There is also one other aspect - fatigue. Having a skill to go fast downhill on a, let's say, 40mm is one thing. But like you said - you use your skills and focus hard to avoid puncture on sketchier descents, but that takes a huge toll on your mind and body after a few hours of intense racing. Comfort and grip levels give you something that's much harder to "get data on" - confidence. And in the end you can't say Lachlan Morton's Unbound win is worth less because he's lacking skills to ride it on a skinnier tire... It's all relative and in my humble opinion, in the end, if you're serious about your racing - you choose your tires accordingly to the characteristics of the race. If it's long, exhausting and chunky - I'm pretty sure those few extra watts can be offset by the comfort/less fatigue, better grip and feeling more confident - all the things the bigger tire can give you. In those "gravel" races like the Worlds, I'm pretty sure a low-pressure 40mm can be advantageous.
Great to hear a perspective of someone who rode the race of the World Gravel champs course, and liking it. I'm biased, as it ran on my local trails that I've been riding ever since '90s MTB were cutting edge, but I thought it was great to ride! Something to bear in mind few comment on is that very unusually for October the race was dry. If it had pi$$ed it down as per usual the course would have been WAY more technical!
Dylan Johnson never said that MTB tyres (2.2 wide) are always faster gravel tyres. What he said was that MTB tyres (good rolling ones like Continental Race Kings) with high TPI are faster on rougher courses. The smoother the course the narrower the tyre you can use to get the most performance. With a lot of races like Unbound the MTB tyre is as good as the best gravel tyres but has much better puncture protection and the advantage of less fatigue from a smoother ride. The gravel world champs for instance had most of the course on sealed roads/bike paths and only some gravel and dirt, so a narrower tyre is better. Getting the tyre up to speed isn't as much of a problem in a lot of these big distance races as your average speed is reasonably consistent and doesn't vary greatly, but rolling resistance is a factor from the start to the finish.
DJ has also said that MTB tires are faster for racing (some courses) because when you are riding in a group you don't have to worry about choosing the best line. I mostly ride gravel solo (don't race), so I ride 47's most of the time.
MTB tires … most of the time you’re not accelerating when riding so sounds like a moot point. Dylan also did timed test on actual terrain so just accusing people using bad science in not convincing. Different courses different tyres. Using mtb tyres is condemnation of how gravel tyres are lacking performance
And yet I just tried out a set of caracal race and they are noticably faster on the same bike vs 2.2 race kings. Nasty offroad RK may be faster (certainly more confident), but wow the rolling difference on the street.
11:57 Because MAXIS tyres are shit :) you should test the SAME casing, and SAME compound, just different sizes. not just chewable or other good tyres at 40mm and maxis MTB tire.
I like the fact that Haas is offering an alternative view on this debate. The fastest tyre doesn't mean the fastest when it matters, I think that is critical thinking. Things may well be going a little bit past the sweetspot and with more science will find their way back.
I have a 47 km route over the hill that is 50/50 asphalt and gravel (a lot type2 gravel according to Silca) I have done both on 11,5 kg full suspension mtb with 56 mm, and on a 11,5 kg Gravelbike with 30 mm Lefty damper both on 38 and 45 mm. I dont have powermeter, but according to strava it looked like the 56mm was ca 1km/h slower. It felt faster on the gravel, but the clock said the opposite. 56mm also felt a lot safer downhill on gravel, and more comfortable. Maybe the speedpenalty came from the aero-position more than the tyres. The 56 also gave me a more straight line, less need to avoid the coarser part of the road. The difference between 38 and 45 mm I wasnt able to see on recorded speed, but the 45 had a comfortedge and felt safer. Previous years I have been riding such roads on 32mm cyclocrosstyres on a 10 kg cyclocross aluminiumbike with no suspension. It was fast, but I got shaken and tired, especially in the neck.
Dylan does his own testing on segments to validate how much faster mtb tires are vs narrower tires and he has done aero testing to validate mtb tires vs other size tires on the rims he runs. So, to say that they aren't faster is not true. And the rim width internal for Dylan's rims are 21MM. Lastly, to measure only going up hill and not going down is not a true test. You don't only race going up a hill. Those narrow tires going down you will lose time due to handling, cornering and puncture resistance.
Maybe it's been lost in the discussion, but I think he's primary point is that most US gravel races are won/lost on the key climbs. And tyre/wheel choice can be the' rate limiting' factor. On the long flats/drags you can draft and on the descents, speed is determined by the technical nature of the trail. Thus, the key climbs are where things get shaken up.
