Why Do You Ride Mountain A Bike On Streets?

[Pete]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:18:38 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .
> .Gears. Most bikes sold today have multiple gears.
>
> 10, not 15 or 21.

C'mon, Mikey...when was the last time you saw a *new* "10 speed" for sale?
In any event...the number of gears is irrelevant. More gears = less spread
between each one. Top and bottom are still pretty much the same. (Except for
the so-called MegaRange rear cluster with an extra big low gear, found on
many 'city bikes', as well as some mountain bikes)

>
> .Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant.
> .Brakes. Most bikes sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant.
> .Frames. Stip a low end road bike, and a low end MTB down to the bare
frame,
> .and I'd be surprised if you found more than a pound or so difference.
Hardly
> .'overbuilt'
>
> If that were true, we wouldn't need mountain bikes. There must be some
> difference, or people would be mountain biking on 10-speeds.

The difference is marketing. What is on display for people to see and buy?
Things shaped like mountain bikes. Never mind that the vast majority never
leave the pavement. Or at most go across the grass in the front yard.

> .> .They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit common mountain
> .bike
> .> .rims.
> .>
> .> Implying that they are WIDER than normal road tires, and hence have
more
> .rolling
> .> resistance. DUH!
> .
> .Please show some data illustrating that point. I've posted data to the
> .opposite. Your turn.
>
> Something so obvious doesn't need "data". It is simple physics.

Yes, it IS simple physics.
Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure and
weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the same
area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction, ergo
less rolling resistance.

Not obvious, but simple.

100 pounds per square inch means exactly that. A 100 lb load results in a 1
square inch contact patch. Now....is that patch long and skinny, or wide and
short?

There is specific test data, from multiple sources, that show that wider
tires (of the same construction and pressure) may well have less rolling
resistance than narrower ones. I've posted links showing these tests.

OTOH, as a counter, you can only say "It's obvious". No theory, no
supporting data, no documented tests. Nothing. Just your usual frothing at
the mouth. And as usual, completely wrong in your assumptions.

Thanks for playing, Mikey. This has been fun.


Pete
I apologize to all those still reading this for my semi-annual "poking the
monkey with a stick" exercise. I'll stop now.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:49:47 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:18:38 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> .Gears. Most bikes sold today have multiple gears.
..>
..> 10, not 15 or 21.
..
..C'mon, Mikey...when was the last time you saw a *new* "10 speed" for sale?
..In any event...the number of gears is irrelevant.

Only if they are weightless. Idiot.

More gears = less spread
..between each one. Top and bottom are still pretty much the same. (Except for
..the so-called MegaRange rear cluster with an extra big low gear, found on
..many 'city bikes', as well as some mountain bikes)
..
..>
..> .Road/City/Hybrid/Comfort/MTB. Irrelevant.
..> .Brakes. Most bikes sold today have two brakes. Irrelevant.
..> .Frames. Stip a low end road bike, and a low end MTB down to the bare
..frame,
..> .and I'd be surprised if you found more than a pound or so difference.
..Hardly
..> .'overbuilt'
..>
..> If that were true, we wouldn't need mountain bikes. There must be some
..> difference, or people would be mountain biking on 10-speeds.
..
..The difference is marketing.

Now you are just plain LYING. Mountain bikes are nothing like 10-speeds nor
3-speeds.

What is on display for people to see and buy?
..Things shaped like mountain bikes. Never mind that the vast majority never
..leave the pavement. Or at most go across the grass in the front yard.
..
..> .> .They *are* road tires, dumdum. They just happen to fit common mountain
..> .bike
..> .> .rims.
..> .>
..> .> Implying that they are WIDER than normal road tires, and hence have
..more
..> .rolling
..> .> resistance. DUH!
..> .
..> .Please show some data illustrating that point. I've posted data to the
..> .opposite. Your turn.
..>
..> Something so obvious doesn't need "data". It is simple physics.
..
..Yes, it IS simple physics.
..Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure and
..weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.

