2024 was my year of serious bike investment. A Trek SL7 Emonda with ENVE 65s, an XT-soaked Trek Roscoe, and a Canyon Speedmax CF8 - all with all the trimmings and kit, shoes, and a helmet for each. Whatever they invent over the next few years, I’m actually comforted by the fact that I don’t need to know about it…… the wallet is closed 😂
That Pinarello is beautiful, I hate that when I bought my Scott Foil I was forced into Di2, had they offered mechanical for $3500 I would have 100% gone for that instead.
I think most people have settled upon 28-32mm tyres for road bikes. My own experience is that anything bigger than that and they start to get heavy and the comfort and grip difference is minimal.
True, but still, we might get more options in terms of clearance. Everyone’s rated clearance will probably go to at least 32mm and I wouldn’t be surprised if more push to 35mm
Switched to 35s from 28s this past summer and I’m never going back…setting PRs all the time now. Riding at ~45 psi vs 65-70psi = greater comfort, grip, and lower rolling resistance. I am as surprised as anyone, when I was riding 23s at 120+ psi just 10 years ago.
You get more than enough bike for 1000-2000 euros. Full carbon with Di2 or Red AXS for 3000 euros. Clothes can add some serious expenses if you need to cover all seasons, then riding a lot comes with a price, too...
We'll look back at premium mechanical groupsets like we do manual transmission supercars. There's that certain purity that nothing electronic can ever replicate.
Damn, this video jumped on the marketing hype full throttle. People have now got their aero bikes, so now you need the lightweight one, again. All these sites pushed the marketing hype so they don't get left out. They're as big a part of the problem. SRAM, giving us something not needed or useful, but y'all will push it like it is. Oh, they've been incorporating the whole bike approach..
Sure but removing the weight in the right places on the bike is something taking a poo before your ride won’t help with. Lighter wheels for example, rotational weight is far different from just weight on the bike.
While that's largely true in terms of expenditure, there are benefits of shedding weight from the bike. It'll be livelier and climb more easily, no matter how much your body weight is. (Of course, if you're overweight it's always desirable that you drop some weight.) And if you live on the 2nd floor of a house with no elevator like I do, and have to tote the bicycle up- and downstairs, you'll be thankful to have a light bike.
@@ProAvgeek6328 I think we are getting to a point where even the most basic bike you could reasonably buy for a country side tour comes with many of the unnecessary bells and whistles and price tag. There’s a saying that the Ford Model T comes in every color you could want as long as that color is black. The options available affect the choices we can make. Rim brakes being an example.
There's always some crying about prices. Proper bikes cost money because there are teams of people involved in the designing, engineering and R&D. Once you understand how a bike is made and how many people need to be paid for their efforts then you understand why they cost so much. Cheap bikes are just open moulds with bits of carbon randomly slapped on with not much thought on which direction the carbon should be facing. Maybe one day someone with get an AI to design a bike and have all the middle-men removed from the process to cut the cost down.
On a smooth surface, narrow tires are always faster. Riding on a rough surface vibrates whole bike and that soaks up energy. You can lower tire pressure, but with a narrow tires you risk for pinch flat, that's why you need wider tires. Roads in my country are mostly good, so i fine with 25mm at 7bar.
My 36h 1990s AMBROSIO Giro D'Italia box rims (or MAVIC S.U.P. Open rims) mated to my 23mm Vredestein Fortezzas at 120psi are all the "Road absorbing" technology I need on my Colnago Master.
@@herculesrockefeller8969 yeah, disc brakes are so terrible. Better braking, vastly less maintenance, wider tyres, actually work in the wet, don't destroy carbon rims. How awful.
with tyres im a wider convert ... the roads where i live in Aus they are crap !! really hard to ride on consistent smooth asphalt ..mostly shipseal and rough !!
We need more 46-30 cranksets. Most bikes come with gearing meant for pros or semipros. 46-30 and 11-32/34 should be standard on any bike cheaper than a car. Also shorter cranks (165-170 unless XL+ sized frames) and handlebars (380-400, although this has been implemented already by many brands).
i agree with most of this. Your UL bikes will achieve sub 5kgs by going back to rim brakes. I feel some of my customers will want a high quality, but no nonsense road bike at 1/3 of the price of the bikes we all see winning races. This will mean chorus, 105, alu frames and 28,30mm tyres. People are fed up with Livs etc.