We had Dylan over here in the UK for some wind tunnel testing and rolling road tests for tyres. On rough gravel 50mm MTB tyres were by far and away the fastest. Double digit savings per wheel. What Nathan is saying here is flawed… his explanation of how tyres are tested on a drum is not correct. The bike can move side to side. You can also calculate the energy loss in acceleration (it’s v minimal). Nathan also doesn’t say if they controlled for tyre pressure in his test. Wider tyres, on rough terrain should be run at a lower pressure than. If they ran the same pressure ie the wider tyre was too hard, then it would not travel over bumps as well. The art is in selecting a tyre for the course. If there’s only a small amount of gravel then optimising for a road surface, with a narrower, higher pressure tyre, that’s worse on the gravel, may be the best option.
@@keepingtherubberdown5715 Remember that different courses are outfitted differently. Some front suspension is occasionally needed with the wider “low profile” race tires & they will also run inserts for flat prevention. Rough downhills & their length usually determines that setup.
Yeah the problem with most when talking about how wide tires are slower they are mostly based on feel and assumptions. Dylan actually tests if they are faster in real life.
Why didn't Chad Haga just do a lower power output on the climb e.g. 370, and then retest like 3-4 times on the same day? That is a lot more reliable data than going basically allout and then having to repeat testing on a different day.
@YannickOkpara-d5l Fair point. Maybe he went for the harder/ longer 'max' effort in order to obtain a greater delta, knowing that he could not 'easily' repeat it on the day. FWIW, your methodology makes more sense.
Super interesting, guys! Thanks for inviting Nathan, the gravel guru to the show. The points he claims and the questions he brings are crucial to the current state of gravel. It's exciting to witness that this new discipline still has a lot to test and discover
Thanks Gerard - we agree, it was great to get Nathan on the channel to share his experiences. We're looking forward to exploring these topics more in the future. Cheers, Simon
Great insights. Good to have balanced views from various perspectives and use own common sense and tweak for a particular use case. Gravel bikes are awesome in that you can run anything from 28mm to 2.2 inch. With or without suspension. Slick or tread. Amazing. People love to argue, but instead just enjoy the amazing versatility and do what you want. And change it as often as you want based on course, season, weather, or latest RUclips hype.
The Science is lacking. Testing a bike or other equipment for aero gains in a wind tunnel, or tire rolling resistance on a drum at a fixed speed is problematic because riding a bike is dynamic. That said, isn't it great that we are actually having these conversations and not just taking the manufacturers word for claimed performance? I believe that in at least one instance however, the choice to use mountain bike tires had to do more with durability and reducing the risk of crashing on a technical course where visibility in the pack is limited. We all know that a 2.1 inch knobby MTB tire is going to be more forgiving on technical courses than a 40mm gravel tire. I reject the idea that "bigger is better" in all cases. A point that has been made by some....
💯 Big Sugar was not just chunkier than previous years, but also dustier. For the elite riders in the peloton on a dusty sketchy descent, technical it ability doesn’t matter if you can’t see rocks 3 feet in front of you going 40mph. Safer to run bigger tires and not care what you can roll over. Allows you to be more aggressive without punctures that drop you from the group. There were SO many folks repairing flats this year. Meanwhile, I ran 42 Terravail Rutlands and haven’t flatted on the course in 3 years. But in the mid-pack and only riding 53 miles I have the luxury of leaving enough room from the wheel in front of me where I can choose the best line and can see the biggest rocks to avoid. However, when I buy new tires for next year I will choose 45s for the extra comfort.
Likewise, we'd love to get Dylan aand/or Keegan on the channel to talk about this topic - fingers crossed we can make it happen. Cheers for watching, Simon
The biggest gravel trend will be turning them into mountain bikes 🤣 For fucks sake, just put drop bars on a light XC mountain bike and be done with it!
Great points from Nathan on the acceleration hit wider tires give. That should get more talk. That said I have been doing Chung method aero and CRR testing on some local gravel routes and as surfaces get even mildly rough, fast 2.2-2.4 mtb tires give lower CRR values than fast 45-50 mm gravel tires. As in the CRR values o n pavement flip quick. Plenty of tires “feel fast” to me during tests then end up kinda slow so that’s why we test and not just a couple climb attempts. 😊
UCI Gravel races are not a gravel reference (expert people riding in a very smooth and soft condition). In many countries gravel y "real" gravel with hard sections, bad roads, long downhill, etc., where a bigger tire always will be more comfortable and safe (better race time on long terms).
mtb tyres are more puncture resitant, roll way smoother on any rough terrain and have lower rolling resistance than lots of fast gravel tyres like specialized pathfinder pro on smooth pavement. The only few bad things about them is that its less aero (you can put them on deep wheels), the weight, the way they feel on smaller rims and the slow acceleration wich does not have a huge impact. So for gravel race i'd choose them over any gravel tyre.
