Completely tread, suppleness, rider weight and terrain dependant. For smooth hard/fast gravel, 700x38-40 file tread (Rene Herse). Tire pressure is massively important as well.
40 front, 35 rear, but after a few good dents in the rear rim I moved to 40 rear, for most gravel rides anyway, for a 370km ride (not a race) that was 50/50 gravel and seal I used the 35mm tire on the rear. Don't think it was the gravel that dinged my rims, rather a misjudgment in jumping rain ruts across the road, I remember the bang! Don't think I would ever risk running carbon rims on my gravel bike. Tire pressure really does make all the difference to all day comfort for me. 25psi rear, (40mm tire) 15-20psi front depending on terrain. 66kg rider.
I'm sure this has been pointed out at this point but the bigger the tire the lower the pressure needs to be to get the same casing tension. Overlooking this completely reversed the results of the test. The conclusion was that the 40mm tires may have been slightly faster but that's when comparing them at the same pressure. A better comparison given this data from the video would be to compare the 40mm at 35psi to the 50mm at 25psi and 10psi is close to the difference in pressure that you would need to get the same casing tension in these two sizes. When you do this you get the exact opposite result and it's more significant as well. Now we're talking about 2 seconds faster on the smooth gravel and 4 seconds faster on the rough gravel for the 50mm tire.
I like the concept of casing tension. Perfect engineering term that makes so much sense. So the secret sauce is knowing the optimal casing tension and being able to measure it. :)
It's like they hired backwards-hat Dylan to design their research methodology. I found it curious that they used the Silca tire pressure tool for the first test, but not for the roll-out test. I also found it curious that he only reported on how fast the tires felt without using empirical data to verify those results. 23 mm tires pumped up to 120 psi FEELS faster than my 28 mm tires at 60 rear/57.5 front, but they objectively are not. Anecdotes != reality. Research nerds would say their test methodology lacked ecological and face validity. BTW, congrats on your Unbound performance!
This test needed to do two things to be a bit more complete: - Use Silca's tyre pressure calculator to run the pressures appropriately. You had half the story right with using 35psi on 40mm and 25psi on 50mm (which is basically in line with Silca's recommendation). However the 50mm should not have been run at 35psi, you should have run the equivalent tension/tyre drop for the 50mm tyres (Which would have been more like 15-17psi). That way you're comparing say a 40mm tyre and 50mm tyre at pressures which reflect say 15% tyre drop and 20% tyre drop). - Would have been great if this rolldown test was also done on everyday pavement as many people riding gravel often need to ride 20-50% tarmac to get there so it would be an important factor in choosing width.
@@maxsievers8251 Thank You for the input. I have a bit different experience on this subject but my conclusions contain way too much variables to state my findings as scientific. Anyway, I have found my gravel tires (Panaracer Gravel King 47 mm) very very sluggish on tarmac compared to 32 mm road tire and even 2,35" mtb xc tire, the difference is noticeable. But there is too much differentiating factors to make a statement, I am intrigued to see if someone can find out more on this.
@@maxsievers8251 road feel is a huge factor with speed. Fast tires feel good, that's just how it is. You've gotta pick your poison. Your speed also matters. At higher speeds, a wide tire will have more losses.
You give up road feel but not speed up to 56mm.... that is just nonsense 😅. You clearly don't speak from experience😊 show up to a fast group Road ride 23avg with some 40mm tires and you will get dropped within 10 minutes
35 psi is a huge shut off pressure in a 50mm tyre and even 25 psi is high. I also think a rigid fork might have been more in line with what most people ride. But thanks for doing the test and video, very interesting
Finally!!! Really bad gravel like us guys have here in the US!!! Yeah the 50’s with low pressure are the best scenario! But then again your not on smooth tarmac like we are here with both conditions. Results are, bad ass gravel roads - mountain bikes, otherwise stick to better gravel roads with any gravel bike. I have a diverge with 38 panaracer SK tires for my gravel roads here in Texas at 35 psi on my gravel roads. When I go back on smooth tarmac, I pump them up to 40 psi with my lil manual pump. Good fun all around. But as I get older now, I’m getting off of gravel, too bone jarring for me. I’ve got my Cervelo R3 with 28 c conti 5000 for all around for smooth riding on tarmac and milder gravel/dirt trails! Good luck young ones😛I’m 71 n still having fun!
Only a few years behind you age-wise and find a gravel bike with 38 mm slicks at around 40 psi is pretty darn nice on asphalt and dirt roads alike here in Sicily. Anything rougher than dirt roads is MTB terrain, something I gave up on awhile ago after landing on my head one too many times!!
Yes and no. "Replace" is more of an opinion and depends how u ride for the dayvand where u ride and want to ride for the day. So no, its just how ok r u with it and r u satisfied enough to have that as ur only bike for a while or ever
I take issue with the tire pressures - running the same pressures for different widths of tire is unfair, especially on rough terrain where low pressures are more advantageous
@@algmusicukWhat are you talking about? All you have to do is compare the 50mm tyre at 25psi to the 40mm tyre at 35psi from the table in order to get that answer. Not that hard to do surely.
I know that section of gravel track and it definitely shakes the sh*t out of you at speed. I run 42mm and there’s a sweet spot on the pressure to add comfort without bottoming out on harsher parts of the track. I think I want to try 47mm and maybe even those Cushcore tyre inserts dare I say it. Ultimately comfort is king and makes the ride more enjoyable for longer and reduces fatigue the next day. The older you get the less you are up for feeling beaten after a 50 miler!
So, though you said, you had the power meter there did you actually record any power data for the initial individual forest laps on both tyres width & if so was there any apparent power / time difference on each lap & tyre width? That a piece of information I would like to know!
For an older rider (I'm 65), the comfort afforded by a wide tyre might pay greater dividends than in this test. I've managed to squeeze a 2.35" Maxxis Ikon run tubeless into my Specialized Sequoia on the front. Never looked back.
Actually, a power meter might be a great tool for comparing tire speed (not handling). If you can apply even power it could help ensure a fair comparison.
Firstly you absolutely need to obsess with the tyre pressure. Not getting that right will add rolling resistance to your setup more than the size of the tyre. Secondly the tyre pressure will depend on the surface you’re riding. It will also affect your grip and the risk of a puncture if not riding tubeless. Weighing around 85 kg (full setup) and riding tubeless 40 mm tyres on mostly easy gravel I would go with around 25 psi front and 28 psi back. Then thirdly average speed will definitely be affected on the margin by going from a 38 mm tyre to a 50 mm tyre. If you could normally do lets say an average speed of 30 km/h with 38 mm tyres you might be a little bit faster with 40 mm if there are sections with some technical stuff but going to 50 mm tyres will almost surely slow you down by the added air drag. Try joining your weekend road group ride on a gravel bike and you’ll be dropped by people that YOU normally drop.
