Why Don't Specialized Pathfinder Pros get more love on the forum? Are the BRR Rankings legit?

53 replies · 12,449 views

Familyridz
70 posts
#1Jul 29, 2021, 9:58 AM
I have Continentals on every car rim, road bike rim, and all but one MTB rim which has a Schwalbe--I love my German tire engineering and looked there first for gravel tires. However, from using 26er MTBs as gravel bikes before there were "gravel bikes" and especially for towing kids in trailers and tag-a-long bikes, we found that for asphalt rolling resistance and wear on 75/25 paved/unpaved riding that a solid or near solid center line on the rear tire that kept the side knobs off the tarmac was much better, like on the Conti Town & Country or the old Schwalbe Hurricane. I got the Pathfinder Pro just for durability and asphalt speed as it seemed to be the only tire with that profile. Then I found that it's doing really well at Unbound Gravel/DK https://www.bikeradar.com/features/pro-bike/unbound-2021-bikes/ with Ian Boswell (#1), Laurens Ten Dam (#2 in same time https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-laurens-ten-dams-retro-inspired-rock-combo-specialized-diverge/) and 2019 DK winner Colin Strickland (#5) all riding them. The rider wins the race, but the bike and tires can't impose too much of a penalty, so they have to be fast on gravel.

I suspect part of it is the BRR rankings use tubes, not sealant, using a 17.8mm internal width rim not 21-25mm, on a single small roller not the earth and not even a full bike with front and rear wheels on a training roller. This article deserves a read by those looking to optimize speeds/resistance: https://www.velonews.com/news/gravel/optimal-tire-pressure-gravel/ The science of wider tires being faster on the road than the rock hard 23mm tires we used to ride is because the wider contact patch has a shorter flat spot and less tire deformation on the road. Putting tires on a narrow roller vs practically flat earth causes the roller to push into the tire far more than in the real world and starts rewarding higher pressure and tires that deform less or generate less resistance under abnormal deformation.

BRR seems to show lower RR at higher pressure. Give the Velo news roller test results a read for differences with and without a bump welded to the rollers and then a gravel road coasting test a read--and also note that roller measures don't factor in rider fatigue from harder bumps. The smooth roller did best at the 70 psi max, bumpy roller did best at 50 psi, but the gravel road roll out test did best at 30. Both BRR and VeloNews roller tests are measuring power required to turn a narrow roller, as much an unrealistic traction measure sort of useful on rear tires, but iffy on front tires that just coast on a flatter, bumpier, softer surfaces. At least the Velo news test is using a roller under the front as well, so you have drive and front tire measures combined, though still on small diameter rollers.

The oddest aspect of BRR is they don't seem to try to get apples-to-apples measured tread widths, even though most tires come in multiple sizes. Their rankings correlate highly with narrow measured tread width on the 17.8 mm rim they use. For the Pathfinder Pro test they chose a 42 that measured tread width at 41mm even though it comes in a 38. The Gravel King TLC tread is a measured 34 and the current #1 Challenge Strada Bianca is a measured 35. Hmmm.... They show the Conti Terra Speed is slower in 40 than in 35, but they measured tread width on those two at 38 and 33. In the fine print, they say "The CX/Gravel section is a multi tire size section, air pressures have been adjusted to the measured casing width." Adjusted how? Are they running wider measured width at lower pressures that are penalized in their test? A real ranking, even with the roller issue, requires attempting to get the same measured tread width and running the same pressure. Does the diameter width matter if the tread is much narrower?

One BRR article that is useful and interesting on gravel is the drag caused by sealant https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/road-bike-tubeless-sealant. Sloshing sealant is repeatedly lifted up as the tire rotates and falls down to be lifted up again. More sealant, more work lifting sealant. This also gets worse at lower speeds with less centripetal force plastering the sealant against the tire and distributing it more evenly. If you have to add more sealant to thinner walled tires to get them to hold pressure or stop leaks, the sealant weight is more work than the same amount of rubber weight --I suspect that is part of what is going on with the Pathfinder.

The Velo News discussion of sprung vs. unsprung weight and the gravel roll out test is really telling. What is fascinating is that the rider's perception of speed at low versus high pressure is wrong. Speed on bumpy terrain is partially about reducing bike & rider vertical motion by the tire absorbing the bump without lifting the bike and turning forward force/inertia into vertical lifting force. The rider perceived vibration frequency as speed, when lower pressure that eliminated smaller vibrations was actually faster.