Dunning Kruger is not science, they badly botched their paper and the effect they found is actually autocorrelation. Overconfidence bias is real, I think that’s what most ppl mean
Nathan, the difference in energy to accelerate a 40mm 425g Reaver vs a 2.4" 700g Aspen from 15 to 30 kph is about 16 Joules. The energy to accelerate an 80kg bike + rider that same amount is about 2,500 Joules! Put another way, if you were 0.2mph faster through a corner leading into that acceleration with the Aspens it would erase the entire energy difference for a pair of Reavers! We (humans) are good at sensing how much effort something takes but horrible at sensing speed, so you might feel that a lighter setup is faster but completely miss that you could carry 1mph extra through corners or rough patches, thereby saving huge amounts of energy. Therefore you should not be relying on feeling for deciding how fast a tire is.
The opposite effect of wider tires, although they accelerate slower, they hold speed better than narrower tires. You can also do measured roll-down tests. As with 29ers vs 26, and FS vs hardtails, holding speed is more advantageous than nimbleness and acceleration. "Feeling faster" means absolutely nothing. The most skilled riders get flats--the snob appeal is a little disgusting. You all ain't all that...
From my experience, anything from a 700x40 to a 29x2.6 tire works best on a 30mm internal width rim. My favorite Gravel set up is 700x47 (Pathfinder) tire on an i30 rim at 26psi for my 160 pound weight. For my Mountain bike, I like a 2.6 tire on an i30 rim at 18psi. If I owned a Road bike, it would be a 700x40 tire on an i30 rim at maybe 30-35psi. I've tried all these various tire sizes, 40mm to 2.6in, and they all perform best on i30 rims.
15:30 It is the same with geometry. What a world class elite racer can handle more or less, is way to twitchy and nimble for the average rider. But they desperately yearn for this bikes. Even if it leads to fatal crashes.
As age group rider on uci gravel World Cup races I have to qualify by racing at least one qualifying race and finish in the top 10% of my group,so why aren’t pros forced to do the same ??
I ride MTB tires because my biggest concern (as an old fart) is not crashing on downhills. For people who's biggest concern is top speed, my priorities wouldn't work.
I found on 29ers i could drop 10 seonds over 42mm tyres. But i could gain more than 30 seconds onnthe dh, thats where 29er tyres change the game, it will.no longer be a up hill that splits every race.
This is super interesting and refreshing, a much more complete and detailed assessment of the whole “wider tyres are faster” mantra that’s been adopted by the cycling media.
The media hasn’t adopted it, the racers themselves have and the media is reporting on their experiences. Nathan is trying to say that professional racers don’t truly need larger tires, and Alexey Vermulen did at one point as well. Now he’s running 2.2s on the front and a 50 on the rear, which resulted in a win a Big Sugar. They wouldn’t be making these decisions if they didn’t feel like it would give them an advantage
@@TyTy22_Big Sugar is a course where wider tires are better because it is rough and more likely to puncture a lower volume tire. This isn’t the case for every course
brags about his testing that's says 45mm tires are faster then 40mm tire, then proceeds to say he races on 40mm because he can just feel they are faster. had to turn it off at that point
No one's trying to sell anything in this podcast - these are just one racer's opinions. We're hoping to have more guests on the channel in the future, so there'll be plenty of room for different views. Cheers for watching, Simon
This was hard to listen to. “Poor decisions and poor science”. His theory of acceleration is wonky and his scientific test of two tires is 1)small sample size 2) sounds not controlled for pressure and therefore not scientific. His “side to side” argument seems to violate the law of conservation of angular momentum, but it was so poorly explained I couldn’t follow.
No one talks about the fact that a good percentage of the reason why top-tier gravel racers in the US run these extra-wide tires is for puncture avoidance reasons. Flying along with dust and debris everywhere, in a pack, there's very little you can do to avoid flatting if a significant enough obstacle is in your path. There's no way in hell that anyone will ever convince me that the energy expenditure needed to accelerate a tire that's almost double the weight of a standard gravel tire has no impact on race performance. There is a quantifiable energy cost here. Considering the accelerations happen on a pretty regular basis in gravel cycling, this cost alone will have a material impact on race outcome.