The thing is, you would often have tarmac as well so going too wide might not be optimal. Depends as always on the conditions. But I love videos about such tests! 👍👍
Exactly. The point of a gravel bike is that it's good enough on the road. Ig your not riding a significant amount of road, hardtail or rigid MTB for rough tracks. 50 mm tyres is ,in effect, a rigid mtb
really great video, not sure the suspension form was an ideal test platform, seems like it would really be a big benefit for smaller tires. Off topic but I find it funny how many very fit but "normal" people look to high level athletes and pros for speed information. I 100% know big fat heavy tires are faster for me on long rides without any doubt. Twice a year I do a 136 miles of road to Bruswick MD, then 122 miles of the C&O tow path, then exit the trail and do a mix of highway shoulder and dirt road from Cumberland to Davis WV and back. My monster like 50c American Classics with less pressure are "faster" than my much lighter 38c Vittoria Terreno Zero and my Teravail Washburn tires. I can ride sunup to sundown on the fat comfy set up vs about 6-7 hours or so on the lighter "faster" set up plus I also need less rest stops with the fat tires and have yet to get a flat or even need to use a dart. What pros use or even fast Strava king day ride data is not of much use for us normal people on long rides. Its crazy how many people I meet on my trips with pro bike geometry and bike set ups that cant do more than about 60-65 miles due to comfort issues. 14mph and long days of riding always beats 20-24mph in spurts and shorter days. for me comfort is king, and why I think that Lauf fork looks so interesting (best of both worlds maybe)
My gravel bike has 29er wheels and 2in plus width. Tires last twice as long , much lower tire pressure and more comfortable than my bikes with 32mm. Only drawback is a bit more room needed turning. I rarely ride the 32s now
I run 32 and 38, they expand to 35 and 41mm. Its really interesting what you can get used to. For easy gravel and road the 32s are basically as fast as most road tires, while the 38 can handle most singletrack and they arent horrible on the road but noticeably slower than the 32 (theyre also on very different wheels).
Love big road tires but what single-track are you riding that can be ridden with 38s? I'd have to be insanely careful to get through 1/3 of the single track I ride with 38s. 50s are fine but still not good
@@veganpotterthevegan Im in southern california so the singletrack is currently rutted and the technical rocky areas are more pronounced with the rain we've had. I spent some time enduro racing last year and have some decent bike handling skills so I think that makes a big difference even without suspension. I avoid anything that is actually a black trail or higher rating, there are still some features ill walk from time to time (especially with the current condition of our trails).
I did a gravel an individual gravel TT during Covid on 26mm tires, which measured 28. Everyone else ran wide gravel tires. Course didn’t have too much gravel and I won because I was much faster on the pavement. I did get a puncture, but the sealant kept it at 40psi.
40 rear, 50 front. And 35 psi is ridiculous, especially on a 50, running tubeless. Also, much of the comfort gains are muted in a sus fork, even if it is undampened Lauf...Rigid forks will see even bigger difference.
Almost every route I cycle has both gravel parts as asfalt parts. I guess a wider tyre with less pressure is not an ideal set up on afvalt. So after all the 40 mm tyre at high pressure might be the most alround way to go, in your test. What is curious is I have experimented too, with tyre widths and different pressures, for many years and in all types of terrain. My conclusion is: 37 mm tyre at maximum pressure is the PERFECT set up. So that is not too far from your result😊
I think it would have been better to use power on the first test. How fast the tires feel often affects how fast you pedal. And what feels fast is often slower. Smooth is fast.
Being just 1 second slower but having a comfy plush ride over gravel... I would opt for the bigger tire. That 1 second slower on downhill rolling test is probabyl due to the rotation inerta of the bigger wheel circumference.
I would argue that over a longer distance, the slower tire will be faster - comfort is king! Pain and wear and tear from it shouldn't be underestimated.
Nice test. I've been loving the Maxxis Rambler in both 45 and 50c. Actually using two wheelset now to cover more conditions. So one more bulky 32h and Rambler 50c for more ruff stuff and a 24h lighter set with GK SK 43c...With time I feel going at 45c might be the optimum width both for racing & exploring because even gravel races will include ruff sections. So many choices left to try...Did use Terravail 47c durable 60tpi for ruff this year but I have to use low pressure to feel smooth, plus I have cushcore in that set. So 20/25psi max in them. I'm not that heavy so thinking using a more supple casing might help for fatigue and probably stiking to 120tpi like the Maxxis is better.
I think if you tested 50 mm at 20psi it would have probably been faster. It’s tough because in order to find the fastest option you need to find the “optimum” pressure for each tire. The 40 mm might have been faster at 20 psi also but you may have broken a rim in completing the run. Great test though thanks for the data!
The presenter is misinterpreting the data. Even in a race, their data says you should still run 50mm. There is no difference in time, but a stated qualitative improvement in comfort.
Both is 1x1 ratio. Its the same. the only difference would be a little little weight saved. As the rings are both big enough, also there would be no measurable difference in friction loss.
Of course, it depends on the road. I switched my 38mm tires with 32mm slicks and became slower on 70% of the roads in my city) But for gravel 38-40 more that enough
Gravel is bumpier than dirt grass trails. As others noted seems a hard tail would be more comfy on extended gravel. Tarmac the HT slows significantly where a GB preferable. Moderate dirt grass GB >= HT . Tough choice. Challenge usually have to do a fair amount of tarmac to get to trails. Pick your poison. I prefer to keep as far away from cars as possible. So ride rougher shoulder areas more debris.
Great video. Thank you! I am just getting into bikepacking, and would be interested in any research - or rules of thumb - regarding how to adjust the tire pressure for the increased weight of the gear. Presumably, the tire pressure would need to be higher, but, how much? I am not clear on what the test methodology would be, but I guess the goal is to reduce rolling resistance on a given tire, without increasing puncture risk on the gnarly bits. Thoughts?
Late to the party, but if you wanted to isolate the differences between the tyres, i'm surprised you used a suspension fork (which _might_ preferentially help the narrower tyre) and, as a few have mentioned, didn't use the recommended pressures for the individual widths. Lush looking bike mind, cracking colour :D
True for suspended mass on the forks, but lauf forks r very light especially compared to a air fork. So not much a difference unless maybe u put a mtb tire i strongly bet
You'll be suprised the type of tyres plus tubeless. I found one brand better on the rough all day at 38mm over a 42mm. The suppleness and give of the tyre can make a massive difference as does the wheel width and weight. There's also a difference in 700c vs 650 in the same width so another factor. 700 roll better than 650b as the same width
Just buy a hard tail xc bike with 2.2 ikon race tyres and put some drop handle bars on it and save yourself years of pissing about working out what works coz it’s already been worked out.
