider.

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

On Feb 8, 3:22 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Andre Jute said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
> I have seen enough Jags that are obviously reskinned Tauruses to know
> that Ford is in the process of doing to that formerly esteemed brand
> what Pacific did to Schwinn (and may soon do to Cannondale).
What was the big deal with Jaguar automobiles?
They had a good racing team.
They were sought after for their symbolism.
They had mystique and reputation.
I also heard that you needed two,
so one could be in the shop.

Quoted message said:

The founding generation endowed Jaguar with the finest styling, the
finest engine (victories at Le Mans)

Was not Jaguar's first victory at Le Mans mostly due to having superior
brakes (discs) to the competition (drum brakes)?

That's what the losers would like to have you think. But disc brakes
are no good unless you first have the engine power and the
aerodynamics to give you speed. It was a class thing, see. Today an
engineer might think of a Jaguar as an alternative to a Mercedes or a
BMW and so on. Back then, Jaguar had the reputation for building "Cars
for cads." Flash bodywork on other people's engines; whatever you
couldn't see on SS cars (as Jaguar was called before the war, was
cheap; I had a 100 which had the original firewall, made of painted
plywood... After the war Jaguar put the overhead cam engine they
designed during the war into big lumbering Bentley-sized saloons.
Still no racing track record. Meanwhile, Mercedes and Alfa were racers
from veteran days, and they and whoever of the noble French marques
not net bankrupted by the spite of socialist French governments, and
Ferrari who, though he started making cars under is own name only
after he war, had a long and distinguished record as team manager for
others, thought they owned Le Mans. So now, here comes this upstart
*assembler* of Cads' Cars (about the equivalent of a Jordan in the
States), with an admirable engine that beat them hollow -- well, of
course they need an excuse, and that excuse was, Oh, they had disc
brakes and we didn't. I had a Mk II with that engine, an XK150, an E-
type, an XK6 and they were all fabulous cars at half or less than the
price of cars that never even came close. (A Mercedes 300SEL 6.3,
which I also had, had a swing axle rear suspension!) Then the British
unions wrecked Jaguar's hardwon quality, its image and its markets...
Ford is to be hugely admired for salvaging a dead brand and remaking
it in the image of the great founders, only better and truer to their
vision than they themselves could ever afford.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the finest suspension of any
saloon car, But after the founders retired, British labour unions and
their destructive attitudes happened to Jaguar. Under BL management
(state ownership) the cars were poorly made.

You don't say! I had a British Leyland era MG Midget, which I almost
spent more time repairing than driving.

Yeah, I had an XJ6 as a company car in the early 1970s and after a
fortnight gave it back and demanded a car that actually ran. A
protottype Bertone spyder on Fiat mechanicals that I ran as a backup
car had fewer faults in a year than that Jaguar had on any one day.

Andre Jute
Bicyclist

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
fastest and I believe it.

That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
certain widths but fine in narrower widths.

[Sherman's weight]

Quoted message said:

About 0.6 Chalo.

What is that? 150#? 200#?

At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.

Quoted message said:

In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
needs vary based on the rider.

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
the fastest tire was the 23-mm.

There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
fastest and I believe it.

That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
certain widths but fine in narrower widths.

[Sherman's weight]

Quoted message said:

About 0.6 Chalo.

What is that? 150#? 200#?

At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.

Are you embarrassed to state your own weight directly?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
needs vary based on the rider.

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.

Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
don't have the same needs. I know and have coached riders weighing
just over half your weight and some have achieved great things on the
bike. Good thing they haven't followed your advice.

If you need to feel better about it by making up some percentages to
cover your simplistic thinking, go ahead.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, I do not think it has been published, but it has been
> widely reported that the tests done by Cobb for US Postal indicated that
> the fastest tire was the 23-mm.
There is no single fastest tire in practice. It depends on the road
conditions and rider weight. For an average weight guy on an average
road with average racing durability needs (that is, needing a certain
thickness of casing and tread) yes, 23 is widely reported to be
fastest and I believe it.

That's not true for a much lighter rider on very good roads -
especially in a time trial where durability needs are lower because
the rider can see the road better to avoid holes (as opposed to often
riding unsighted in a pack). That tire can have a thinner casing and
tread and roll faster. The thinner casing would be untenable in
certain widths but fine in narrower widths.

[Sherman's weight]
> About 0.6 Chalo.
What is that? 150#? 200#?

At last posting, Chalo was at about 150 kgf.

Are you embarrassed to state your own weight directly?

I thought Sorni was the math challenged one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, it's silly to claim that a certain size tire is always
fastest based on some typical rider weight and not recognize that
needs vary based on the rider.

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.

Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
don't have the same needs. I know and have coached riders weighing
just over half your weight and some have achieved great things on the
bike. Good thing they haven't followed your advice.

If you need to feel better about it by making up some percentages to
cover your simplistic thinking, go ahead.

Yet, there are too many riders out there who assume that narrower is
always faster, based on nothing but Myth & Lore [TM].

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman said:

Quoted message said:

Are you embarrassed to state your own weight directly?

I thought Sorni was the math challenged on

I can do the math. I asked you a different question.

Tom Sherman said:

Yet, there are too many riders out there who assume that narrower is
always faster, based on nothing but Myth & Lore [TM].

So because many people are mistaken, you think it's appropriate to
gloss over facts and more complete understanding?

Lame.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tom Sherman said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

For a 400# riders a 25 or 28 or perhaps even larger tire woudl
probably be faster than a 23.

Quoted message said:

OK, so a 19-mm tire is silly 99.88 percent of the time for 99.99 percent
of riders, unless they are on a smooth velodrome.

I don't know the percentages, but there are several times a year a
handful of the top riders in my club should and do use narrower tires.
Maybe that is even rarer than what you say, maybe not.

Nonetheless I find it annoying when big boys with limited
understanding or practical experience in bike racing, and little
regard for the fact that there are some fast small cyclists out there,
don't have the same needs.

There is one rarely mentioned benefit-- not a direct efficiency
benefit, mind you-- to very skinny tires.

At equal pressure, a narrow tire will ride more softly than a wider
one. (Until it runs out of suspension travel by bottoming.)

But if a rider is light enough to run a 19mm tire at 100psi instead of
a 23, 25, or 28mm tire at the same pressure, it will have more
compliance over the same bumps, until it bottoms. Within reason, more
cush can result in more speed because there is less energy being
transferred into jarring the rider.

Whether this means that a very lightweight rider on a very smooth
course can go faster with a 19mm tire at 100psi rather than a 23mm
tire inflated to a pressure that provides the same _compliance_ is an
open question. But using a tire just big enough for the job allows
potentially lighter weight and potentially less air resistance, so all
else equal, it should still be faster all in all.

Chalo