So, why doesn't the Pathfinder get more love?
1
ljsmith
762 posts
#2Jul 29, 2021, 10:11 AM▲ Top
TLDR

To answer your question, they are extremely heavy and have poor traction in wet/muddy conditions.
3
Konass
33 posts
#3Jul 29, 2021, 11:32 AM
On paper, people don't like their specs. Too heavy. Yet they won Unbound 2 years in a row. That weight is extra protection but people can't get over it. I love the tire. Use it any time I know I am going to be in rough conditions or just want a tire 38 or larger.
0
Familyridz
70 posts
#4Jul 29, 2021, 12:13 PM

ljsmith wrote:TLDR

To answer your question, they are extremely heavy and have poor traction in wet/muddy conditions.

I get the poor wet traction bit--which I'm pretty sure applies to most of the "low rolling resistance" tires. "Extremely heavy" without an equal performance advantage doesn't win highly competitive races, does it? That's what led me to dig into what's going on. It appears that some of the "lighter" tires are actually smaller than labeled, BRR may be making that worse by not choosing tires of different makes with similar measured tread widths and then they are adjusting stated test pressure based on size. Then the BRR test seems irrelevant to real world performance--but it wouldn't do much good to say that without pointing to why, hence the TL part😊.
0
zen_
110 posts
#5Jul 29, 2021, 1:15 PM
A couple considerations that don't require too much science. One, the Pathfinder is a very durable tire that resist cuts from the type of rock on the DK course. Two, some of the ex-pros / still kinda pros are sponsored by Specialized, so that's what they run.

I did kinda want to try the 700x42c as a race tire, but decided against it this year because it seemed kinda wasteful to spend ~$110 for tires on one event. I don't think in the grand scheme of things a couple watts of RR on the GK SK is going to matter for someone not at the front, and it's a known quantity from all the training miles. At the end of the day the best tire is the one you're comfortable and confident with, not what an ex-pro won DK on.
1
stu
646 posts
#6Jul 29, 2021, 2:40 PM
Familyridz wrote:I have Continentals on every car rim, road bike rim, and all but one MTB rim which has a Schwalbe ...
I'm also a big fan of Conti car tires.

... The oddest aspect of BRR is they don't seem to try to get apples-to-apples measured tread widths, even though most tires come in multiple sizes. Their rankings correlate highly with narrow measured tread width on the 17.8 mm rim they use ...
BRR did a special test with different rim widths and found small improvements with wider rims (up to a point). FWIW they found the 57 mm Schwalbe Big One to have very low rolling resistance.

... In the fine print, they say "The CX/Gravel section is a multi tire size section, air pressures have been adjusted to the measured casing width." Adjusted how? ...
You can see how by hovering the mouse pointer over the pressure label on the black bar. For example RR Low means:
Real tire width in mm:
32-34 = 44 psi/3.0 bar
33-35 = 40 psi/2.8 bar
36-38 = 36 psi/2.6 bar
39-42 = 33 psi/2.3 bar
They don't say how fractional sizes are rounded, for example is the 38.4 mm Cinturato gravel H categorized as 36-38 or as 39-42?

Overall I find BRR's methods less than ideal but I think they do indicate real differences between similar tires on relatively smooth pavement.
0
Familyridz
70 posts
#7Jul 29, 2021, 4:18 PM

[/QUOTE]
stu wrote:You can see how by hovering the mouse pointer over the pressure label on the black bar. For example RR Low means:
Real tire width in mm:
32-34 = 44 psi/3.0 bar
33-35 = 40 psi/2.8 bar
36-38 = 36 psi/2.6 bar
39-42 = 33 psi/2.3 bar
They don't say how fractional sizes are rounded, for example is the 38.4 mm Cinturato gravel H categorized as 36-38 or as 39-42?

Overall I find BRR's methods less than ideal but I think they do indicate real differences between similar tires on relatively smooth pavement.

Read the Velo news article I mentioned when you get a chance. Rolling on gravel, 30 PSI had lower resistance than 50 or 70. On smooth rollers, resistance dropped as PSI increased as it does at BRR. In the real world, the contact patch of a tire is a front to rear ellipse. On a roller, it's cut off at straight lines front & rear, so the larger tire will deflect more than it should. Showing a table where the lead tires were tested at 44 and 40 PSI and other tires were tested at 33 on rollers is crazy! That's a 33% pressure difference on top of roller performance doing the opposite of what happens in realistic testing.