A thunder burt 2.1 is 545g. That's almost the same as a 700x42 pathfinder pro at 540g. 2.2 Race kings are 615g, it's minimal. "there's very little you can do to avoid flatting" - using higher volume tires works pretty well
My Rene Herse 44’s weigh about 370g each. I’ve tried mtb tires that were 2.25’s and weighed almost a pound more total. While a nice ride, I can feel that on every acceleration out of a corner, every roller, every jump to close a gap. All that extra effort adds up over 4-6 hours. As with most things, it really depends on a bunch of factors which is better for a particular race.
@@mikewikstrom3416 I agree that it depends, but I do also think that wider tires should be favored much more often than people think. Such a super lightweight gravel tire will not offer the same puncture protection as the ones I mentioned (also from the physics and for 80kg system weight, the energy needed to accelerate will only be about 1% higher for 400grams more tire). One of my takeaways is that to achieve a similar level of puncture protection one can either use a high volume thinner casing tire or a lower volume heavier casing tire. For a similar protetion level they are pretty similar in weight. The in the video mentioned pros seem to want that level of protection and the weight argument goes out of the window. Remains rolling resistance vs. aero and the mtb tire seem to give the better balance for them.
Did you race it? As I said in the pod, I've seen plenty of comments saying it wasn't 'gravel' enough, but those who raced it seemed to think it was... 🤷♂️ Cheers for watching, Simon
Depends on the tire tread, the tire rubber compound, the tire pressure, the surface, the weight of the rider, and the temperature.. all at once, and every time. If you don't understand this, quit racing , go back to college , study physics and material sciences and get your brain functioning.
I've been very happy with Pirelli Cinturato 45s. If you're going to say they need to be better, you should define what's wrong and what needs to be improved.
@@erich8258 puncture resistance, weight, rolling resistance, cornering stability - i think he want to tell - there are extreme highend roadtires out there and andvanced mtb tires - but not in the midfield
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
There is also one other aspect - fatigue. Having a skill to go fast downhill on a, let's say, 40mm is one thing. But like you said - you use your skills and focus hard to avoid puncture on sketchier descents, but that takes a huge toll on your mind and body after a few hours of intense racing. Comfort and grip levels give you something that's much harder to "get data on" - confidence. And in the end you can't say Lachlan Morton's Unbound win is worth less because he's lacking skills to ride it on a skinnier tire... It's all relative and in my humble opinion, in the end, if you're serious about your racing - you choose your tires accordingly to the characteristics of the race. If it's long, exhausting and chunky - I'm pretty sure those few extra watts can be offset by the comfort/less fatigue, better grip and feeling more confident - all the things the bigger tire can give you. In those "gravel" races like the Worlds, I'm pretty sure a low-pressure 40mm can be advantageous.
Great to hear a perspective of someone who rode the race of the World Gravel champs course, and liking it. I'm biased, as it ran on my local trails that I've been riding ever since '90s MTB were cutting edge, but I thought it was great to ride! Something to bear in mind few comment on is that very unusually for October the race was dry. If it had pi$$ed it down as per usual the course would have been WAY more technical!
Dylan Johnson never said that MTB tyres (2.2 wide) are always faster gravel tyres. What he said was that MTB tyres (good rolling ones like Continental Race Kings) with high TPI are faster on rougher courses. The smoother the course the narrower the tyre you can use to get the most performance. With a lot of races like Unbound the MTB tyre is as good as the best gravel tyres but has much better puncture protection and the advantage of less fatigue from a smoother ride. The gravel world champs for instance had most of the course on sealed roads/bike paths and only some gravel and dirt, so a narrower tyre is better. Getting the tyre up to speed isn't as much of a problem in a lot of these big distance races as your average speed is reasonably consistent and doesn't vary greatly, but rolling resistance is a factor from the start to the finish.
DJ has also said that MTB tires are faster for racing (some courses) because when you are riding in a group you don't have to worry about choosing the best line. I mostly ride gravel solo (don't race), so I ride 47's most of the time.
MTB tires … most of the time you’re not accelerating when riding so sounds like a moot point. Dylan also did timed test on actual terrain so just accusing people using bad science in not convincing. Different courses different tyres. Using mtb tyres is condemnation of how gravel tyres are lacking performance
And yet I just tried out a set of caracal race and they are noticably faster on the same bike vs 2.2 race kings. Nasty offroad RK may be faster (certainly more confident), but wow the rolling difference on the street.
