C
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:40:21 -0000, Chalo <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> I remain convinced that a tire that
>> absorbs road shock does so in proportion
>> to its rolling resistance. If there was
>> a free lunch, all of us would be riding
>> fast yet compliant tires.
>
>I ride frequently with my wife, who inevitably takes the same bike, a
>road bike with 700x28 Continental Ultra Sports. She has predictable
>riding habits, and she never pedals on even the slightest downhill
>stretch. I ride any of several bikes, so by synching my speed with
>hers, then coasting and judging my overtaking speed, I can compare the
>rolling qualities of my different tires. (There is no obvious
>difference in aerodynamics or riding position between most of my
>bikes, and the speeds at issue are not high enough for aerodynamics to
>be an overwhelming factor anyway.)
>
>Repeated observations among my own bikes show that my Schwalbe Big
>Apple 700x60 tires at 35psi outcoast my 700x35 Panaracer Paselas at
>80psi. I was quite surprised by this, but after several tries I have
>not been able to determine otherwise. The big tires certainly _feel_
>slower, though, in the way they handle and respond to bursts of
>power.
>
>Chalo
Dear Chalo,
The results of formal coasting contests in the late 1890's suggest
that more may be going on than we think nowadays. Here's an example
from the free New York Times archive for 1898:
"It is a popular idea that in a coasting contest, other things being
equal, the heaviest man should win. A coasting match took place in
Hartford recently at which this theory was entirely upset. The course
was short, and the grade at the beginning light. One rider weighed 190
pounds and the other was 60 pounds lighter. In the three trials both
men used the same wheels under almost identical conditions. In the
first tiral the lightweight coasted 125 feet, covering the first 100
feet in ten seconds, while the heavier rider was six seconds longer in
going 100 feet, and his distance was 20 feet less. The second trial,
with different equipment, resulted favorably to the heavy man, who
beat his opponent half a second in 100 feet, and was only beaten by
one foot in distance. In the thid trial the spiderwiehgt was again
victorious in time and distance. Both men were supposed to be equally
skilled coasters, and by the rules under which the contest was run
neither could avail himself of any movement to add to his distance."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CEFDB1438E433A25755C1A9669D94699ED7CF
Here's a long article on coasting matches from "Outing" magazine in
1898, with some pictures of the tucks used:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_31/outXXXI06/outXXXI06n.pdf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> I remain convinced that a tire that
>> absorbs road shock does so in proportion
>> to its rolling resistance. If there was
>> a free lunch, all of us would be riding
>> fast yet compliant tires.
>
>I ride frequently with my wife, who inevitably takes the same bike, a
>road bike with 700x28 Continental Ultra Sports. She has predictable
>riding habits, and she never pedals on even the slightest downhill
>stretch. I ride any of several bikes, so by synching my speed with
>hers, then coasting and judging my overtaking speed, I can compare the
>rolling qualities of my different tires. (There is no obvious
>difference in aerodynamics or riding position between most of my
>bikes, and the speeds at issue are not high enough for aerodynamics to
>be an overwhelming factor anyway.)
>
>Repeated observations among my own bikes show that my Schwalbe Big
>Apple 700x60 tires at 35psi outcoast my 700x35 Panaracer Paselas at
>80psi. I was quite surprised by this, but after several tries I have
>not been able to determine otherwise. The big tires certainly _feel_
>slower, though, in the way they handle and respond to bursts of
>power.
>
>Chalo
Dear Chalo,
The results of formal coasting contests in the late 1890's suggest
that more may be going on than we think nowadays. Here's an example
from the free New York Times archive for 1898:
"It is a popular idea that in a coasting contest, other things being
equal, the heaviest man should win. A coasting match took place in
Hartford recently at which this theory was entirely upset. The course
was short, and the grade at the beginning light. One rider weighed 190
pounds and the other was 60 pounds lighter. In the three trials both
men used the same wheels under almost identical conditions. In the
first tiral the lightweight coasted 125 feet, covering the first 100
feet in ten seconds, while the heavier rider was six seconds longer in
going 100 feet, and his distance was 20 feet less. The second trial,
with different equipment, resulted favorably to the heavy man, who
beat his opponent half a second in 100 feet, and was only beaten by
one foot in distance. In the thid trial the spiderwiehgt was again
victorious in time and distance. Both men were supposed to be equally
skilled coasters, and by the rules under which the contest was run
neither could avail himself of any movement to add to his distance."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CEFDB1438E433A25755C1A9669D94699ED7CF
Here's a long article on coasting matches from "Outing" magazine in
1898, with some pictures of the tucks used:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/Outing/Volume_31/outXXXI06/outXXXI06n.pdf
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