Why didn't you actually test the most popular 45mm ? This is a choice that most use now for all type of riding. Would be more interesting comparison of 40 vs 45 vs 50 as the 40 vs 50 is a massive gap between. Maybe you could add this to the test in the future.
Wider is nearly always better. Even here (SE Sweden) where we have vast amounts of perfect gravel, every route has some rougher stuff, or loose gravel, or recently spread gravel. A wider tyre with a larger contact patch gives you more grip, allowing you to go faster through corners. But even if there wasn't a traction advantage, I'd rather be safer and slower than faster and more prone to crashing. Riding a skittish and under-gripped bike just isn't fun.
If you aren’t using the power meter to objectively test if one set of tires is faster than the other, i.e., maintaining the same power in both sets of tires and comparing lap times, the title of your video should be Do Wider Tires Feel Faster, not are they. This is a huge purposeful oversight.
Too hard to maintain a constant power in those conditions, it's not how most people would ride that terrain. The roll down test told us what we needed to know.
@@veganpotterthevegan subjective is useful to describe how something feels when cornering, when navigating terrain. With off road riding power consistency is much harder, as is picking the same line choice. The scientific part of the test was the second section.
@@veganpotterthevegan A power meter has nothing to do with speed, which is what their time response variable is a proxy of. If they were to test effort, then a power meter would be relevant.
If u run a wider tire u should use lower preassure then with a narrower tire, else the wider tire is uncomfortable and has i rolling disadvantage vs narrower tire, there's several videos explaining how it works, and Bike Radar doesn't even mention the physics why u should have lower preassure with wider tires, so this test is rigged for a narrow tire.
Real missed opportunity with this test. Again…. Why didn’t you test the two tyres at the same relative pressure. You said it yourself in the wrap up “maybe the 50mm tyre at a lower pressure would be faster still” yes, exactly. A larger volume tyre is ridden at a lower psi for this reason. So why didn’t you test the 50mm tyre at a lower pressure to the 40mm?
@@steveadorjan9048 S -works Pathfinder for me , in the bit of Australia where I live the roads are pretty bad these tyres seem to smooth them out comfortably and fast
… when you enter the water/ food stop, and you scoffed two pork pies and taken a wizz,, any gains made would be thrown out the window. I think you missing the point of gravel, each to their own but one common factor, you riding, that’s actually all that counts for 98% of riders.
Ngl I initially thought that sus gravel bikes were a bit pointless and that the Lauf design was the stupidest of the lot. But I had this bike for ages and got a load of riding in. The fork is annoyingly good for the techy and often barely ridable 'gravel' that we have in the West of England. Having space for ridiculously wide tyres is also really nice. The only thing I don't like about the build is the bar. I'd quickly change that if it was mine just because of the shape of the shifter clamp area. In terms of the handling, it reminds me of a lot of cyclocross bikes in that you can really flick it around. But then you also get good stability at speed. I've got the Crux on a long term test too and the Lauf is a fair bit smoother and arguably more versatile. It's just a very nice gravel bike. Hope that helps. Liam.
I bought my second gravel bike two days ago, a Bombtrack Hook with 650b and 2” tyres. I already have a Cannondale Topstone 1 with 700c X 40. There’s a huge noticeable difference with the Cannondale being faster.
@@pierre8532 I’ve just come back from a 1hr ride on the Bombtrack on steep, sandy, rocky and hard pack terrain. Comfort is good for a bike with no suspension and the 2” tyres are great on sand. Manoeuvre ability is pretty good but it’s still early days. Having said that, I’m a 54 year old novice but with a motorcycle background.
Im looking for a set of 29r knobbies, But they have to last on pavement gravel and technical rocky climbs as well as back down.. as this is my daily.. so far im liking the American Classic tubeless, Tectonite and Basanite, but it's hard to throw $100 at tires that may not last.. what do you or anyone think of them ?
Hi, that is a Topeak digital pressure gauge. I mostly use it for cyclocross and it is really good. Liam www.amazon.co.uk/Topeak-SmartGuage-Digital-Pressure-Motorbikes/dp/B09BB7TH92/ref=asc_df_B09BB7TH92/
So what you are saying is 45mm is the best of both worlds? However there is one last dynamic that always decides the winning factor, fitness! One other factor which you did not mention, which I feel may have played a role is the rim width. Perhaps this is something to experiment with further. Rim widths and profiles.
I'd like to see a single bike tested with the usual carbon fork, and a custom steel fork designed for the tester. I have Enve carbon forks on road and cross bikes, but they enver seemed any nicer than a decent steel fork with smoothly curved blades. (TBH, I really want to try a Lauf fork)
I remember the chromoly forks that came on the 90's Marin MTB's, man those forks really soaked up the bumps, I've got carbon forks on my 90's MTB, it is really harsh! I feel that many carbon forks are overbuilt, but I guess these days they need to cope with twisting and extra demands put on them by disc brakes.
@@veganpotterthevegan a Redshift stem isolates the rider from the bike to add comfort. The Lauf fork improves traction in turn adding comfort. Redshift = only a comfort gain. Suspension fork = a comfort gain and a performance gain. Would take the fork over the stem any day of the week.
@ll88 any loss in vibration reduces your tires bounce off the terrain. They certainly help with handling, even if it's not as effective as a Lauf fork. That said, I wasn't even talking about those aspects of cycling. There are a lot of gravel trails where a Lauf fork is overkill unless you're running tires that are too narrow/hard. And it's certainly going to be an aerodynamic loss, on top of lost efficiency due to bob even if it's minimal
@@veganpotterthevegan have you ever ridden the Grit SL (drop bar version) fork? There is almost zero bob as it's tuned to flex under high speed compression, not low speed compression (general rider input). If a road/trail is 'overkill' for a Lauf then it certainly doesn't 'need' a Redshift stem. The stem is also about 200g heavier than a regular stem, a Lauf fork is about 400g more than a rigid. Pretty minimal. A Redshift stem is essentially a commercial product to give comfort to those who feel their fork doesn't provide enough. The Lauf bike has this integrated as part of it's design (vis a vie the fork) with the added benefit of what suspension achieves on all vehicles (MTB, motorcross, cars, trucks) that is to improve traction. Better taction offroad = speed. Yeah you can just run huge tyres, but you suffer for the road sections. The fork allows the traction of a bigger tyre while allowing a sufficiently small tyre for on road performance. Didn't say the Redshift stem doesn't improve performance at all. But simply having an opinion that Redshift > Lauf fork purely from a performance aspect for gravel riding application (rough enough to warrant a suspension product with all other things being equal such as geometry/fitment/price) isn't logical.