You might also want to give this a read: https://www.velonews.com/where-the-rubber-meets-the-road-what-makes-cycling-tires-fast/ Specialized stole two top Conti tire designers, and the article claims Conti TPIs are sometimes bogus counts of overlapping layers making the tire stiffer, not more supple. The tread compound can matter more than tire type, and the Pathfinder has that same Gripton compound as the road tires in this test.
0
stu
646 posts
#8Jul 29, 2021, 6:07 PMedited
Familyridz wrote:Read the Velo news article I mentioned when you get a chance. Rolling on gravel, 30 PSI had lower resistance than 50 or 70 ...
Thanks for the VeloNews links. I wish they put the date where I could find it, I'm guessing "Where the rubber meets the road" is a bit dated since it doesn't mention the GP5000 or any Pirelli tires.

For optimal pressure I like the Silca Pro calculator: https://info.silca.cc/silca-professional-pressure-calculator

... The tread compound can matter more than tire type ...
I totally agree with that even though some sources (RH) don't. It's a convincing explanation for why the thick and heavy Marathon Almotion (original OneStar) is so fast. In my experience the rubber compound also affects puncture protection since glass shards stick in some softer compounds (Panaracer) but not in some harder ones (Continental).
0
Volsung
878 posts
#9Jul 29, 2021, 6:25 PM
BRR used to just be a bored dude in Finland testing stuff that people either sent him or he bought on his own. As he gets more biggerer he'll probably get to test more stuff.
0
ridetiltheend
7 posts
#10Jul 29, 2021, 6:40 PM
Familyridz wrote:

Read the Velo news article I mentioned when you get a chance. Rolling on gravel, 30 PSI had lower resistance than 50 or 70. On smooth rollers, resistance dropped as PSI increased as it does at BRR. In the real world, the contact patch of a tire is a front to rear ellipse. On a roller, it's cut off at straight lines front & rear, so the larger tire will deflect more than it should. Showing a table where the lead tires were tested at 44 and 40 PSI and other tires were tested at 33 on rollers is crazy! That's a 33% pressure difference on top of roller performance doing the opposite of what happens in realistic testing.

You might also want to give this a read: https://www.velonews.com/where-the-rubber-meets-the-road-what-makes-cycling-tires-fast/ Specialized stole two top Conti tire designers, and the article claims Conti TPIs are sometimes bogus counts of overlapping layers making the tire stiffer, not more supple. The tread compound can matter more than tire type, and the Pathfinder has that same Gripton compound as the road tires in this test.

This is a very interesting discussion. While I think you raise some valid concerns about the BRR testing, I don't think their results are quite as bad as you think they are. The drum used is not that small and I don't think the shape of the contact patch varies all that much from the real world. Tom Ahnalt used to do RR testing using a power meter on bike rollers, which are tiny compared to the drum they are using, and his results had a reasonable (although not perfect) correlation with BRR. Adjusting the pressure depending on tire size seems like something they have to do in order to normalize the actual casing tension given the very wide range of gravel tire widths. You really can't use the same pressure for a 35C gravel tire as a 47C. Certainly that adjustment can introduce significant errors if it's not done in a very scientific manner. The pressure adjustments sound reasonable to me but that's just a seat of the pants judgement.

I do wish they'd use wider rims, I'm not sure it would make much difference in the relative rankings but it makes the measured widths less useful. I agree that they should make more of an effort to test as many tires in a close a width as possible to minimize errors.

For the two gravel tires I've used recently, the Conti Terra Speed and WTB Resolute, there's about 7 watts per tire difference in BRR testing or 14 watts total, and this correlates reasonably well with what I've observed on the road, the Terra Speeds roll very nicely on pavement and the Resolutes are OK but definitely feel slower on the road.

My own take is that the rankings give a reasonable idea of how the tires will compare in smooth road rolling resistance, but I wouldn't put a lot of stake in 1-2 watt differences as I suspect those differences are beyond the actual accuracy of their methodology. I do think large differences they show translate reasonably well to the road.