11:57 Because MAXIS tyres are shit :) you should test the SAME casing, and SAME compound, just different sizes. not just chewable or other good tyres at 40mm and maxis MTB tire.
I like the fact that Haas is offering an alternative view on this debate. The fastest tyre doesn't mean the fastest when it matters, I think that is critical thinking. Things may well be going a little bit past the sweetspot and with more science will find their way back.
Future gravel bikes are lightweight drop 29ers with 2.0 to 2.2" tyres.
It's the casing of a 29er mtb tyre that makes them faster than a gravel tyre.
That’s exactly what I ride and race on: 29er hardtail with drop bars and fitted with 2.1 Thunder Burt tires.
I have a 47 km route over the hill that is 50/50 asphalt and gravel (a lot type2 gravel according to Silca) I have done both on 11,5 kg full suspension mtb with 56 mm, and on a 11,5 kg Gravelbike with 30 mm Lefty damper both on 38 and 45 mm. I dont have powermeter, but according to strava it looked like the 56mm was ca 1km/h slower. It felt faster on the gravel, but the clock said the opposite. 56mm also felt a lot safer downhill on gravel, and more comfortable. Maybe the speedpenalty came from the aero-position more than the tyres. The 56 also gave me a more straight line, less need to avoid the coarser part of the road. The difference between 38 and 45 mm I wasnt able to see on recorded speed, but the 45 had a comfortedge and felt safer. Previous years I have been riding such roads on 32mm cyclocrosstyres on a 10 kg cyclocross aluminiumbike with no suspension. It was fast, but I got shaken and tired, especially in the neck.
Dylan does his own testing on segments to validate how much faster mtb tires are vs narrower tires and he has done aero testing to validate mtb tires vs other size tires on the rims he runs. So, to say that they aren't faster is not true. And the rim width internal for Dylan's rims are 21MM. Lastly, to measure only going up hill and not going down is not a true test. You don't only race going up a hill. Those narrow tires going down you will lose time due to handling, cornering and puncture resistance.
Maybe it's been lost in the discussion, but I think he's primary point is that most US gravel races are won/lost on the key climbs. And tyre/wheel choice can be the' rate limiting' factor. On the long flats/drags you can draft and on the descents, speed is determined by the technical nature of the trail.
Thus, the key climbs are where things get shaken up.
We had Dylan over here in the UK for some wind tunnel testing and rolling road tests for tyres.
On rough gravel 50mm MTB tyres were by far and away the fastest. Double digit savings per wheel.
What Nathan is saying here is flawed… his explanation of how tyres are tested on a drum is not correct. The bike can move side to side. You can also calculate the energy loss in acceleration (it’s v minimal).
Nathan also doesn’t say if they controlled for tyre pressure in his test. Wider tyres, on rough terrain should be run at a lower pressure than. If they ran the same pressure ie the wider tyre was too hard, then it would not travel over bumps as well.
The art is in selecting a tyre for the course. If there’s only a small amount of gravel then optimising for a road surface, with a narrower, higher pressure tyre, that’s worse on the gravel, may be the best option.
@@keepingtherubberdown5715 Remember that different courses are outfitted differently. Some front suspension is occasionally needed with the wider “low profile” race tires & they will also run inserts for flat prevention. Rough downhills & their length usually determines that setup.
Yeah the problem with most when talking about how wide tires are slower they are mostly based on feel and assumptions. Dylan actually tests if they are faster in real life.
Also the Keegan Maxxis tires are slow and not a good comparison. Please test against Thunderburts or Race Kings
Why didn't Chad Haga just do a lower power output on the climb e.g. 370, and then retest like 3-4 times on the same day? That is a lot more reliable data than going basically allout and then having to repeat testing on a different day.
Maybe it's because that's the kind of power the leading riders put out on a 'decisive'' climb.
@ Then why did he have to wait for another day to repeat it?
@YannickOkpara-d5l Fair point. Maybe he went for the harder/ longer 'max' effort in order to obtain a greater delta, knowing that he could not 'easily' repeat it on the day.
FWIW, your methodology makes more sense.