As a smaller build rider, I love light bikes, but I wonder if those bike manufacturers consider durability? Crash test? Etc? Also, bigger tires → aren’t those designed for rather heavy riders? 🤔
We can tell the world's gone mental when cyclocross riders use 35 mm wide tyres and people on the internet demand clearance for 40 mm or more on road bikes.
Thankfully cycling is one of those disciplines where you can actually Trust the Science ™. If the industry is going to continue to improve both aero and weight then its' time for the UCI to lower the 6.8kg limit - not drastically but say to 6.5 and see where manufacturers go with their R&D and new products.
You can trust the science in all disciplines. It's when the politicians, bean counters and marketeers get involved that claims can't be trusted. The cycling industry is rife with the latter.
Will have to add ratio technology or similar modification kits for old mechanical groupsets to work with new cassettes. With sram 22 / ( CX, force, rival, apex) 1 hrd shifters you have a mostly modern groupset with simple parts changes. Even the new sram apex mechanical shifters as their are just the old hrd with likely just a 12 rachet part inside the shifter as more cog cassettes are made. Or get Trp Hy/rd or other similar cable- hydro discs brakes for cable brake groupsets. Older parts so no warranty anymore anyways so go right and replace old worn shifter parts if no budget for electric systems or a pure mechanical person on bikes. These smaller companies that can deliver high quality mechanical parts and budget prices are going to do well going forward.
In other words, we're going back to how things used to be and marketing this as some kind of revolution. Bike industry has become a joke and is suffering as a result
With good internal cable design, I don’t personally see an advantage to wireless groupsets. From the POV of people powered transport and energy sustainability, I also don’t like all the batteries. At some point they’re e-bikes with all the electronics onboard.
Have u ever used wireless? Buy a bike with it and ull be more understanding after some time. For example I suck at tuning a bike so it's a no trainer for me and it shifts smoother and faster sometimes and the buttons r smoother and have less throw especially if u have hand nerve pain
The wireless thing is mainly to make assembly cheaper for the manufacturers = bigger markup on investment. Another benefit (for the manufacturers) is the sale of proprietary batteries for years after the initial purchase. So, as you can see, all the tech innovations are for the good of the consumer.😂
@@joelogjam9163 I actually had a discussion with Chris King and he talked about the pressure from the group set manufacturers. Disc brakes make sense for mountain and cross racing, but probably not for mass consumer road bikes.
Cycling companies at first could not make disk brake bikes as light as an lightweight rim brake bike so sold them as "aero" bikes. Now they have spent loads and now can make them as light now it matters again. Lightweight always mattered just the marketers decided it didn't and all the magazines and TH-cam reviews pushed this....until now they can make bikes light again it matters 😂
Glucose monitoring without intervention? Oh yeah, cycling industry will make what has not be done by medical industry... There is so many diabetic people which able to track their sugars only with intervention.
Glcose monitoring is already available with minute to minute Blood Glucose levels being measured and showing on Smart Phone apps. This ca als be seen by third party's e.g Coachs
Manufacturers have to keep creating new products or regurgitating old products that were apparently deprecated years ago to stay relevant and in the news and exist, it's how the world works, we know most of it is bollocks and don't have to buy it
@@mikewood9284 stop pretending you get to decide where technology stops. People like stuff that becomes better through technological iteration. There's plenty of older tech out there too.
@@mikewood9284 stop pretending you get to decide where technology stops. People like stuff that becomes better through technological iteration. There's plenty of older tech out there too.
The industry is just trying to compensate for the disc brakes being far to poweful, hence crashes. Why not just say this. Well, that wouldnt be a good idea, but it's the science. The limit of grip ois where thtyres fail pre cash, so we need bigger tyres. I don't think rim brakes will be making a comeback. A 19 mm tub has a smaller aera than a 30 mm tyre. The science won't change, but improving another area to make up for it slightly and improving the system drag to compensate.
No, disc brakes are not "too powerful". Frankly, they're getting at a good level. It's really nice that my brand new Defy can fit 180mm rotors. The main draggy component is the rider, the bike itself is basically insignificant.