And of course, gravel tires are about much more than smooth pavement rolling performance and it's important to realize the limitations of the BRR testing. That Resolute is slower on the pavement but faster once the gravel gets rough, or on offroad trails where the extra 4mm of width (as measured) and resulting lower pressure, and the more aggressive tread pattern, provide a distinct advantage.
Familyridz
70 posts
#11Jul 29, 2021, 7:45 PM
Thanks. The biggest real world issue I have seen is that rear tire wear and front tire wear are radically different on pavement, especially for tires without a solid center tread. The friction that’s wearing down center knobs faster than center solid ridges under more of the rider’s weight in the rear has to be lost power, and the difference between efficient drive traction on the rear and passive rolling resistance under a lighter load on the front is large based on the wear patterns I’ve seen.

The other thing I have experienced with other tires that I’m hoping for on the Pathfinder, is that at 50% wear, it will have lost more weight than grip while the center knob tires like the Dunlop MSO that came on my bike, will be sanded down and done at the same mileage. I move the rear to the front before it’s too worn and put a new rear on, and that approach has worked well to have average tire weight lower with decent sidewall and puncture protection. But I ride mainly dry, paved or gravel and no mud, so that won’t work for those who ride wetter, looser stuff.
0
Alex_C
148 posts
#12Jul 29, 2021, 8:55 PM
I'm running a Pathfinder Pro on the rear. Thus far it has been great.
0
imwjl
304 posts
#13Jul 30, 2021, 9:39 AM
I'm sure just Specialized's size and market share means the stuff is okay or good. After some experiences where Specialized was rotten with post sale support and Trek great I tried more of Trek's stuff and have been happy. In some cases surprisingly happy.
At this point I also confess to some bias knowing many Trek staff where some are personal friends but it's not a total bias. I get other stuff too.

For the type of tire mentioned I like either a pretty much slick tire or one where the center and most weight/contact has more traction. Overall I think most popular and well known bikes and bike stuff is mighty fine these days.
0
dangle
465 posts
#14Jul 30, 2021, 10:28 AMedited
I have a set of the original G Ones in 38 (measuring 42 mm), two sets of Conti Terra Speeds in 40 (both sets measure 40 mm), and a set of Pathfinder Pros in 38 (measuring 39). Plus many other sets because I have a problem. It's not that one tire is 'the best' but it may be the best choice for a certain situation. I think we know the Pathfinder Pro has a more durable tread than a Terra Speed. For a lot of events, that's worth a minor trade off in rolling resistance. If you read some of the interviews from winners of the events mentioned above, people are taking a half dozen tire plugs and an extra tire or two. I don't really care about tire weight because it's such a small part of the total system weight. Additionally, the rotating mass that we mistakenly call 'unsprung weight' in cycling has been debunked as being an issue.

My completely subjective opinion is that the Pathfinder Pro has the most 'dead' feeling. Some call it wooden. Especially at higher psi. The Terra Speed seems to ride more like a road tire as far as feel goes. At pressures somewhere in between pure gravel and pure road, they really don't feel a lot different than the 32 GP 5000 TL set I have. The Terra Speed has the best gravel grip of the three, followed by the G One. The Terra Speed holds air the worst and has a little more sealant leaking than the others. The Pathfinders stay on my wife's bike where we can jack up the pressure for the pavement, lower for bike path/unpaved, and I don't have to worry much about her puncturing.

As far as rolling resistance testing, it's really just AB testing and the few people that have disseminated their results (and methodology) seem to line up pretty well. I goofed around with a magnet attached to my rollers and a speed sensor on the roller frame to attempt AB testing and the experience did more to show me how much I don't know more than anything else. I thought it would be as simple as doing a few 5 minute steady state efforts and comparing average power from the crank to the 'distance' traveled, but then there was a lot of details that start nagging.

