Forum menu
So as you do I was looking at a faster tyre, maybe something for all year round local easy stuff & I came across what I thought would be an ideal tyre (well based on the description anyway) the Mavic [url= https://www.evanscycles.com/mavic-crossride-pulse-29-tubeless-mtb-tyre-2016-EV254207 ]Pulse[/url], then I saw the weight & thought I would ask as I don't think I have seen it as a topic on here despite the myriad of tyre topics 😉 if it could be a better all-round tyre than say the [url= http://www.hargrovescycles.co.uk/specialized-ground-control-s-works-29inch-tyre.html?gclid=COzwl4rJ584CFRBmGwodB-IMBg ]S-works ground control[/url] which is a fair amount lighter?
So can a heavier tyre be faster over all in these circumstances or not?
Cheers.
Depends a heavier tyre is probably better 'downhill', you can't be fast if you're punctured!
There's one really striking result on that rolling resistance test, the Kenda Juggernaught is by far the lightest fat bike tyre on the market, but actually has the highest (I think?) rolling resistance despite having small nobbles and 120tpi casing which should be a winning recipe.
I've an s-works ground control, it's pretty rapid.
Yeah I think a heavier semi-slick like a Rock Razor can be quicker than something like a High Roller.
Just picked up the new Crossmark 2 in Exo casing - that could be a corker.
Thanks, it seems anything with tread is going to slow you down so go with the lightest you can get away with 😉
I'm pretty sure it's not a linear relationship between rolling resistance and weight, so going for the lightest isn't the only factor by any means. It can really depend on tyre pressure, tread pattern, knob shape (no s****ing!), and 'tackiness' of rubber - and combinations of these. Look at all of these factors and not just weight. Tyres with a mix of ramped almost continuous centre tread and big knobbles on the outside can make great off road tyres but are also fairly quick - like the crossmark, ardent or something like a wtb bronson.
If you check out bicyclerollingrestsance he goes into detail regarding all of these factors and conclude they mean very little.
The biggest factor is the casing and its construction. Not the tread shape or depth.
Read the site.
[i]I'm pretty sure it's not a linear relationship between rolling resistance and weight,[/i]
I'd go further and say that there almost shouldn't be a relationship between the two, other than luck.
To name but two heavy tyres that roll well, Big Apples and Jumbo Jims.
I'm pretty certain that rolling resistance is entirely due to hysteresis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Elastic_hysteresis
The causes of this are tread deformation and carcass deformation. A soft tread compound or taller narrow tread blocks will allow more deformation. A softer compound will often have more hysteresis loss from a given amount of deformation due to its greater internal damping. A heavier carcass will often have more hysteresis loss, again due to the greater internal damping.
On the whole heavier tyres tend to roll slower but it isn't because they're heavier, it's because usually their construction inherently causes greater hysteresis loss.
That's interesting. I always had an instinct that two Rons were better than a Ron / Raplh combo when I'm racing, and in the summer even more so with a Ron with a worn centre on the back. Seems I was right.