Re: When is fat too fat?

On 3/22/2025 6:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/22/2025 2:43 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:32:11 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 3/22/2025 12:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:40:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 3/21/2025 11:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:48:20 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

(you'll need this whole link to get past the paywall)
>
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lab-tested-40mm-road-tyres- are-faster-for-nearly-everyone-and-heres-why/? utm_term=3F94C1B0-2336-481F-9F48-87A3862079D2&lrh=1e399577e82ec4e44eb4d33bfcaad09d796bd8e1f682e0f7bf32df00ae420a83&utm_campaign=A8C132A5-BD9C-4737-AC90-016639AFEA3E&utm_medium=email&utm_content=42C26C62-AEF4-4540-8653-17C0A3DB0CE6&utm_source=SmartBrief
>
CyclingNews compares the latest 40c offering from Pirelli. It's a long
and well-written article, whether you agree with the findings or not.

>
The above URL ends with too much tracking information.  I trimmed it
off.  Now, it works:
>
<https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lab-tested-40mm-road-tyres- are-faster-for-nearly-everyone-and-heres-why/>
>
Also (seperate issue) notice the greater than and less than symbols
wrapped around the URL.  If you don't want the URL mangled by a
browser line length limitation, add them when posting a URL.

>
I'm still hitting a paywall. I wonder if I've got some offending cookie
preventing my access.
>
I'll deal with it later. I'm scheduled up today.

>
I think I know what's happening.  When you first replied to the
original message, your Mozilla Thunderbird browser took the rather
long URL and word wrapped it into 3 lines of gibberish.  When you
retried, the browser is reading the original web server response
instead to getting a fresh copy.  You can either flush the web cache
or force a page refresh in your browser.  I don't know which browser
you're using so I can't offer a specific procedure.  This covers most
browsers:
>
"How to hard refresh your browser and clear your cache"
<https://fabricdigital.co.nz/blog/how-to-hard-refresh-your-browser- and-clear-cache>
>
Note that you want want to ONLY flush the web page cache.  If your web
browser also offers to also clear history, cookies, site setting,
saved info, saved form info, etc, uncheck everything EXCEPT the web
cache and cached files.  Some browsers become confused if the web
cache grows too large.

>

Aside from our comments, I think Mr Slocumb had it with his
tinyurl suggestion.
>
https://tinyurl.com/5n7sapye
>
or, without subscriber ID data (I did not get a paywall):
>
https://tinyurl.com/mu32edpb

>
Sigh.  Now, all the aforementioned URL and short links produce the
paywall message because I had tried to view the page more than 5
times.  From the "Join now" box:
"*Read 5 free articles per month without a subscription"
>
I can usually eliminate that by removing the cyclingnews.com cookies
and resetting the counter.  However, that's not working for me in
Firefox.  So, I try a different method:
Settings -> Cookies and Site Data -> Manage Data -> and type
"cyclingnews.com" into the search box.  It shows 21 cookies belonging
to cyclingnews.com.  I punch "Remove all Shown -> Save Changes" and it
doesn't work.
>
So, I switched to Chrome and again deleted any cyclingnews.com
cookies.  The paywall appears again.
>
I'll play some more later.

You can relax! I was finally able to access it. Deleting cookies from Firefox, at least in the simplest ways, did not help; but putting the URL into Microsoft Edge (which I almost never use) worked well. However, it did not let me access a linked article on aero testing. I hit the paywall there.
 Overall, I thought it was a very good article. It was directed at competitive riders, so less competitive types have other priorities, but the main takeaway seems to be that there's essentially no practical detriment to using the widest tire one's frame can accommodate. That's assuming different widths are of similar construction - i.e. not super- thick tread utility tires. The widest tires may be very slightly slower on smooth pavement, but will be much, much more efficient on super-rough surfaces like cobblestones. It therefore seems wider tires will probably be better than my 28s in areas like mine where rough roads and patched potholes are quite common. I'd long thought that would be the case.
 Quibbles and details:  I wish they had specified the air pressure used, better than "the recommended tyre pressure suggested by SRAM's tyre pressure calculator." Number, please?
 I wasn't familiar with their ergometer method of measuring rolling resistance. It sounds good, especially since they do have a human being whose flesh will be absorbing vibrational energy. That flesh is a big energy sink, seldom recognized.
 "But for now, the only type of drop bar bike that can currently run a 40mm road tyre safely is an endurance bike or a gravel bike." Nope! It looks to me like my touring bike could fit 50 mm in front, and about 45 mm in the rear. My fenders may limit that somewhat, but I feel very confident I can run 37 mm.
 And I like that the authors are lobbying for road frames with more clearance. I've been saying the same thing here for year.
 "Wider tyres are heavier - This is true, but I'd argue it doesn't matter."  Agreed, for the weight differences described. If they had expressed the tire weigh differences as percentages of bike+rider weight, that would have been even more clear.
 The bit about faster speeds being better on cobbles (if one has the power to do that) has always made sense to me. As with a single pothole, I think most of the roughness one feels is due to dropping into the spaces between cobbles. At higher speeds the tire drops less.
 BTW, around here a much more common, analogous surface is a road that's been "scarfed" - that is, had the old pavement ground away prior to repaving. On long tours, I've sometimes had to deal with that unpleasantness for miles.
 Again, very good article. Thanks to Zen for calling attention to it.
 

You're welcome, but sorry for the difficulty people seem to have encountered with the link. Since it came from my personal account with them, I futzted with the link a bit until I could find a version I could paste into a "private" browser window and still work, but there must have been some residual cookies in my system that let it work.
At any rate, yes, there seems to be more and more vindication for wider tires and the bikes needed to support them as time goes on. It's amazing how I was brought into the racing world being told skinny high-pressure tires were the way to go, while older school people back when I started were pooh poohing the idea. I remember one old codger at the local time trial in the 1980s saying that skinny tires should only be used on the track (he was the last guy to show up at the TT with wooden rims). It seems like we should have taken his word back then.