Super interesting, guys! Thanks for inviting Nathan, the gravel guru to the show. The points he claims and the questions he brings are crucial to the current state of gravel. It's exciting to witness that this new discipline still has a lot to test and discover
Thanks Gerard - we agree, it was great to get Nathan on the channel to share his experiences. We're looking forward to exploring these topics more in the future. Cheers, Simon
Love the chat. Many likes for this episode
Thanks for watching! We excited to chat to more guests very soon 👍
Great insights. Good to have balanced views from various perspectives and use own common sense and tweak for a particular use case.
Gravel bikes are awesome in that you can run anything from 28mm to 2.2 inch. With or without suspension. Slick or tread. Amazing.
People love to argue, but instead just enjoy the amazing versatility and do what you want. And change it as often as you want based on course, season, weather, or latest RUclips hype.
Also tyre sizes are so out, a maxxis 2.0 bigger than a thunder burt 2.1 that come up very small.
The Science is lacking. Testing a bike or other equipment for aero gains in a wind tunnel, or tire rolling resistance on a drum at a fixed speed is problematic because riding a bike is dynamic. That said, isn't it great that we are actually having these conversations and not just taking the manufacturers word for claimed performance? I believe that in at least one instance however, the choice to use mountain bike tires had to do more with durability and reducing the risk of crashing on a technical course where visibility in the pack is limited. We all know that a 2.1 inch knobby MTB tire is going to be more forgiving on technical courses than a 40mm gravel tire. I reject the idea that "bigger is better" in all cases. A point that has been made by some....
1 flat - race lost … could be worth the relative loss in inertial losses
The one thing he mentioned is that bigger tires and some tech is designed to replace skill. That to me is 1000% true.
I would like to hear Nathan debate Dylan and Keegan on tire choice for Big Sugar and other US races. Nathan hasn’t raced much in the US.
💯 Big Sugar was not just chunkier than previous years, but also dustier. For the elite riders in the peloton on a dusty sketchy descent, technical it ability doesn’t matter if you can’t see rocks 3 feet in front of you going 40mph. Safer to run bigger tires and not care what you can roll over. Allows you to be more aggressive without punctures that drop you from the group. There were SO many folks repairing flats this year. Meanwhile, I ran 42 Terravail Rutlands and haven’t flatted on the course in 3 years. But in the mid-pack and only riding 53 miles I have the luxury of leaving enough room from the wheel in front of me where I can choose the best line and can see the biggest rocks to avoid. However, when I buy new tires for next year I will choose 45s for the extra comfort.
Likewise, we'd love to get Dylan aand/or Keegan on the channel to talk about this topic - fingers crossed we can make it happen. Cheers for watching, Simon
The biggest gravel trend will be turning them into mountain bikes 🤣 For fucks sake, just put drop bars on a light XC mountain bike and be done with it!
The position an XC mountain bike puts you in is significantly less aero than what a gravel bike is designed to do.
@@DanceTurbo the trek spercaliber has the exact same geo as the emonda
Great points from Nathan on the acceleration hit wider tires give. That should get more talk.
That said I have been doing Chung method aero and CRR testing on some local gravel routes and as surfaces get even mildly rough, fast 2.2-2.4 mtb tires give lower CRR values than fast 45-50 mm gravel tires. As in the CRR values o n pavement flip quick.
Plenty of tires “feel fast” to me during tests then end up kinda slow so that’s why we test and not just a couple climb attempts. 😊
UCI Gravel races are not a gravel reference (expert people riding in a very smooth and soft condition).
In many countries gravel y "real" gravel with hard sections, bad roads, long downhill, etc., where a bigger tire always will be more comfortable and safe (better race time on long terms).
Good podcast, yes just stay away from the uci. Lifetime gp next year with its lineup will be the series
Forgot to say that I really enjoyed this 🙏
Great - thanks watching and for the feedback! Simon
Excellent interview. Interesting and honest. Really enjoyed this video.
Thanks for the feedback! We've got more guests planned - Felix
mtb tyres are more puncture resitant, roll way smoother on any rough terrain and have lower rolling resistance than lots of fast gravel tyres like specialized pathfinder pro on smooth pavement. The only few bad things about them is that its less aero (you can put them on deep wheels), the weight, the way they feel on smaller rims and the slow acceleration wich does not have a huge impact. So for gravel race i'd choose them over any gravel tyre.
This guy is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
Dunning Kruger is not science, they badly botched their paper and the effect they found is actually autocorrelation. Overconfidence bias is real, I think that’s what most ppl mean
Enduro like rules would be a good thing, you have to carry any spare part you use in the race, no spare wheels.
Has Nathan ever gotten 17th in a US gravel series? No? didn’t think so…..
