Bicycle Rolling Resistance tests gravel

30 replies · 2,765 views

Volsung
878 posts
#21Jul 5, 2020, 9:33 AM
avatar78 wrote:While none of the tire sizes he tested are ones I would be using, I think the useful takeaway for me is that the rolling resistance generally correlates with tire weight. And it makes sense that the lighter and more supple a tire, the lower the rolling resistance

This is largely true with a few exceptions. Kenda Juggernauts are the lightest fat bike tire but have the highest RR. I guess this is intentional. Schwalbe Almotions are also pretty heavy but are super low RR.

There's gotta be some equation for it, but you have to find the right balance between RR, suppleness/comfort, weight, durability, and not too much ugly advertising on the sidewalls.
0
ljsmith
762 posts
#22Jul 5, 2020, 12:19 PMedited▲ Top
There are a few things you have to understand to use this data. A tires rolling resistance is a result of its casing, compound and tread design. Weight does not directly affect rolling resistance, low weight will help a tire accelerate faster and therefore feel faster. Often a more supple tire (which does give lower rolling resistance) will usually weigh less, which is why people often connect low weight with low rolling resistance. This is why so many tire reviews are terrible, because they just take a look at the tread and if it has smooth tread and its light they say "this is a fast tire". But if that tire has a slow compound, its not going to be fast (Kenda is notorious for fast looking tires that are slow). Another thing is that these tests are done on a smooth drum. In real life a tire like the Gravel King slick is going to be slower because it is going to have less traction on gravel, a slipping tire is an inefficient tire. If your rides are 80% pavement than a tire like that would be the fastest, but if you are 80% gravel then its not going to be the fastest. As trails/roads get rockier and/or muddier larger knobs make a tire faster not slower. So depending on where you ride, something like a G-One Ultrabite could be way faster than a Gravel King Slick or a Continental Terra Speed.

Bascially what I am saying is that it is not as easy as just looking at the chart and picking the tire with the lowest rolling resistance. That works for road bikes, but not really for offroad bikes. Probably the most popular all around mountain bike tire is a Maxxis Minion DHF, many consider it the fastest because of its insane levels of traction. However they have terrible rolling resistance, but the compound and tread design give so much grip that you are actually faster when offroad, even though the rolling resistance is higher. When choosing tires, rolling resistance is just one useful data point. Matching the tread, compound, and puncture resistance to how and where you ride are just as, if not more, important.
4
bobrayner
10 posts
#23Jul 6, 2020, 8:18 AM
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth. This is great data for some tyres; surely there will be future tests with other tyres.

Personally, I would be interested in the results for Continental's Speed King CX tyre (700c) as that really fits my own style of riding and I think it should get a low wattage in the test (very shallow tread along the centre, knobs at the sides), but it seems to have gone out of fashion and my usual supplier has discontinued it, so maybe there's no point testing it. Continental have released a fatter version which performs very well in the same test, and might appeal to some other riders here...
1
chas
1,305 posts
#24Jul 6, 2020, 9:31 AM
That is an older tire, but as I recall, the construction (and price) was very very different between the CX tire and the larger one...?

bobrayner wrote:
Personally, I would be interested in the results for Continental's Speed King CX tyre (700c) as that really fits my own style of riding and I think it should get a low wattage in the test (very shallow tread along the centre, knobs at the sides), but it seems to have gone out of fashion and my usual supplier has discontinued it, so maybe there's no point testing it. Continental have released a fatter version which performs very well in the same test, and might appeal to some other riders here...
0
chas
1,305 posts
#25Jul 6, 2020, 10:06 AMedited
zen_ wrote:Interesting that the smooth center Overide is middle of the pack, and that the GravelKing Slick vs. Maxxis Re-Fuse, which look like a very similar tire, are first and last.

Goes to show how much construction and how little tread has to do directly with how a tire rides.

Re-Fuse was initially high on my list, but I read so many articles on how stiff it road, that I crossed it off early. Its heavy, stiff, and slow in spite of its looks. Has great puncture protection though - making it a good urban tire or maybe touring tire. (FYI, Schwalbe makes supple fast tires that have great puncture protection and are on the heavy side - so they are not mutually exclusive).