The larger point is that 5 watt per pair difference at 18 mph between the Pathfinder Pro and a Terra Speed (only using that example as its my current favorite) is kind of meaningless at the speeds most of us mortals go. I can't tell a 5 watt difference while on the bike. It's probably more like a 3 watt difference at the speeds most of us are traveling (assuming similar loaded weight to the BRR formula). Cleaning your chain will have more effect. Sizing down your jersey would have more effect.
0
Familyridz
70 posts
#15Jul 30, 2021, 10:29 AM
I agree. They would not have put the $$$ into the Diverge and sponsoring top riders to race it, recruiting Conti’s R&D people and then risk all that on a mediocre tire. I’ve got a Project One Madone and my wife has a midrange one. Trek gave me a new frame as warranty on my first carbon bike when a faulty design for cable guides cracked off the frame after a couple of years, and I’ve been a loyal customer since. Unfortunately, while my 2011 Madone has a 300 lb max rider weight, the Checkpoints, supposedly designed to carry gear, have a 275 rider+gear limit. In cities with potholes (which is most) or bike trails with tree roots cracking paved trails and rough street & bridge junctions, a lot of racing bike types get gravel bikes for training while they commute, so perhaps we are seeing bikes splitting into those designed for racing and light commuting and those designed for tougher stuff and bike packing.
0
Familyridz
70 posts
#16Jul 30, 2021, 11:12 AM
dangle wrote:For a lot of events, that's worth a minor trade off in rolling resistance. If you read some of the interviews from winners of the events mentioned above, people are taking a half dozen tire plugs and an extra tire or two. I don't really care about tire weight because it's such a small part of the total system weight. Additionally, the rotating mass that we mistakenly call 'unsprung weight' in cycling has been debunked as being an issue.

...The Pathfinders stay on my wife's bike where we can jack up the pressure for the pavement, lower for bike path/unpaved, and I don't have to worry much about her puncturing.

...It's probably more like a 3 watt difference at the speeds most of us are traveling (assuming similar loaded weight to the BRR formula). Cleaning your chain will have more effect. Sizing down your jersey would have more effect.

You have focused in on exactly the tradeoffs that led me to it. I'm not racing, but part of the year I am racing sunset to get a ride in, and really don't want to be navigating trails or riding busy streets in rush hour in the dark to get home because I flatted and had to plug it or put a tube in, or be doing a vacation ride on trails for the first time, have a blowout and get stuck a long way from home.

On the wheel weight issue, rim/tire weight matters more on road race bikes because you have to do work to accelerate a wheel to a 30 mph rotating speed, even if it is in a repair stand. Then you have to accelerate that mass forwards to 30 mph--that's why it counts more. With sprints, crits, attacks and steep climbs on a cleaner surfaces with pretty good traction, that weight might matter more in road racing than on gravel--but Tour hopes have been blown by flats at the wrong time.

The sprung/unsprung issue is about forward energy getting consumed by the vertical lifting energy required to go over bumps. It's the how bumpy does a course get before the weight of a rear suspension MTB make it faster than a hardtail issue. Will the weight of the new Fox AX https://cyclingtips.com/2021/05/geoff-kabush-previews-new-fox-32-ax-gravel-suspension-fork/ or a Redshift stem be more than offset by the forward energy saved by not lifting the rider as much over each bump? Bigger volume, lower pressure tires do the same thing--fat bike without suspension. That's the issue the Velo News gravel rollout test was getting at and welding bumps on rollers was getting at. Smooth roller tests will be consistent with each other, especially at similar pressure and tire size, as they are testing the same thing and not factoring in the ability to provide a shock-like benefit. The VN test also makes some good points about the difference that adding bumps to the rollers makes on whole bike tests over bumps because of how the bike and rider get bounced around which doesn't apply to smooth roller tests--and that gets to your point about tire stiffness. Regardless of a couple watts of RR, if a more supple tire fatigues you less, you'll have more watts left in your legs at the end of the ride.
dangle
465 posts
#17Jul 30, 2021, 12:26 PM
Familyridz wrote:They would not have put the $$$ into the Diverge and sponsoring top riders to race it, recruiting Conti’s R&D people and then risk all that on a mediocre tire

You keep mentioning this, but it's only part of the picture. You're talking about Wolf Vorm Walde and Wolfgang Arenz. They have worked for Continental, Specialized and Schwalbe this decade (in that order). And surprise, those three companies have tires that are neck and neck in performance. Wolfgang Arenz started his own tire company, Wolfpack, not too long ago as well.
0
dangle
465 posts
#18Jul 30, 2021, 12:32 PM
Familyridz wrote:On the wheel weight issue, rim/tire weight matters more on road race bikes because you have to do work to accelerate a wheel to a 30 mph rotating speed, even if it is in a repair stand. Then you have to accelerate that mass forwards to 30 mph--that's why it counts more. With sprints, crits, attacks and steep climbs on a cleaner surfaces with pretty good traction, that weight might matter more in road racing than on gravel--but Tour hopes have been blown by flats at the wrong time.

Again, it's been mostly debunked. The wheel does not accelerate independent of the entire system. The energy put into getting the system moving does not disappear.

