Timeline for How to interpret the rolling resistance results from bicyclesrollingresistance.com for tires with very different tread patterns?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7 at 17:26 | answer | added | WinterRider | timeline score: 0 | |
| S May 7 at 3:40 | history | suggested | RLH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed thread->tread: question appears to be about surface texture, not internal structural components
|
| May 7 at 2:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 7 at 3:40 | |||||
| May 6 at 19:31 | history | edited | Rеnаud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| May 6 at 19:23 | history | edited | Rеnаud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 380 characters in body; edited title
|
| May 6 at 14:21 | comment | added | R. Chung | This is not a full answer so I'm including it as a comment, since it addresses only the "how close to real roads is the steel roller" and I can't address the knob part of your question. I (and others) have done some comparisons of roller vs. road testing on various surfaces but only for road tires. Real road testing shows Crr higher than on the rollers, by various amounts, but the relative order of road tires rarely changes: thus, if Crr(A) > Crr(B) on rollers, it will almost always be that same ordering on the road. So roller results validate in order although not in amount. | |
| May 6 at 13:55 | answer | added | David D | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 6 at 6:14 | answer | added | EarlGrey | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 3 at 7:21 | comment | added | Rеnаud | @Criggie indeed, I understand the point of the steel plate, but the point of the question is mostly to know if there's some real-life value for these tests, especially when comparing tires with the different tread profiles, or if it's more of a "theoretical exercise" that only makes some sense if comparing two similar tires — without dismissing the amount of work behind the site. | |
| May 3 at 0:50 | comment | added | Criggie♦ | The BRR steel wheel/road is more about consistency between tests that may be years or decades apart in time. Its not trying to replicate any real-world condition, so it is slightly less-relevant to an off-road / mud / gravel rider. Maybe they need a dirt wheel and a pea-gravel wheel and a loose gravel wheel etc to test different classes of tyre ? | |
| May 3 at 0:43 | comment | added | mattnz | The 1W difference in rolling resistance, on the bike corresponds to about 0.03mph more speed (at around 20mph). I suspect (with no evidence to back it up) aerodynamic drag of the knobs at 40mph (top of tire when doing 20mph) will cost more power. | |
| May 3 at 0:10 | comment | added | oscu0 | You will wear down the knobs on the Power Gravel more by running them on asphalt, especially given you have 1) very small round knobs and 2) mediocre tires. Whether that is a problem depends on whether you actually need the knobs for your gravel riding. | |
| May 3 at 0:01 | answer | added | oscu0 | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 2 at 21:39 | comment | added | Rеnаud | @ojs The actual question is a generalization of that, yes. It's not only smooth versus knobby, but also between the different flavours of knobby. The Hans Dampf has for example a similar wattage as the Power Gravel, but it's the not impression it gives when riding on tarmac - another hard surface, but different from the steel used by BRR. | |
| May 2 at 19:21 | comment | added | ojs | Is the actual question "can I trust that the results are consistent between knobby and smooth tires"? Also, the difference is around 1 watt so it's going to be difficult to notice without controlled test setup. | |
| May 2 at 18:44 | history | asked | Rеnаud | CC BY-SA 4.0 |