@@jonathanzappala The hell you on about? I'm agreeing with you, knob. And simply adding that if they were to have also measured power (as many people here in the comments are criticizing-its an incorrect criticism but whatever), then weight particularly would have been a useful measure. But speed vs effort to keep said speed are different analyses. jfc
Notice that this young, strong rider is dancing on the pedals, so each wheel can bounce up rather than making the tire take all the hit and maybe snake-biting. That's great, but there is no way I could do that after a few hours in the saddle.
The title of the video had potential then any meaningful application of basic engineering science went out the window and the video became an opinion instead of answering the title question...
As always use what the pros use if you want to be fast and go just a little bit wider if you want Confort and speed. Otherwise you're just slower no matter what they say!
@@cjohnson3836 data, what data?!?! People these days believe anything they are shown as proof! The what about the data that the pros show you by not using wide tires what does that tell?!?! Are they, the ones that run by the second stupid for using this "data"?!?! What about weight during a long period of time does that not count?!?! What about the same sealant when the smaller lighter tire does need that much, is that accurate data?!?! This is really as they say the 15 to 25 sport, meaning the ignorance sport until you are older and wiser, not believing these videos on people that live by the views...
There's nothing wrong with this. It would be better if they brought two otherwise identical wheelsets and randomized the order of width/psi on each ride. But that's asking for academic level procedure for a RUclips video, which is ridiculous. Especially considering they showed there's now effect of tire width on time, in their data. Your criticism would only potentially be relevant if they actually had a measurable difference in time.
Those pressures are much too low, especially for a 40 tire. 25 PSI is a MTB pressure and you'll for sure puncture or worse on a gravel tire with that pressure unless you're a flea.
I'm 190lbs and run my 40s at 30psi. I'd certainly ride at 25 if I weren't a porker. I run 20-22ish PSI on my mountain bike. Are you afraid of good traction?
@@gregmorrison7320 as I said, unless you are a flea. Most men don't weigh under 75kg and gravel riders tend to be a bit bigger than road cyclists (the amateurs I see, anyway). So yeah, those PSI will work for like 10% of riders out there
@@pl4free You're talking out your ass. I weigh ~80kg and run my gravel tires routinely as low as 20PSI on tractor path (essentially smashed up tarmac chunder dropped on farm borders, equivalent to a rock garden). Never have a problem
I am sorry but a test like this is rubbish. The average rider doesn't count seconds, but rather would be more concerned with comfort, confidence & efficiency while riding mixed terrain.
@14:12 No!! You do not have any evidence here that narrow tires are faster. In fact, you have no statistically detectable difference (not that a statistical test is necessary since we can see that your variance within groups is greater than the difference across groups). The only factor that has any detectable effect is PSI. Your data predicts around a 2 sec and 3.5 sec decrease in time going from 35PSI to 25PSI, on smooth and rough respectively. So, in fact, no. Even in a race, you should still run the 50mm tires. Because there is no detectable difference in your time data, but a qualitative improvement in comfort.
I was running Wtb 40 nano's and they were excellent off-road , just put on some 700x42 Sawtooths and I really like them faster than the nano's with lots of traction
What is your go to gravel tyre size?
Completely tread, suppleness, rider weight and terrain dependant. For smooth hard/fast gravel, 700x38-40 file tread (Rene Herse). Tire pressure is massively important as well.
stated size is 50c but on my rims which are on the narrow side it is 45c(schwalbe big ben).
650b X 2.5 :trollface:
40 front, 35 rear, but after a few good dents in the rear rim I moved to 40 rear, for most gravel rides anyway, for a 370km ride (not a race) that was 50/50 gravel and seal I used the 35mm tire on the rear. Don't think it was the gravel that dinged my rims, rather a misjudgment in jumping rain ruts across the road, I remember the bang! Don't think I would ever risk running carbon rims on my gravel bike. Tire pressure really does make all the difference to all day comfort for me. 25psi rear, (40mm tire) 15-20psi front depending on terrain. 66kg rider.
@@gregmorrison7320 most things that'll ding an aluminum rim will do absolutely nothing to a modern carbon rim, even a hooked rim
I'm sure this has been pointed out at this point but the bigger the tire the lower the pressure needs to be to get the same casing tension. Overlooking this completely reversed the results of the test. The conclusion was that the 40mm tires may have been slightly faster but that's when comparing them at the same pressure.
A better comparison given this data from the video would be to compare the 40mm at 35psi to the 50mm at 25psi and 10psi is close to the difference in pressure that you would need to get the same casing tension in these two sizes. When you do this you get the exact opposite result and it's more significant as well. Now we're talking about 2 seconds faster on the smooth gravel and 4 seconds faster on the rough gravel for the 50mm tire.
I like the concept of casing tension. Perfect engineering term that makes so much sense. So the secret sauce is knowing the optimal casing tension and being able to measure it. :)
@@lidarman2 aka hoop stress.
It's like they hired backwards-hat Dylan to design their research methodology. I found it curious that they used the Silca tire pressure tool for the first test, but not for the roll-out test. I also found it curious that he only reported on how fast the tires felt without using empirical data to verify those results. 23 mm tires pumped up to 120 psi FEELS faster than my 28 mm tires at 60 rear/57.5 front, but they objectively are not. Anecdotes != reality. Research nerds would say their test methodology lacked ecological and face validity. BTW, congrats on your Unbound performance!
Gravel Lord has spoken.
Mad lad Dylan, aka the tyre manufacturers manufacturer, aka he knows everything bekoz he on da utube.
This test needed to do two things to be a bit more complete:
- Use Silca's tyre pressure calculator to run the pressures appropriately. You had half the story right with using 35psi on 40mm and 25psi on 50mm (which is basically in line with Silca's recommendation). However the 50mm should not have been run at 35psi, you should have run the equivalent tension/tyre drop for the 50mm tyres (Which would have been more like 15-17psi). That way you're comparing say a 40mm tyre and 50mm tyre at pressures which reflect say 15% tyre drop and 20% tyre drop).
- Would have been great if this rolldown test was also done on everyday pavement as many people riding gravel often need to ride 20-50% tarmac to get there so it would be an important factor in choosing width.
A nice addition to this would be a rolling resistance test on tarmac also, I myself can't avoid tarmac sections when getting on gravel.
You give up the road feel but not speed when you choose wide tyres on smooth tarmac. Proven by Jan Heine up to 56 mm.
@@maxsievers8251 Thank You for the input. I have a bit different experience on this subject but my conclusions contain way too much variables to state my findings as scientific. Anyway, I have found my gravel tires (Panaracer Gravel King 47 mm) very very sluggish on tarmac compared to 32 mm road tire and even 2,35" mtb xc tire, the difference is noticeable. But there is too much differentiating factors to make a statement, I am intrigued to see if someone can find out more on this.
@@maxsievers8251 road feel is a huge factor with speed. Fast tires feel good, that's just how it is. You've gotta pick your poison. Your speed also matters. At higher speeds, a wide tire will have more losses.