I'm really sick and tired of supposedly reputable channels such as this pedalling the bike industry propaganda uncritically. So much so that I'm tempted to cancel my long-term print subscription to Cycling Weekly! WHERE is this scientific evidence for wider tyres being faster that everyone keeps mentioning? 1) The actual independent rolling resistance tests show that width makes practically no difference once the tyre pressure is set to be the same for comfort level. The only limitation is when you can't lower pressure sufficiently for the desired comfort level on a given road surface without risking pinch flats. So the optimum width is dependent on comfort level required, weight of the bike/rider system and road surface, and 25mm will be optimally fast and comfortable for many. 2) Even with wheel width always optimised for tyre width, wider will always be less aerodynamic because there is a larger frontal area. Aerodynamic drag is the product of frontal area x drag coefficiient. Drag coefficient (Cd) is determined by the shape, frontal area by the width. So wider (even with the same shape scaled up) will always be less aerodynamic, pretty much linearly with width.
I'm sick of people keeping their heads in the sand. There has been nearly a decade of good research showing how wider tyres allow lower pressures which enables faster riding, because there are much lower power losses due to the improved rider comfort. Aero is as much a function of rim width, and rim depth.
@@neil4701sounds like you are misunderstanding aerodynamics. Mate, I'm not going to pretend to understand, but, given cars are more aero than cyclists, you are drastically overestimating the importance of tyre widths.
Are you trolling? Please clearly read my first post above, and as I said, if you are claiming that there is “10 years of research” that supports your position, please show me where it is. I think you may be confusing 10 years of research with 10 years of marketing. You can't really think that a car has less aerodynamic drag than a cyclist, surely? 😂 It may have a smaller drag coefficient, but it has hugely greater total drag because… surprise… it’s much bigger… To be clear (and you can check this independently) - drag, i.e. the force required to overcome air resistance, is calculated by multiplying the drag coefficient of an object by its frontal area (there atre also variables for air desnity and stuff like that but they are not relevant here). The drag coefficient is dependent on the shape of the object, but this is a dimensionless quality (i.e. it's the same whatever the size of the object). So two objects with the same shape will have the same drag coefficient, but if one has a larger frontal area due to being bigger it will have a larger total drag, because drag is these two things multiplied together. It's a little complicated with wheels if we are comparing two wheels that are the same depth but different widths as these will have slightly different shapes and thus slightly different drag coefficients, but the width is what matters here as the frontal area will scale directly with drag and will be more significant than any slight difference in cdA.
@@neil4701 No, there is a lot of research showing how much better the ride is on 32mm tyre than narrow tyres. You clown. Again, nearly all the drag on a bike is from the rider. The tyres are barely a rounding error. Wider tyres, when matched with wider rims mean there isn't the disturbance to the air flow when the airflow transitions from the tyre to the rim (the mushroom effect). So, they're as aerodynamic as narrow tyres and rims. Further, study, after study, after study (as the video fucking shows) demonstrates the immense advantages of wider tyres in improving comfort. The main impedance to rolling is hysteresis, i.e. energy losses due to forward motion (kinetic energy) being lost by transforming it into heat and sound. Or.... smooth is fast. How do wider tyres help? By actually smoothing out the ride you clown. Actually pay attention to some research instead of pretending you know everything about riding. blog.flocycling.com/aero-wheels/understanding-rolling-resistance-impedance-for-cyclists/
How can you lie so hard so early in the video? Brands trying to make bikes faster, lighter and more comfortable? Heck no, every new "innovation" is usually a huge step backwards to steal money from naive people.
"Brands trying to make whatever you have seem obsolete." Straight from the automobile industry. Started with the concept of "model year". Before this bike companies came out with a "new" bike when something was actually new rather than just the turn of a page on the calendar.
I feel very happy to have stayed with my Shimano Ultegra mechanical. It just works, no desire for anything else.