Nonsense. You are telling me that a 2" tire and a 1" tire both have the same
width of road contact? You are just LYING.

..Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the same
..area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction, ergo
..less rolling resistance.
..
..Not obvious, but simple.
..
..100 pounds per square inch means exactly that. A 100 lb load results in a 1
..square inch contact patch. Now....is that patch long and skinny, or wide and
..short?

The area isn't the same. That's obvious.

..There is specific test data, from multiple sources, that show that wider
..tires (of the same construction and pressure) may well have less rolling
..resistance than narrower ones. I've posted links showing these tests.

Nonsense. Narrow, high-pressure, smooth tires will always have less rolling
resistance than wide, low-pressure, bumpy tires.

..OTOH, as a counter, you can only say "It's obvious". No theory, no
..supporting data, no documented tests. Nothing. Just your usual frothing at
..the mouth. And as usual, completely wrong in your assumptions.
..
..Thanks for playing, Mikey. This has been fun.
..
..
..Pete
..I apologize to all those still reading this for my semi-annual "poking the
..monkey with a stick" exercise. I'll stop now.
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Stephen Baker]

MV blathers:

>Nonsense. You are telling me that a 2" tire and a 1" tire both have the same
>width of road contact? You are just LYING

No - he's telling you that the AREA is the same, but the 2" tyre has a wider
patch, which has been shown to have less rolling resistance.

>The area isn't the same. That's obvious.
>

Only to someone with no scientific knowledge (which we knew to be the case
here.)

A quick physics lesson, Mikey. Pressure is measured in pounds per square inch
(in American units). That means that, for a 100 psi tire, with a 100 lb weight
on it, the contact patch will be 1 square inch. That's 100 psi. Whether the
patch is 1" by 1" or 2" by 1/2" really doesn't matter, its area will always be
1 square inch. Period.
If you double the pressure, the area of the patch will be half waht it was. If
you double the weight, the patch doubles in area. It's simple math, which even
you should be able to understand.

Steve "shoulda been a teacher"

 

[Corvus Corvax]

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote (from the "a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing" file):
>
> Yes, it IS simple physics.
> Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure and
> weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
> Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the same
> area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction, ergo
> less rolling resistance.

Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??


CC

 

[Adam]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
-8<- snip ->8-

> Who cares? I like to enjoy biking, not torture myself and others.

Now we *know* you're a liar - if you don't like to "torture myself and
others" [sic], you'd have given up posting on a.m-b years ago.

Adam...

 

[Nelson @ International Bicycle]

"Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote (from the "a little knowledge is a
> dangerous thing" file):
> >
> > Yes, it IS simple physics.
> > Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure
and
> > weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
> > Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the
same
> > area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction,
ergo
> > less rolling resistance.
>
> Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
> not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
> that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??
>
>
> CC

Probably not, but I'd be willing to bet my 26x1.5 Specialized Nimbus EX
Armadillos have less rolling resistance at full pressure than the 26x1 3/8
crappies on Mikey's "english"


---
International Bicycle
5326 E Independence Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28212
http://intbike.com
704 535-5501

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/04

 

[Pete]

"Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote (from the "a little knowledge is a
> dangerous thing" file):
> >
> > Yes, it IS simple physics.
> > Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure
and
> > weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
> > Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the
same
> > area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction,
ergo
> > less rolling resistance.
>
> Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
> not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
> that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??

As the subj line says, we've been talking about mtb's on the street. With
street tires, not knobbies. And I DO run my 1.5" CyclePro & 1.9" Cheng Shin
at pretty close to 100.