You give up road feel but not speed up to 56mm.... that is just nonsense 😅. You clearly don't speak from experience😊 show up to a fast group Road ride 23avg with some 40mm tires and you will get dropped within 10 minutes
@@rubielrodriguez2144 yeah, aerodynamics alone proves that is false.
35 psi is a huge shut off pressure in a 50mm tyre and even 25 psi is high. I also think a rigid fork might have been more in line with what most people ride. But thanks for doing the test and video, very interesting
Totally agree
Finally!!! Really bad gravel like us guys have here in the US!!! Yeah the 50’s with low pressure are the best scenario! But then again your not on smooth tarmac like we are here with both conditions. Results are, bad ass gravel roads - mountain bikes, otherwise stick to better gravel roads with any gravel bike. I have a diverge with 38 panaracer SK tires for my gravel roads here in Texas at 35 psi on my gravel roads. When I go back on smooth tarmac, I pump them up to 40 psi with my lil manual pump. Good fun all around. But as I get older now, I’m getting off of gravel, too bone jarring for me. I’ve got my Cervelo R3 with 28 c conti 5000 for all around for smooth riding on tarmac and milder gravel/dirt trails! Good luck young ones😛I’m 71 n still having fun!
Only a few years behind you age-wise and find a gravel bike with 38 mm slicks at around 40 psi is pretty darn nice on asphalt and dirt roads alike here in Sicily. Anything rougher than dirt roads is MTB terrain, something I gave up on awhile ago after landing on my head one too many times!!
Conclusion: 45c is the size 😂
Underbiking is fun! I like 38mm for all kinds of gravel, road, and even easy singletrack. At 50mm+ I just use a hardtail mtb.
Really great video! Now check whether a 50 mm gravel bike with RockShox Rudy suspension can replace a Hardtail mountain bike.
Yes and no. "Replace" is more of an opinion and depends how u ride for the dayvand where u ride and want to ride for the day. So no, its just how ok r u with it and r u satisfied enough to have that as ur only bike for a while or ever
I take issue with the tire pressures - running the same pressures for different widths of tire is unfair, especially on rough terrain where low pressures are more advantageous
Agree, they should have run the 50 lower
@@algmusicukWhat are you talking about? All you have to do is compare the 50mm tyre at 25psi to the 40mm tyre at 35psi from the table in order to get that answer. Not that hard to do surely.
I know that section of gravel track and it definitely shakes the sh*t out of you at speed. I run 42mm and there’s a sweet spot on the pressure to add comfort without bottoming out on harsher parts of the track. I think I want to try 47mm and maybe even those Cushcore tyre inserts dare I say it. Ultimately comfort is king and makes the ride more enjoyable for longer and reduces fatigue the next day. The older you get the less you are up for feeling beaten after a 50 miler!
"The older you get the less you are up for feeling beaten after a 50 miler!" Two thumbs up!
So, though you said, you had the power meter there did you actually record any power data for the initial individual forest laps on both tyres width & if so was there any apparent power / time difference on each lap & tyre width? That a piece of information I would like to know!
For an older rider (I'm 65), the comfort afforded by a wide tyre might pay greater dividends than in this test. I've managed to squeeze a 2.35" Maxxis Ikon run tubeless into my Specialized Sequoia on the front. Never looked back.
Actually, a power meter might be a great tool for comparing tire speed (not handling). If you can apply even power it could help ensure a fair comparison.
Exactly, just maintain a consistent power during the ride and see results.
Firstly you absolutely need to obsess with the tyre pressure. Not getting that right will add rolling resistance to your setup more than the size of the tyre.
Secondly the tyre pressure will depend on the surface you’re riding. It will also affect your grip and the risk of a puncture if not riding tubeless. Weighing around 85 kg (full setup) and riding tubeless 40 mm tyres on mostly easy gravel I would go with around 25 psi front and 28 psi back.
Then thirdly average speed will definitely be affected on the margin by going from a 38 mm tyre to a 50 mm tyre. If you could normally do lets say an average speed of 30 km/h with 38 mm tyres you might be a little bit faster with 40 mm if there are sections with some technical stuff but going to 50 mm tyres will almost surely slow you down by the added air drag. Try joining your weekend road group ride on a gravel bike and you’ll be dropped by people that YOU normally drop.
The thing is, you would often have tarmac as well so going too wide might not be optimal. Depends as always on the conditions. But I love videos about such tests! 👍👍
Exactly. The point of a gravel bike is that it's good enough on the road. Ig your not riding a significant amount of road, hardtail or rigid MTB for rough tracks. 50 mm tyres is ,in effect, a rigid mtb
really great video, not sure the suspension form was an ideal test platform, seems like it would really be a big benefit for smaller tires. Off topic but I find it funny how many very fit but "normal" people look to high level athletes and pros for speed information. I 100% know big fat heavy tires are faster for me on long rides without any doubt. Twice a year I do a 136 miles of road to Bruswick MD, then 122 miles of the C&O tow path, then exit the trail and do a mix of highway shoulder and dirt road from Cumberland to Davis WV and back. My monster like 50c American Classics with less pressure are "faster" than my much lighter 38c Vittoria Terreno Zero and my Teravail Washburn tires. I can ride sunup to sundown on the fat comfy set up vs about 6-7 hours or so on the lighter "faster" set up plus I also need less rest stops with the fat tires and have yet to get a flat or even need to use a dart. What pros use or even fast Strava king day ride data is not of much use for us normal people on long rides. Its crazy how many people I meet on my trips with pro bike geometry and bike set ups that cant do more than about 60-65 miles due to comfort issues. 14mph and long days of riding always beats 20-24mph in spurts and shorter days. for me comfort is king, and why I think that Lauf fork looks so interesting (best of both worlds maybe)
My gravel bike has 29er wheels and 2in plus width. Tires last twice as long , much lower tire pressure and more comfortable than my bikes with 32mm. Only drawback is a bit more room needed turning. I rarely ride the 32s now
40mm. Wider is overkill for pavement, and narrower is more prone to punctures on rough stuff.
I'd love a Seigla but now they are shipping from the USA, the tax is massively prohibitive for the UK.
I run 32 and 38, they expand to 35 and 41mm. Its really interesting what you can get used to. For easy gravel and road the 32s are basically as fast as most road tires, while the 38 can handle most singletrack and they arent horrible on the road but noticeably slower than the 32 (theyre also on very different wheels).
Love big road tires but what single-track are you riding that can be ridden with 38s? I'd have to be insanely careful to get through 1/3 of the single track I ride with 38s. 50s are fine but still not good
@@veganpotterthevegan Im in southern california so the singletrack is currently rutted and the technical rocky areas are more pronounced with the rain we've had. I spent some time enduro racing last year and have some decent bike handling skills so I think that makes a big difference even without suspension. I avoid anything that is actually a black trail or higher rating, there are still some features ill walk from time to time (especially with the current condition of our trails).