2024 was my year of serious bike investment. A Trek SL7 Emonda with ENVE 65s, an XT-soaked Trek Roscoe, and a Canyon Speedmax CF8 - all with all the trimmings and kit, shoes, and a helmet for each. Whatever they invent over the next few years, I’m actually comforted by the fact that I don’t need to know about it…… the wallet is closed 😂
The one thing the industry is pushing, is Sales
That Pinarello is beautiful, I hate that when I bought my Scott Foil I was forced into Di2, had they offered mechanical for $3500 I would have 100% gone for that instead.
I think most people have settled upon 28-32mm tyres for road bikes. My own experience is that anything bigger than that and they start to get heavy and the comfort and grip difference is minimal.
True, but still, we might get more options in terms of clearance. Everyone’s rated clearance will probably go to at least 32mm and I wouldn’t be surprised if more push to 35mm
It depends where you ride......32mm is the absolute minimum for my riding roads.
28 is the best balance!
Switched to 35s from 28s this past summer and I’m never going back…setting PRs all the time now. Riding at ~45 psi vs 65-70psi = greater comfort, grip, and lower rolling resistance. I am as surprised as anyone, when I was riding 23s at 120+ psi just 10 years ago.
True old schoolers still ride 23
The problem is the price. Bike price are stupide.
You’re just broke
You get more than enough bike for 1000-2000 euros.
Full carbon with Di2 or Red AXS for 3000 euros.
Clothes can add some serious expenses if you need to cover all seasons, then riding a lot comes with a price, too...
@@DR_1_1 red axs for 3000 euros? which bikes are those? I would love to buy one of them 😭
@@girl-xk2db Check Cube, road is Attain, but the gravel I can't remember the name...
@ChapatiManyes, I am, because all this bicycle equipment is outrageously expensive.
We'll look back at premium mechanical groupsets like we do manual transmission supercars. There's that certain purity that nothing electronic can ever replicate.
Damn, this video jumped on the marketing hype full throttle. People have now got their aero bikes, so now you need the lightweight one, again. All these sites pushed the marketing hype so they don't get left out. They're as big a part of the problem. SRAM, giving us something not needed or useful, but y'all will push it like it is. Oh, they've been incorporating the whole bike approach..
It's cheaper to remove weight from your body 🫃🏼 than from the bike 🚴
Sure but removing the weight in the right places on the bike is something taking a poo before your ride won’t help with. Lighter wheels for example, rotational weight is far different from just weight on the bike.
Agree, but once you're fully ripped with nothing left to shed it's the next place to go
While that's largely true in terms of expenditure, there are benefits of shedding weight from the bike. It'll be livelier and climb more easily, no matter how much your body weight is. (Of course, if you're overweight it's always desirable that you drop some weight.) And if you live on the 2nd floor of a house with no elevator like I do, and have to tote the bicycle up- and downstairs, you'll be thankful to have a light bike.
I always hear people say this but don't forget losing weight on your body and on your bike aren't mutually exclusive. Doing BOTH is best!
More over priced bikes.
We have to hope for the tech to trickle down to affordable bikes I guess? The trend to mechanical being the exception.
who is forcing you to buy bikes made for pro racers?
As long as people will buy them at those prices, they will be selling them at those prices.
@@ProAvgeek6328 I think we are getting to a point where even the most basic bike you could reasonably buy for a country side tour comes with many of the unnecessary bells and whistles and price tag. There’s a saying that the Ford Model T comes in every color you could want as long as that color is black. The options available affect the choices we can make. Rim brakes being an example.
There's always some crying about prices. Proper bikes cost money because there are teams of people involved in the designing, engineering and R&D. Once you understand how a bike is made and how many people need to be paid for their efforts then you understand why they cost so much. Cheap bikes are just open moulds with bits of carbon randomly slapped on with not much thought on which direction the carbon should be facing.
Maybe one day someone with get an AI to design a bike and have all the middle-men removed from the process to cut the cost down.
On a smooth surface, narrow tires are always faster. Riding on a rough surface vibrates whole bike and that soaks up energy. You can lower tire pressure, but with a narrow tires you risk for pinch flat, that's why you need wider tires. Roads in my country are mostly good, so i fine with 25mm at 7bar.
My 36h 1990s AMBROSIO Giro D'Italia box rims (or MAVIC S.U.P. Open rims) mated to my 23mm Vredestein Fortezzas at 120psi are all the "Road absorbing" technology I need on my Colnago Master.