Most new designs of frame are suspension corrected such as the santa cruz, felt, gt etc..
Nathan, the difference in energy to accelerate a 40mm 425g Reaver vs a 2.4" 700g Aspen from 15 to 30 kph is about 16 Joules. The energy to accelerate an 80kg bike + rider that same amount is about 2,500 Joules! Put another way, if you were 0.2mph faster through a corner leading into that acceleration with the Aspens it would erase the entire energy difference for a pair of Reavers!
We (humans) are good at sensing how much effort something takes but horrible at sensing speed, so you might feel that a lighter setup is faster but completely miss that you could carry 1mph extra through corners or rough patches, thereby saving huge amounts of energy. Therefore you should not be relying on feeling for deciding how fast a tire is.
The opposite effect of wider tires, although they accelerate slower, they hold speed better than narrower tires. You can also do measured roll-down tests. As with 29ers vs 26, and FS vs hardtails, holding speed is more advantageous than nimbleness and acceleration. "Feeling faster" means absolutely nothing. The most skilled riders get flats--the snob appeal is a little disgusting. You all ain't all that...
The cycling world takes a long time to change and resist change to some extent, it seems; esp the uci
the basic uci rules are from 1934 😂
The roadie side is very slow; MTB tends to embrace change pretty quickly.......
When Europeans think gravel cycling is something that happens on mountain bike trails, of course he’s going to dump on USA racing.
622 is the same rim dimension for a 28 and a 29. So please stop referring to shit as a 29 or 28 ... when does it become a 29? At 45mm 50mm 55mm ?
Rim dimensions are the same but tyre outside diameter and frame wheel clearance aren't.
From my experience, anything from a 700x40 to a 29x2.6 tire works best on a 30mm internal width rim. My favorite Gravel set up is 700x47 (Pathfinder) tire on an i30 rim at 26psi for my 160 pound weight. For my Mountain bike, I like a 2.6 tire on an i30 rim at 18psi. If I owned a Road bike, it would be a 700x40 tire on an i30 rim at maybe 30-35psi. I've tried all these various tire sizes, 40mm to 2.6in, and they all perform best on i30 rims.
2.6 which tire ... that's massive
2.35 60mm is my max
More mtb tires for us!
15:30 It is the same with geometry. What a world class elite racer can handle more or less, is way to twitchy and nimble for the average rider. But they desperately yearn for this bikes. Even if it leads to fatal crashes.
As age group rider on uci gravel World Cup races I have to qualify by racing at least one qualifying race and finish in the top 10% of my group,so why aren’t pros forced to do the same ??
What place did this guy get at Unbound? 81st?
We don't need the UCI. 40:52
So, everything that’s being said was the same for why 26” is better than 29”. 😮
18:22 99.9% of gravel races are won on climbs? Did you forget about Unbound? Yes, this is science :P
I ride MTB tires because my biggest concern (as an old fart) is not crashing on downhills. For people who's biggest concern is top speed, my priorities wouldn't work.
I found on 29ers i could drop 10 seonds over 42mm tyres. But i could gain more than 30 seconds onnthe dh, thats where 29er tyres change the game, it will.no longer be a up hill that splits every race.
This is super interesting and refreshing, a much more complete and detailed assessment of the whole “wider tyres are faster” mantra that’s been adopted by the cycling media.
The media hasn’t adopted it, the racers themselves have and the media is reporting on their experiences. Nathan is trying to say that professional racers don’t truly need larger tires, and Alexey Vermulen did at one point as well. Now he’s running 2.2s on the front and a 50 on the rear, which resulted in a win a Big Sugar. They wouldn’t be making these decisions if they didn’t feel like it would give them an advantage
@@TyTy22_Big Sugar is a course where wider tires are better because it is rough and more likely to puncture a lower volume tire. This isn’t the case for every course
@ it’s still the best tire choice for the vast majority of gravel races
@@TyTy22_ that’s debatable, and that is what Nathan is saying
@ I’m aware of what he’s saying, that’s why I made my original comment
ÇGravel is another discipline of cycling, as proven when the world tour riders turn up who grow up riding cross and mtb
nathan hass talkin out his ass
Plus wide rims makes the tyres wider, riders like nathan a forced to ride frames thst not designed for 29er tyres or super wide rims.
A 29er casing holds speed more and so less energy used.