I did a gravel an individual gravel TT during Covid on 26mm tires, which measured 28. Everyone else ran wide gravel tires. Course didn’t have too much gravel and I won because I was much faster on the pavement. I did get a puncture, but the sealant kept it at 40psi.
40 rear, 50 front. And 35 psi is ridiculous, especially on a 50, running tubeless. Also, much of the comfort gains are muted in a sus fork, even if it is undampened Lauf...Rigid forks will see even bigger difference.
Almost every route I cycle has both gravel parts as asfalt parts. I guess a wider tyre with less pressure is not an ideal set up on afvalt. So after all the 40 mm tyre at high pressure might be the most alround way to go, in your test.
What is curious is I have experimented too, with tyre widths and different pressures, for many years and in all types of terrain. My conclusion is: 37 mm tyre at maximum pressure is the PERFECT set up. So that is not too far from your result😊
Running the new Michelin Power Adventure 700x48, Fantastic versatile tire, on and off road!
I like the Ramblers, they're really light and supple. Sub 400g in 40mm I think!
Comfort says larger tires are best.
I think it would have been better to use power on the first test. How fast the tires feel often affects how fast you pedal. And what feels fast is often slower. Smooth is fast.
Being just 1 second slower but having a comfy plush ride over gravel... I would opt for the bigger tire. That 1 second slower on downhill rolling test is probabyl due to the rotation inerta of the bigger wheel circumference.
I would argue that over a longer distance, the slower tire will be faster - comfort is king! Pain and wear and tear from it shouldn't be underestimated.
wider tire = more comfort = less fatigue = faster on longer rides.
….heavier
@@frienduro24 yes, also heavier. Are you running 18 mm tires to save weight??
35mm GR 1s because I ride a cross bike on gravel because where I live that is all you need and when I need more I don’t complain
Nice test. I've been loving the Maxxis Rambler in both 45 and 50c. Actually using two wheelset now to cover more conditions. So one more bulky 32h and Rambler 50c for more ruff stuff and a 24h lighter set with GK SK 43c...With time I feel going at 45c might be the optimum width both for racing & exploring because even gravel races will include ruff sections. So many choices left to try...Did use Terravail 47c durable 60tpi for ruff this year but I have to use low pressure to feel smooth, plus I have cushcore in that set. So 20/25psi max in them. I'm not that heavy so thinking using a more supple casing might help for fatigue and probably stiking to 120tpi like the Maxxis is better.
Would you want wider gravelkings?
I think if you tested 50 mm at 20psi it would have probably been faster. It’s tough because in order to find the fastest option you need to find the “optimum” pressure for each tire. The 40 mm might have been faster at 20 psi also but you may have broken a rim in completing the run. Great test though thanks for the data!
Conclusion du test, roulez en 45mm ! 😅🤷🏼♂️ (René Herse)
The last sentence in your evaluation got me. If you were doing anything but racing, you would go 50mm. I’m not racing so 50mm for me. Thanks
The presenter is misinterpreting the data. Even in a race, their data says you should still run 50mm. There is no difference in time, but a stated qualitative improvement in comfort.
Prolly want to run 50 when racing too.
Please do a 40x40t vs 36x36t test. Which requires more wattage in climbing. Thank you!
Guess 36 will be harder to pedal up
Both is 1x1 ratio. Its the same. the only difference would be a little little weight saved. As the rings are both big enough, also there would be no measurable difference in friction loss.
Of course, it depends on the road. I switched my 38mm tires with 32mm slicks and became slower on 70% of the roads in my city)
But for gravel 38-40 more that enough
Gravel is bumpier than dirt grass trails. As others noted seems a hard tail would be more comfy on extended gravel. Tarmac the HT slows significantly where a GB preferable. Moderate dirt grass GB >= HT . Tough choice. Challenge usually have to do a fair amount of tarmac to get to trails. Pick your poison. I prefer to keep as far away from cars as possible. So ride rougher shoulder areas more debris.
Great video. Thank you! I am just getting into bikepacking, and would be interested in any research - or rules of thumb - regarding how to adjust the tire pressure for the increased weight of the gear. Presumably, the tire pressure would need to be higher, but, how much? I am not clear on what the test methodology would be, but I guess the goal is to reduce rolling resistance on a given tire, without increasing puncture risk on the gnarly bits. Thoughts?
I run Pathfinder Pro 700x42C at 45PSI.
Late to the party, but if you wanted to isolate the differences between the tyres, i'm surprised you used a suspension fork (which _might_ preferentially help the narrower tyre) and, as a few have mentioned, didn't use the recommended pressures for the individual widths. Lush looking bike mind, cracking colour :D
True for suspended mass on the forks, but lauf forks r very light especially compared to a air fork. So not much a difference unless maybe u put a mtb tire i strongly bet
I run 650b & 47mm tyres. Soaks up rocks better but I’m sure 700x40 ‘ish would be quicker on smoother surfaces. N+1 time eh?
This is exactly what I’m experiencing.
You'll be suprised the type of tyres plus tubeless. I found one brand better on the rough all day at 38mm over a 42mm. The suppleness and give of the tyre can make a massive difference as does the wheel width and weight. There's also a difference in 700c vs 650 in the same width so another factor. 700 roll better than 650b as the same width
Just buy a hard tail xc bike with 2.2 ikon race tyres and put some drop handle bars on it and save yourself years of pissing about working out what works coz it’s already been worked out.
How is a test asking what is faster about “ride impressions”?? Use all possible data if it’s speed related, including power
Roll down test used no power. Told us what we needed to know.
Why didn't you actually test the most popular 45mm ? This is a choice that most use now for all type of riding. Would be more interesting comparison of 40 vs 45 vs 50 as the 40 vs 50 is a massive gap between. Maybe you could add this to the test in the future.
Wider is nearly always better. Even here (SE Sweden) where we have vast amounts of perfect gravel, every route has some rougher stuff, or loose gravel, or recently spread gravel. A wider tyre with a larger contact patch gives you more grip, allowing you to go faster through corners.
But even if there wasn't a traction advantage, I'd rather be safer and slower than faster and more prone to crashing. Riding a skittish and under-gripped bike just isn't fun.
seems that pressure is more of a factor than width for the purposes of these tires on these surfaces in these tests
Think you need to repeat this test without a front suspension, think there will be a handling difference and hence a speed difference
If you aren’t using the power meter to objectively test if one set of tires is faster than the other, i.e., maintaining the same power in both sets of tires and comparing lap times, the title of your video should be Do Wider Tires Feel Faster, not are they. This is a huge purposeful oversight.