@@ralphc1405you should use a tire pressure calculator imo. That seems really high unless you weigh 300 pounds or something. I run my 23s at 95.
When they smooth, they mean hardwood floors not perfect pavement
You cant beat the ride of a ti bike with wide tires
Trend: people buy used rimbrake bikes with 28mm tyres for at 1/5 the cost
No... They won't. Noone wants to buy rim brake bikes. And, people want nice, wide tyres.
Disc brakes are popular. With losers.
@@herculesrockefeller8969 yeah, disc brakes are so terrible. Better braking, vastly less maintenance, wider tyres, actually work in the wet, don't destroy carbon rims. How awful.
I live in Boulder CO. Tons of rim brakes here.
‘System efficiency’ seems like code for more proprietary bits and pieces… not great for the average or competitive consumer
I'm going to future proof myself and ride 60mm tires, because every year wider will be better.
Time for 2wd. Imagine the insanely steep climbs that can be tackled.
with tyres im a wider convert ... the roads where i live in Aus they are crap !! really hard to ride on consistent smooth asphalt ..mostly shipseal and rough !!
re groupsets i have gone from 11 Ultegra mech to Di 12speed ...wont be going back same with tyre widths but was on them earlier...
I would love a cost cut revolution for bikes, that's what the consumer really needs.
Belt drive, shaft drive, imagine a line of gears going down the chain stay.
How numerous are the things of which I have no need (Socrates)
I am a lucky guy😊
Aero lightweight comfortable all around with clearance for 40mm 700 or 50mm 650b.
We need more 46-30 cranksets. Most bikes come with gearing meant for pros or semipros. 46-30 and 11-32/34 should be standard on any bike cheaper than a car.
Also shorter cranks (165-170 unless XL+ sized frames) and handlebars (380-400, although this has been implemented already by many brands).
Gravel bikes often have more range in gears. Else you need to buy an heavier cassette...
i agree with most of this. Your UL bikes will achieve sub 5kgs by going back to rim brakes. I feel some of my customers will want a high quality, but no nonsense road bike at 1/3 of the price of the bikes we all see winning races. This will mean chorus, 105, alu frames and 28,30mm tyres. People are fed up with Livs etc.
As a smaller build rider, I love light bikes, but I wonder if those bike manufacturers consider durability? Crash test? Etc? Also, bigger tires → aren’t those designed for rather heavy riders? 🤔
Wider tires are for riders who want more compliance.
We can tell the world's gone mental when cyclocross riders use 35 mm wide tyres and people on the internet demand clearance for 40 mm or more on road bikes.
Thankfully cycling is one of those disciplines where you can actually Trust the Science ™. If the industry is going to continue to improve both aero and weight then its' time for the UCI to lower the 6.8kg limit - not drastically but say to 6.5 and see where manufacturers go with their R&D and new products.
You can trust the science in all disciplines. It's when the politicians, bean counters and marketeers get involved that claims can't be trusted. The cycling industry is rife with the latter.
Will have to add ratio technology or similar modification kits for old mechanical groupsets to work with new cassettes. With sram 22 / ( CX, force, rival, apex) 1 hrd shifters you have a mostly modern groupset with simple parts changes. Even the new sram apex mechanical shifters as their are just the old hrd with likely just a 12 rachet part inside the shifter as more cog cassettes are made. Or get Trp Hy/rd or other similar cable- hydro discs brakes for cable brake groupsets. Older parts so no warranty anymore anyways so go right and replace old worn shifter parts if no budget for electric systems or a pure mechanical person on bikes. These smaller companies that can deliver high quality mechanical parts and budget prices are going to do well going forward.
More affordable bikes 🙏🙏🙏
Trying to sell expensive uneccessary upgrades will again be the major trend of bike videos in 2025. 😊😊😊
3k for a bike without a elec. groupset is not a "cheap price" just because other bike from them costs 15k dont mean that 3k is "cheap"
Shimano Di2 Grx ?
In other words, we're going back to how things used to be and marketing this as some kind of revolution. Bike industry has become a joke and is suffering as a result
2025 will be an exciting year for cycling…
What about a bike ABS system to stop the disc break from locking up 😅
Power steering maybe
@@clp91009 Airbags, perhaps.