Scroll back up, and you'll see how we got to this point, CC

Pete

 

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

quote:
From (James=A0Lynx)
Not a high end mountain bike BUT a pretty good Fuji Discovery II. I
think it's a good bike. So far so good.
:quote

I have a Discovery 3. I have had it for nearly 2 years now. I like it a
lot. I use it to ride trails and to go to work. I replaced the knobbies
with some on/off road type tires (k-rads) for above reason. Much better
ride than the knobs for the trip (3 miles) to work. Yet they still have
some tread for the dirt trails I go to . The trails arent difficult by
any means.
So I ride a mtnb on road cause its the only bike I have, on raod is the
only way to get to work plus the susp makes the ride more comfortable

 

[Corvus Corvax]

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
> > not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
> > that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??
>
> As the subj line says, we've been talking about mtb's on the street. With
> street tires, not knobbies. And I DO run my 1.5" CyclePro & 1.9" Cheng Shin
> at pretty close to 100.
>
> Scroll back up, and you'll see how we got to this point, CC

Right you are. A nice reminder of why it's a bad idea to bother
contributing to MV flamewars: you have to read the whole damn thread.
Mea culpa.

CC

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 02 Jun 2004 14:11:04 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Stephen Baker) wrote:

..MV blathers:
..
..>Nonsense. You are telling me that a 2" tire and a 1" tire both have the same
..>width of road contact? You are just LYING
..
..No - he's telling you that the AREA is the same, but the 2" tyre has a wider
..patch, which has been shown to have less rolling resistance.
..
..>The area isn't the same. That's obvious.
..>
..
..Only to someone with no scientific knowledge (which we knew to be the case
..here.)
..
..A quick physics lesson, Mikey. Pressure is measured in pounds per square inch
..(in American units). That means that, for a 100 psi tire, with a 100 lb weight
..on it, the contact patch will be 1 square inch. That's 100 psi. Whether the
..patch is 1" by 1" or 2" by 1/2" really doesn't matter, its area will always be
..1 square inch. Period.

BS. You are assuming a perfectly elastic tire, which doesn't exist. Why is it so
hard for you mountain bikers to admit what is obvious to everyone else? Mountain
bikes have greater rolling resistance than skinny-tire bikes.

..If you double the pressure, the area of the patch will be half waht it was. If
..you double the weight, the patch doubles in area. It's simple math, which even
..you should be able to understand.
..
..Steve "shoulda been a teacher"

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 2 Jun 2004 08:59:24 -0700, [email protected] (Corvus Corvax) wrote:

.."Pete" <[email protected]> wrote (from the "a little knowledge is a
..dangerous thing" file):
..>
..> Yes, it IS simple physics.
..> Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure and
..> weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
..> Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the same
..> area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction, ergo
..> less rolling resistance.
..
..Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
..not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
..that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??

No, he's trying not to admit that Mike Vandeman is right.

..CC

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:58:48 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote (from the "a little knowledge is a
..> dangerous thing" file):
..> >
..> > Yes, it IS simple physics.
..> > Simple physics to show that the contact patch will, at a given pressure
..and
..> > weight, be the same size, no matter how wide the tire.
..> > Simple physics to show that a rounder and shorter contact patch, of the
..same
..> > area, causes less sidewall deformation, ergo less internal friction,
..ergo
..> > less rolling resistance.
..>
..> Except that nobody runs a mountain bike tire at 100 psi. And that's
..> not even considering knobby treads. Are you seriously trying to argue
..> that mountain bikes have lower rolling resistance than road bikes??
..
..As the subj line says, we've been talking about mtb's on the street. With
..street tires, not knobbies.

But they are also WIDER than 10-speed & 3-speed tires. More rubber on the
ground.

And I DO run my 1.5" CyclePro & 1.9" Cheng Shin
..at pretty close to 100.
..
..Scroll back up, and you'll see how we got to this point, CC
..
..Pete
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 2 Jun 2004 09:55:31 -0700, [email protected] (Adam) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..-8<- snip ->8-
..
..> Who cares? I like to enjoy biking, not torture myself and others.
..
..Now we *know* you're a liar - if you don't like to "torture myself and
..others" [sic], you'd have given up posting on a.m-b years ago.

Telling the truth is enjoyable. You should try it sometime.

..Adam...

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[gazzer]

Mike Vandeman
Telling the truth is enjoyable. You should try it sometime.

wassa matter mike, got sand in your vagina again?

g