The only time numbers were quoted was the roll down, which doesn't need a power meter.
The first part he started was subjective
@@twatts4436 it's pretty worthless to make this a subjective test when it can easily be a scientific one. It's not 1995, power meters are abundant
Too hard to maintain a constant power in those conditions, it's not how most people would ride that terrain. The roll down test told us what we needed to know.
@@veganpotterthevegan subjective is useful to describe how something feels when cornering, when navigating terrain.
With off road riding power consistency is much harder, as is picking the same line choice.
The scientific part of the test was the second section.
@@veganpotterthevegan A power meter has nothing to do with speed, which is what their time response variable is a proxy of. If they were to test effort, then a power meter would be relevant.
What about testing the impact of putting too much sealant in? (like silly amounts to get a noticeable impact)
Just use TPU tubes
@@Genadvideo I'd rather have sealant(a normal amount). TPU tubes are great for the saddlebag though
If u run a wider tire u should use lower preassure then with a narrower tire, else the wider tire is uncomfortable and has i rolling disadvantage vs narrower tire, there's several videos explaining how it works, and Bike Radar doesn't even mention the physics why u should have lower preassure with wider tires, so this test is rigged for a narrow tire.
Thanks god bless
40mm at 20 psi with tyre inserts! 👍
Real missed opportunity with this test. Again….
Why didn’t you test the two tyres at the same relative pressure. You said it yourself in the wrap up “maybe the 50mm tyre at a lower pressure would be faster still” yes, exactly. A larger volume tyre is ridden at a lower psi for this reason. So why didn’t you test the 50mm tyre at a lower pressure to the 40mm?
Running the same pressure in different width tyres ist really an even comparison.
You should add a pavement test, the percentage of pavement on your ride is worth considering.
I’ve been using S- Works Pathfinder 42 which are very fast indeed but will shortly try out the Tufo Thundero which are 40s
How fast are those on tarmac compared to 32mm road tires?
@@steveadorjan9048 fast and more comfortable I would say
@@alanhill7965 Thanks! Trying to decide btw. these and the new S-Works Mondo 35mm for a new build (75% paved roads, though not the smoothest tarmac)
@@steveadorjan9048 S -works Pathfinder for me , in the bit of Australia where I live the roads are pretty bad these tyres seem to smooth them out comfortably and fast
Just ordered a set of the Thunderos. They tested very well over at bicycletirerollingresistance and the price is great.
… when you enter the water/ food stop, and you scoffed two pork pies and taken a wizz,, any gains made would be thrown out the window. I think you missing the point of gravel, each to their own but one common factor, you riding, that’s actually all that counts for 98% of riders.
I'm more curius what you thought of the bike. Guessing you ride a lot of different gravel bikes ... how did the Lauf compare?
Ngl I initially thought that sus gravel bikes were a bit pointless and that the Lauf design was the stupidest of the lot. But I had this bike for ages and got a load of riding in. The fork is annoyingly good for the techy and often barely ridable 'gravel' that we have in the West of England. Having space for ridiculously wide tyres is also really nice.
The only thing I don't like about the build is the bar. I'd quickly change that if it was mine just because of the shape of the shifter clamp area.
In terms of the handling, it reminds me of a lot of cyclocross bikes in that you can really flick it around. But then you also get good stability at speed. I've got the Crux on a long term test too and the Lauf is a fair bit smoother and arguably more versatile. It's just a very nice gravel bike. Hope that helps. Liam.
Roadies thrived when gravel bikes were invented
I'd like to see if mtb groupset can be good for gravel/touring. This or a 650b x wide tyres VS 700c x narrow tyres :)
I bought my second gravel bike two days ago, a Bombtrack Hook with 650b and 2” tyres. I already have a Cannondale Topstone 1 with 700c X 40. There’s a huge noticeable difference with the Cannondale being faster.
@@tezzanewton Yeah, I was also thinking about confort, acceleration and maneuverability :)
@@pierre8532 I’ve just come back from a 1hr ride on the Bombtrack on steep, sandy, rocky and hard pack terrain. Comfort is good for a bike with no suspension and the 2” tyres are great on sand. Manoeuvre ability is pretty good but it’s still early days. Having said that, I’m a 54 year old novice but with a motorcycle background.
What are like those big brackets on the lower part of the front fork?
Lauf Grit Suspension fork
45 and you have the best of both worlds.
I plan to change my gravel bike tire 50C to 40C but my inner width rim is 27mm. Is it ok sir? tq
What I found shocking is just how fast some mountain bike tires are. Faster then gravel!!
What particular tire of mtb are you referring, mind to share ? Thanks
@@Vladimir_39 Schwalbe Thunder Burt 27.5" 2.1" - very fast tire.
Im looking for a set of 29r knobbies, But they have to last on pavement gravel and technical rocky climbs as well as back down.. as this is my daily.. so far im liking the American Classic tubeless, Tectonite and Basanite, but it's hard to throw $100 at tires that may not last.. what do you or anyone think of them ?
Go as Wide as possible - yes u wilæ be slow on tarmac…..but in the loose gravel corners u Will be flying😊
Slowly evolving into 90s mountain bikes. Roadies are cute 😂
What's even the difference between a wide gravel tyre and a mountainbike tyre?
For forest trails, i like to use 35c Michelin gravel when its muddy. I cant fit bigger than 37c.
35 would be ideal for mud anyway in my opinion, as long as it had some tread.
Was that small black tool he had when pumping the tyre a tyre pump or gauge. If a pump anyone know which brand and if it is any good?
Hi, that is a Topeak digital pressure gauge. I mostly use it for cyclocross and it is really good. Liam
www.amazon.co.uk/Topeak-SmartGuage-Digital-Pressure-Motorbikes/dp/B09BB7TH92/ref=asc_df_B09BB7TH92/
25 psi on a 40mm you are basically riding on your rims
So what you are saying is 45mm is the best of both worlds? However there is one last dynamic that always decides the winning factor, fitness! One other factor which you did not mention, which I feel may have played a role is the rim width. Perhaps this is something to experiment with further. Rim widths and profiles.
I'd like to see a single bike tested with the usual carbon fork, and a custom steel fork designed for the tester. I have Enve carbon forks on road and cross bikes, but they enver seemed any nicer than a decent steel fork with smoothly curved blades. (TBH, I really want to try a Lauf fork)
I love the Lauf fork on my hardtail but I honestly recommend a Redshift stem over a Lauf fork for gravel.
I remember the chromoly forks that came on the 90's Marin MTB's, man those forks really soaked up the bumps, I've got carbon forks on my 90's MTB, it is really harsh! I feel that many carbon forks are overbuilt, but I guess these days they need to cope with twisting and extra demands put on them by disc brakes.