Campagnolo already made them decades ago...Delta brake calipers!
With good internal cable design, I don’t personally see an advantage to wireless groupsets.
From the POV of people powered transport and energy sustainability, I also don’t like all the batteries. At some point they’re e-bikes with all the electronics onboard.
Have u ever used wireless? Buy a bike with it and ull be more understanding after some time. For example I suck at tuning a bike so it's a no trainer for me and it shifts smoother and faster sometimes and the buttons r smoother and have less throw especially if u have hand nerve pain
@@evanm.2300I prefer to work on my own gear rather than always running to the shop. A reason I prefer rim brakes to disc.
The wireless thing is mainly to make assembly cheaper for the manufacturers = bigger markup on investment. Another benefit (for the manufacturers) is the sale of proprietary batteries for years after the initial purchase. So, as you can see, all the tech innovations are for the good of the consumer.😂
@@joelogjam9163 I actually had a discussion with Chris King and he talked about the pressure from the group set manufacturers. Disc brakes make sense for mountain and cross racing, but probably not for mass consumer road bikes.
@@robertnobles8189 are disc brakes actually that hard to work on? I just need to adjust cable length on mine before upgrading to hydraulic disc
Lightweight means rim brakes
The comments are great fun today. 🤣
Giant is not a Chinese brand.
Cycling companies at first could not make disk brake bikes as light as an lightweight rim brake bike so sold them as "aero" bikes. Now they have spent loads and now can make them as light now it matters again.
Lightweight always mattered just the marketers decided it didn't and all the magazines and TH-cam reviews pushed this....until now they can make bikes light again it matters 😂
2026: You need 45-50mm tires Now!
Longer top tubes, more stable geometries, fewer floaty bikes that clip wheels, fewer deaths.
SuperSapiens shut down earl last year.
Can’t wait more electronics and more tech new price tag 20k for a bike 😂😂😂
Glucose monitoring without intervention? Oh yeah, cycling industry will make what has not be done by medical industry... There is so many diabetic people which able to track their sugars only with intervention.
Glcose monitoring is already available with minute to minute Blood Glucose levels being measured and showing on Smart Phone apps. This ca als be seen by third party's e.g Coachs
They just go back and forth every few years so they can keep selling you bikes.
I swear this guy is a industry plant 😂
Nothing special.
The essential remain the same.
A bike under or until 10k is a great bike!
I don't care what the science says, I'm never going wider than 25mm.
1x13 - at some point its going to happen.
Campy has that already
@@AmahlAmahlAmahl Not as a mainstream road product.
Ah, what?
"affordable" at 3k is wild for a bike
Manufacturers have to keep creating new products or regurgitating old products that were apparently deprecated years ago to stay relevant and in the news and exist, it's how the world works, we know most of it is bollocks and don't have to buy it
We will though… which is why this continues.
@@mikewood9284 stop pretending you get to decide where technology stops. People like stuff that becomes better through technological iteration.
There's plenty of older tech out there too.
@@mikewood9284 stop pretending you get to decide where technology stops. People like stuff that becomes better through technological iteration.
There's plenty of older tech out there too.
The last sentence of the video could be the cause of 'cycling is a sport for rich people', in general speaking 🤔
Well duh obviously we want lighter bikes. Dropped seat stays suck!
*If you want lighter bikes, then you want rim brakes, mechanical group sets with 1x shifting.*
So more of the same then. Expensive bikes for the few. No wonder they are going out of business.
Walmart's Ozark Trail, Decathlon's Triban...
What more do you need, a 6 kg with carbon frame that breaks if it falls on its side?
Yawn
The industry is just trying to compensate for the disc brakes being far to poweful, hence crashes. Why not just say this. Well, that wouldnt be a good idea, but it's the science. The limit of grip ois where thtyres fail pre cash, so we need bigger tyres. I don't think rim brakes will be making a comeback. A 19 mm tub has a smaller aera than a 30 mm tyre. The science won't change, but improving another area to make up for it slightly and improving the system drag to compensate.
No, disc brakes are not "too powerful". Frankly, they're getting at a good level. It's really nice that my brand new Defy can fit 180mm rotors. The main draggy component is the rider, the bike itself is basically insignificant.