These tests on rollers do tend to emphasize carcass construction in my experience.
2
chas
1,305 posts
#26Jul 6, 2020, 10:14 AMedited
thumper88 wrote:Im pretty disappointed. Basic issues: 1) he’s using 17.8mm rims. 2) he’s testing only 33-40mm tires and frankly seems more interested in the CX stuff he’s lumping together with gravel.

... but Conti need to build a tire will at least measure out at a true 40 and preferable 42-43. It’s the fastest proper gravel tire in the test, though I wouldn’t use it on courses with serious sharp rock.

Realize that most of us here are US centric, and these tests are European. 33-40mm makes a LOT more sense in Europe – given the terrain and the CX popularity. This isn’t a US based gravel test for US roads. Keep that in mind. His rim size is the European standard for testing.

If you want variety, I can't tell much difference between the G-one Alround and the terraspeed in reality. (well the G-one is amazing in cold, wet, and snowy conditions). The biggest difference is the G-one is in a multitude of different sizes and tread patterns.

FYI, if I need something bigger than my 40mm terraspeed, I'm on my 50mm Furious Fred - super supple, light, and fast tire though I wouldn’t use it on courses with serious sharp rock, lol).
1
thumper88
198 posts
#27Jul 6, 2020, 11:04 AM
chas wrote:

Realize that most of us here are US centric, and these tests are European. 33-40mm makes a LOT more sense in Europe – given the terrain and the CX popularity. This isn’t a US based gravel test for US roads. Keep that in mind. His rim size is the European standard for testing.

If you want variety, I can't tell much difference between the G-one Alround and the terraspeed in reality. (well the G-one is amazing in cold, wet, and snowy conditions). The biggest difference is the G-one is in a multitude of different sizes and tread patterns.

FYI, if I need something bigger than my 40mm terraspeed, I'm on my 50mm Furious Fred - super supple, light, and fast tire though I wouldn’t use it on courses with serious sharp rock, lol).
all good points... I use the old hyper flimy “liteskin" version of the Thunder Burt for monster cross types of events where Im more worried about control and finishing alive than podium... have a pair of 650b ones and also a single 700c for the front for doing mullets, as rear will only go to 47mm in 700c.
G-one would at least in same size be my close second choice behind Conti for normal stuff. Kanza needs a sturdier tire than either of those, though.
0
Slim
300 posts
#28Jul 7, 2020, 9:26 AMedited
Bontrager has also realized the importance of impedance/vibration losses/ whatever you want to call them, and is testing rolling resistance on a treadmill, that they bolt tread on to.

I don't think they can replicate soft surfaces(sand), but it certainly allows them to measure rolling resistance at a system level, including the impedance losses in the bike and rider, due to surface roughness. not solely the hysteresis of the tire itself.

https://youtu.be/gYaWetHzejQ
0
dangle
465 posts
#29Jul 7, 2020, 11:49 AM
Looks somewhat similar to what Zipp did - https://www.sram.com/en/zipp/campaigns/total-system-efficiency?fbclid=IwAR3vihMRgksPP2BJ7VnlI92JBRlRqsnFqEkr9UAcr3KIq6xsLc7iQAKZfHg.

I'm curious which came first.
0
rdavis32
34 posts
#30Jul 9, 2020, 2:12 PM
Slim wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TP2UiAIyAbK7iR2X0mlGWWB7aJkbOecfrCmimqwcdGk/edit#gid=133566871

I've listened to the Marginal Gains podcast with Tom Anhalt that derived this info is interviewed. I think I buy into his method moreso than how Bicycle Rolling Resistance site's does it. It's worth a listen if you don't mind a bit of geekery.
https://marginalgainspodcast.cc/tire-pressure-pioneer-tom-anhalt/
1
thumper88
198 posts
#31Jul 10, 2020, 12:51 PM
and to underline some of the points made here about rollers, check out the crazy inaccurate numbers GCN came up with testing on rollers. some tires just don’t work on small rollers for sure.
2

Related threads

Panaracer Gravel King X1: Inverted tread?Gravel Tires · 40 replies · Dec 17, 2024
Newbie trying to understand rolling resistance tests, requesting assistanceGravel Tires · 77 replies · Mar 4, 2023
Fast 650bx 45-50mm tiresGravel Tires · 29 replies · Aug 2, 2021
Schwalbe G-One RS semi-slickGravel Tires · 25 replies · Sep 26, 2022
Why not just ride touring bikes?Bikes · 33 replies · Aug 21, 2018