Familyridz wrote:The sprung/unsprung issue is about forward energy getting consumed by the vertical lifting energy required to go over bumps. It's the how bumpy does a course get before the weight of a rear suspension MTB make it faster than a hardtail issue. Will the weight of the new Fox AX https://cyclingtips.com/2021/05/geoff-kabush-previews-new-fox-32-ax-gravel-suspension-fork/ or a Redshift stem be more than offset by the forward energy saved by not lifting the rider as much over each bump? Bigger volume, lower pressure tires do the same thing--fat bike without suspension. That's the issue the Velo News gravel rollout test was getting at and welding bumps on rollers was getting at. Smooth roller tests will be consistent with each other, especially at similar pressure and tire size, as they are testing the same thing and not factoring in the ability to provide a shock-like benefit. The VN test also makes some good points about the difference that adding bumps to the rollers makes on whole bike tests over bumps because of how the bike and rider get bounced around which doesn't apply to smooth roller tests--and that gets to your point about tire stiffness. Regardless of a couple watts of RR, if a more supple tire fatigues you less, you'll have more watts left in your legs at the end of the ride.

We're talking about the difference between equivalent sized tires and you added a paragraph about suspension and different sized tires. The real conversation is tire hysteresis when all other factors are mostly equal. Or trading off more hysteresis for more puncture protection. Road feel and grip are also important to many.
0
stu
646 posts
#19Jul 30, 2021, 12:38 PM
Familyridz wrote:You have focused in on exactly the tradeoffs that led me to it. I'm not racing, but part of the year I am racing sunset to get a ride in, and really don't want to be navigating trails or riding busy streets in rush hour in the dark to get home because I flatted and had to plug it or put a tube in, or be doing a vacation ride on trails for the first time, have a blowout and get stuck a long way from home.
Exactly. I gave up on fast but fragile tires because I'd rather be riding than repairing.

On the wheel weight issue, rim/tire weight matters more on road race bikes because you have to do work to accelerate a wheel to a 30 mph rotating speed, even if it is in a repair stand.
If you're accelerating 1 gram on the tire has the same effect as 2 grams anywhere that's not spinning. That matters in breakaway sprints, not so much anywhere else. At a steady speed the location of the extra gram makes no difference and matters mostly when climbing.

The sprung/unsprung issue is about forward energy getting consumed by the vertical lifting energy required to go over bumps. It's the how bumpy does a course get before the weight of a rear suspension MTB make it faster than a hardtail issue.
On a suspension bike the unsprung weight includes tires, wheels, brakes, and suspension components. With all of that the few tens of grams between similar tires is not likely to be significant.

On a rigid bike the unsprung weight is only whatever portion of the tire tread deflects when you hit a bump. Everything else being equal a light and supple tire should transmit less of the surface roughness to the frame and rider as well as stay better connected to rough surfaces.
0
Familyridz
70 posts
#20Jul 30, 2021, 1:22 PM
The criticism I have of the BRR approach is they are comparing tires with significantly different measured widths, inflating the smaller tires to higher pressures that do much better on rollers, and not factoring in bumps and how much bike+rider weight each set up can suspend. The suspension examples were just for an analogy to the trade offs of a bigger lower pressure tire over bumpy terrain.

Let’s say you are riding a washboarded road, 1/2” to 1” stones or tree roots. The 42mm tire at 30 psi is going to “spring” or soak up a lot more of that upward force without lifting the bike upward than a 33mm at 10-13 psi higher pressure. The 33mm then causes more forward force/momentum to be redirected into lifting/vibrating the combined bike & rider weight by several mm per bump more than the larger, lower pressure tire. The upward energy has to come from somewhere.

That is the extra wattage lost with smaller, harder tires on gravel that doesn’t come through in smooth roller tests. The larger lower pressure tire will also grip better on loose and wet surfaces, making energy transfer more efficient, but that won’t show up in a dry, clean roller test either.
1

Related threads

Newbie trying to understand rolling resistance tests, requesting assistanceGravel Tires · 77 replies · Mar 4, 2023
Pony Express 120 ride reportGravel Racing · 11 replies · Sep 22, 2017
One woman's experience with choosing a new gravel bikeBikes · 5 replies · Jul 19, 2019
Advice on new bike purchaseBikes · 26 replies · Jul 16, 2018
Rolling resistance of wide tiresGravel Tires · 90 replies · Dec 20, 2023