"..compensate for the disc brakes being far to(o) powerful, hence crashes"
The evidence for this is where?
@@larryt.atcycleitalia5786 do you not race. I've seen many rider lock up including the pros. I'm suprised you don't know about this...
I'm really sick and tired of supposedly reputable channels such as this pedalling the bike industry propaganda uncritically. So much so that I'm tempted to cancel my long-term print subscription to Cycling Weekly! WHERE is this scientific evidence for wider tyres being faster that everyone keeps mentioning? 1) The actual independent rolling resistance tests show that width makes practically no difference once the tyre pressure is set to be the same for comfort level. The only limitation is when you can't lower pressure sufficiently for the desired comfort level on a given road surface without risking pinch flats. So the optimum width is dependent on comfort level required, weight of the bike/rider system and road surface, and 25mm will be optimally fast and comfortable for many. 2) Even with wheel width always optimised for tyre width, wider will always be less aerodynamic because there is a larger frontal area. Aerodynamic drag is the product of frontal area x drag coefficiient. Drag coefficient (Cd) is determined by the shape, frontal area by the width. So wider (even with the same shape scaled up) will always be less aerodynamic, pretty much linearly with width.
I'm sick of people keeping their heads in the sand. There has been nearly a decade of good research showing how wider tyres allow lower pressures which enables faster riding, because there are much lower power losses due to the improved rider comfort.
Aero is as much a function of rim width, and rim depth.
So please CITE this research and, especially, explain how it somehow nullifies the basic principles of aerodynamics!
@@neil4701sounds like you are misunderstanding aerodynamics.
Mate, I'm not going to pretend to understand, but, given cars are more aero than cyclists, you are drastically overestimating the importance of tyre widths.
Are you trolling? Please clearly read my first post above, and as I said, if you are claiming that there is “10 years of research” that supports your position, please show me where it is. I think you may be confusing 10 years of research with 10 years of marketing. You can't really think that a car has less aerodynamic drag than a cyclist, surely? 😂 It may have a smaller drag coefficient, but it has hugely greater total drag because… surprise… it’s much bigger…
To be clear (and you can check this independently) - drag, i.e. the force required to overcome air resistance, is calculated by multiplying the drag coefficient of an object by its frontal area (there atre also variables for air desnity and stuff like that but they are not relevant here). The drag coefficient is dependent on the shape of the object, but this is a dimensionless quality (i.e. it's the same whatever the size of the object). So two objects with the same shape will have the same drag coefficient, but if one has a larger frontal area due to being bigger it will have a larger total drag, because drag is these two things multiplied together. It's a little complicated with wheels if we are comparing two wheels that are the same depth but different widths as these will have slightly different shapes and thus slightly different drag coefficients, but the width is what matters here as the frontal area will scale directly with drag and will be more significant than any slight difference in cdA.
@@neil4701 No, there is a lot of research showing how much better the ride is on 32mm tyre than narrow tyres. You clown.
Again, nearly all the drag on a bike is from the rider. The tyres are barely a rounding error. Wider tyres, when matched with wider rims mean there isn't the disturbance to the air flow when the airflow transitions from the tyre to the rim (the mushroom effect). So, they're as aerodynamic as narrow tyres and rims.
Further, study, after study, after study (as the video fucking shows) demonstrates the immense advantages of wider tyres in improving comfort. The main impedance to rolling is hysteresis, i.e. energy losses due to forward motion (kinetic energy) being lost by transforming it into heat and sound. Or.... smooth is fast. How do wider tyres help? By actually smoothing out the ride you clown.
Actually pay attention to some research instead of pretending you know everything about riding.
blog.flocycling.com/aero-wheels/understanding-rolling-resistance-impedance-for-cyclists/
How can you lie so hard so early in the video?
Brands trying to make bikes faster, lighter and more comfortable?
Heck no, every new "innovation" is usually a huge step backwards to steal money from naive people.
"Brands trying to make whatever you have seem obsolete." Straight from the automobile industry. Started with the concept of "model year". Before this bike companies came out with a "new" bike when something was actually new rather than just the turn of a page on the calendar.