@@veganpotterthevegan a Redshift stem isolates the rider from the bike to add comfort. The Lauf fork improves traction in turn adding comfort. Redshift = only a comfort gain. Suspension fork = a comfort gain and a performance gain.
Would take the fork over the stem any day of the week.
@ll88 any loss in vibration reduces your tires bounce off the terrain. They certainly help with handling, even if it's not as effective as a Lauf fork. That said, I wasn't even talking about those aspects of cycling. There are a lot of gravel trails where a Lauf fork is overkill unless you're running tires that are too narrow/hard. And it's certainly going to be an aerodynamic loss, on top of lost efficiency due to bob even if it's minimal
@@veganpotterthevegan have you ever ridden the Grit SL (drop bar version) fork? There is almost zero bob as it's tuned to flex under high speed compression, not low speed compression (general rider input).
If a road/trail is 'overkill' for a Lauf then it certainly doesn't 'need' a Redshift stem.
The stem is also about 200g heavier than a regular stem, a Lauf fork is about 400g more than a rigid. Pretty minimal.
A Redshift stem is essentially a commercial product to give comfort to those who feel their fork doesn't provide enough.
The Lauf bike has this integrated as part of it's design (vis a vie the fork) with the added benefit of what suspension achieves on all vehicles (MTB, motorcross, cars, trucks) that is to improve traction. Better taction offroad = speed. Yeah you can just run huge tyres, but you suffer for the road sections. The fork allows the traction of a bigger tyre while allowing a sufficiently small tyre for on road performance.
Didn't say the Redshift stem doesn't improve performance at all. But simply having an opinion that Redshift > Lauf fork purely from a performance aspect for gravel riding application (rough enough to warrant a suspension product with all other things being equal such as geometry/fitment/price) isn't logical.
Gravel biking does not make sense until it is almost a XC mtb! 50mm
Looks like you can easily fit 2.1" MTB tires on that bike.
faster tread patterns with more volume is a huuuge win-win. why slow yourself down with low-volume tires that also drag on pavement??
This is literally screaming MTB
You don't have to account for the weight and aero of a larger tire, those are not independent variables. They are locked into the width.
Not in their test with segment time as the response. If they were to measure power, then weight and width would be a useful assessment.
@@cjohnson3836 you need to think about it some more. Let me know when there is a tire that is wider and does not weigh more or is less aero.
@@jonathanzappala The hell you on about? I'm agreeing with you, knob. And simply adding that if they were to have also measured power (as many people here in the comments are criticizing-its an incorrect criticism but whatever), then weight particularly would have been a useful measure. But speed vs effort to keep said speed are different analyses. jfc
@@cjohnson3836 you’re not really agreeing with me, I said it doesn’t matter how much more one weighs than the other. But you would still like to know.
Less rolling resistance is faster..and most tires like that are lighter as well making themeven faster.
45s baby!
I don't understand the low tire pressures. 25-35 psi is nearly flat...
Notice that this young, strong rider is dancing on the pedals, so each wheel can bounce up rather than making the tire take all the hit and maybe snake-biting. That's great, but there is no way I could do that after a few hours in the saddle.
are you running 23mm road tires? because 35 psi on 50 mm is like a stone. I can hammer nails with such pressure.
Where a 50mm tyre is required you are better off on a hardtail MTB.
A wise conclusion. Wider tyres are nicer (and safer) to ride, per any discipline. Period.
50mm "gravel tyres" are regular 5 year old XC tyres. Stop making things up guys
nice
With a suspension fork, this test makes no sense at all … 😂
The title of the video had potential then any meaningful application of basic engineering science went out the window and the video became an opinion instead of answering the title question...
Didn't really watch it did you?
As always use what the pros use if you want to be fast and go just a little bit wider if you want Confort and speed.
Otherwise you're just slower no matter what they say!
Except the data here very literally shows no difference in time between widths. Data trumps everything.
@@cjohnson3836 data, what data?!?!
People these days believe anything they are shown as proof!
The what about the data that the pros show you by not using wide tires what does that tell?!?!
Are they, the ones that run by the second stupid for using this "data"?!?!
What about weight during a long period of time does that not count?!?!
What about the same sealant when the smaller lighter tire does need that much, is that accurate data?!?!
This is really as they say the 15 to 25 sport, meaning the ignorance sport until you are older and wiser, not believing these videos on people that live by the views...
40 is best.
Are we still pretending that back-to-back rides by a single rider produce meaningful results?
There's nothing wrong with this. It would be better if they brought two otherwise identical wheelsets and randomized the order of width/psi on each ride. But that's asking for academic level procedure for a RUclips video, which is ridiculous. Especially considering they showed there's now effect of tire width on time, in their data. Your criticism would only potentially be relevant if they actually had a measurable difference in time.
“System error dynamics”….. hahahaha. Nice “test”
🤣
Those pressures are much too low, especially for a 40 tire. 25 PSI is a MTB pressure and you'll for sure puncture or worse on a gravel tire with that pressure unless you're a flea.
My @rse
I'm 190lbs and run my 40s at 30psi. I'd certainly ride at 25 if I weren't a porker. I run 20-22ish PSI on my mountain bike. Are you afraid of good traction?
40 tire, 25psi rear, 15-20psi front depending on terrain, 66kg rider. Lower than that for MTB tires.
@@gregmorrison7320 as I said, unless you are a flea. Most men don't weigh under 75kg and gravel riders tend to be a bit bigger than road cyclists (the amateurs I see, anyway). So yeah, those PSI will work for like 10% of riders out there
@@pl4free You're talking out your ass. I weigh ~80kg and run my gravel tires routinely as low as 20PSI on tractor path (essentially smashed up tarmac chunder dropped on farm borders, equivalent to a rock garden). Never have a problem
Heavy fat low pressure tires are faster than skinny high pressure tires ? What is the world coming to ?
Lol no they're not faster. They are more comfortable.
I am sorry but a test like this is rubbish. The average rider doesn't count seconds, but rather would be more concerned with comfort, confidence & efficiency while riding mixed terrain.
Most rubbish thing is: socks (white or any color) over leg warmers (or tights) !!! 🤡🤣
@14:12 No!! You do not have any evidence here that narrow tires are faster. In fact, you have no statistically detectable difference (not that a statistical test is necessary since we can see that your variance within groups is greater than the difference across groups). The only factor that has any detectable effect is PSI. Your data predicts around a 2 sec and 3.5 sec decrease in time going from 35PSI to 25PSI, on smooth and rough respectively.
So, in fact, no. Even in a race, you should still run the 50mm tires. Because there is no detectable difference in your time data, but a qualitative improvement in comfort.
I was running Wtb 40 nano's and they were excellent off-road , just put on some 700x42 Sawtooths and I really like them faster than the nano's with lots of traction
Got a power meter but not using it on any of the test 🤔 #science