Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
There are too many variables to have a blanket statement that says skinnier is better for r.r.
|
Yes, there are a lot of other variables, and IF ALL THOSE OTHER VARIABLES (same rim diameter, the same sidewall height, the same rubber compound, the same construction, etc.) ARE THE SAME, then yes, skinnier is better 100% of the time.
Why do you think racing bicycles have tires less than an inch wide with tread less than an eighth inch thick?
Can you accept that less frontal area is better for aero?
Less friction ALWAYS loses less energy than more friction.
Less air resistance ALWAYS loses less energy than more air resistance.
Less mass ALWAYS has less rotational inertia at the same radius.
And narrower tires ALWAYS have those three effects.
The amount of flexing is not the most important thing, so you are wrong when you imply that less flexing is always better.
What is important is how much energy is absorbed into the tire as heat caused by the flexing. Generally, tires with thinner cross-sections and more supple compounds will have less energy loss when they deform. That is why most LRR tires are using silica compounds now, and why tires with thinner tread cross-sections roll easier, even though they are more flexible.
The old balloon tires with thin tread and cord reinforcement had much less rolling resistance than a modern steel-belted radial, even though the steel radial has much less deformation.
And by thin, I am not referring to the width, but the measurement from the inside of the rubber to the outside.