Makes a conclusion based off 2 runs from the guy who "hates bad science" 🤡😂🤣
brags about his testing that's says 45mm tires are faster then 40mm tire, then proceeds to say he races on 40mm because he can just feel they are faster. had to turn it off at that point
@@mikethomasmcmI want to turn it off as soon as he started with the ice cream cone. We’ll see how long I can stand it.
Woah, this episode is full of one sided BS. Ohboy… the guy says anything to sell some narrow tires.
No one's trying to sell anything in this podcast - these are just one racer's opinions. We're hoping to have more guests on the channel in the future, so there'll be plenty of room for different views. Cheers for watching, Simon
Is this purely a publicity stunt? Legitimately asking
This was hard to listen to. “Poor decisions and poor science”. His theory of acceleration is wonky and his scientific test of two tires is 1)small sample size 2) sounds not controlled for pressure and therefore not scientific. His “side to side” argument seems to violate the law of conservation of angular momentum, but it was so poorly explained I couldn’t follow.
No one talks about the fact that a good percentage of the reason why top-tier gravel racers in the US run these extra-wide tires is for puncture avoidance reasons. Flying along with dust and debris everywhere, in a pack, there's very little you can do to avoid flatting if a significant enough obstacle is in your path. There's no way in hell that anyone will ever convince me that the energy expenditure needed to accelerate a tire that's almost double the weight of a standard gravel tire has no impact on race performance. There is a quantifiable energy cost here. Considering the accelerations happen on a pretty regular basis in gravel cycling, this cost alone will have a material impact on race outcome.
A thunder burt 2.1 is 545g. That's almost the same as a 700x42 pathfinder pro at 540g. 2.2 Race kings are 615g, it's minimal. "there's very little you can do to avoid flatting" - using higher volume tires works pretty well
My Rene Herse 44’s weigh about 370g each. I’ve tried mtb tires that were 2.25’s and weighed almost a pound more total. While a nice ride, I can feel that on every acceleration out of a corner, every roller, every jump to close a gap. All that extra effort adds up over 4-6 hours. As with most things, it really depends on a bunch of factors which is better for a particular race.
@@mikewikstrom3416 I agree that it depends, but I do also think that wider tires should be favored much more often than people think.
Such a super lightweight gravel tire will not offer the same puncture protection as the ones I mentioned (also from the physics and for 80kg system weight, the energy needed to accelerate will only be about 1% higher for 400grams more tire).
One of my takeaways is that to achieve a similar level of puncture protection one can either use a high volume thinner casing tire or a lower volume heavier casing tire. For a similar protetion level they are pretty similar in weight.
The in the video mentioned pros seem to want that level of protection and the weight argument goes out of the window. Remains rolling resistance vs. aero and the mtb tire seem to give the better balance for them.
Would be nice if your big microphones did not obscure your lovely faces!
Thanks for the feedback - we'll try to refine our setup for next time! Cheers for watching, Simon
16:50 hahaha
I have agree with Nathan on all points. Interesting topics on podcast!
Gravel worlds was a cyclepath race
Did you race it? As I said in the pod, I've seen plenty of comments saying it wasn't 'gravel' enough, but those who raced it seemed to think it was... 🤷♂️
Cheers for watching, Simon
@bikeradar did you race it?
@@riderrunco No, we didn't - that's why we asked someone who did. I think Nathan ought to know better than the rest of us.
@bikeradar as he said front were racing, rest were just making up the numbers lol
Forks on an adventure bike not race 🤷♂️
Not one for sitting on the fence is he.
Depends on the tire tread, the tire rubber compound, the tire pressure, the surface, the weight of the rider, and the temperature.. all at once, and every time. If you don't understand this, quit racing , go back to college , study physics and material sciences and get your brain functioning.
The bike industry needs to make better 40-45 tires. Simple. Oh and the UCI is ruining all of racing…
I've been very happy with Pirelli Cinturato 45s. If you're going to say they need to be better, you should define what's wrong and what needs to be improved.
@@erich8258 puncture resistance, weight, rolling resistance, cornering stability - i think he want to tell - there are extreme highend roadtires out there and andvanced mtb tires - but not in the midfield
OMG just too nerdy
For you?
Nobody gives a rats ass about how many gravel world championships you win, only thing that matters are road racing and TDF
That's just ignorant nonsense. There's a whole world of racing outside of road racing; manufacturers think otherwise as well......
@Dylan Johnson
We'd love to get Dylan on the pod! Cheers for watching, Simon
Has Nathan ever gotten 17th in a US gravel series? No? didn’t think so…..