The Great Wheel Debate 650b vs 700c Part 4: Rene Herse vs Conti 5000's

We are back with part four of the Great Wheel Debate Series to address a few issues from the previous video and field test. Let's see if we can improve the test and see how well Rene Herse tires stack up against one of the fastest road tires on the market, the Continental 5000. #notsponsored #greatwheeldebate #650bvs700c

[@perryleopold7555]

The 10 pounds I put on over the Winter is slowing me down more than any tire.

[@OanhSchlesinger]

Haha! I feel your pain buddy!

[@willway9378]

Aka spare tire

[@toddmcdonough]

As always, very informative and honest. I put fat rubber on my bike because they make me look thinner.

[@Henrywildeberry]

😂 that's a new one for me! I love it!

[@bendekker6552]

I've gone from 23mm to 25 to 32 to 38 tires all 700c. A change to a heavier steel bike between 25 and 32. I have not noticed that I am slower, but it is much more comfy and I like hitting some gravel or dirt when I see it.

[@flyingbooger2122]

I rarely leave any comments and just consume content on KZbin. But your unbiased and informative insights backed up with science and tests, given there are small variables, has prompted me to leave an opinion. Thank you and hope to see more content. Have a great day!

[@Henrywildeberry]

Thank you, Santi. I appreciate the comment!

[@andreamaroniponti9441]

I want to thank you because the explanation you gave are the only one to address my future choice on wheels than many other presented on you tube based on nothing..

[@ronhuffman7973]

Thanks for all your work! Entertaining, but very educational!

[@marcin7154]

That how deep You go into the subject is reallly impressive, from my point of view is that I want to get on my bike. And ride. Every time I watch your vlog. Thank You.

[@johnwelch557]

As has been said, most only run our "regular" speeds daily or on a trip regardless of the rolling resistance. Only when we are focused on something like this do we change our riding routines. Riding to my effort vs. comfort level is 99% of the day. When I was a kid I rode some "races" but always thought they were no fun in the back of my tiny mind. Since then, I have no intention of speed or times. It's just not fun to even consider. I ride, enjoy, and return when it starts to wear thin for the day. When choosing one of my 20+ bikes, I don't consider resistance, just what pleases me on a whim. Thanks Henry! Say hi for all of us to Miss Cools!

[@lenkomsa1399]

I find experiment/tests like this fascinating. Nicely done

[@Henrywildeberry]

Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying the old archive videos here:)

[@poulidor69]

I’m riding, on my gravel/touring bike 700x38 and find it very comfortable on Marin and Sonoma roads. Ive never tried 650b and would be interested to try them on the said bike. Anyway thanks for this, educational.

[@noproblem2big337]

Interesting content, great video keep up the good work!

[@ericpmoss]

I think you nailed it. Results might be easier to compare if you had a power meter, but I think that as long as you have tires with supple casing, it's not likely to make a huge difference during short efforts on good surfaces. I think that it's when you get on anything else that having more air makes up for any deficit a smaller wheel and larger contact patch might cause. And boy howdy do I prefer descending and cornering and dealing with sharp divots on a big contact patch.

[@NinthwaveThe]

Glad you had your canine assistant!

[@mikemaxwell2591]

I think you did a fine job and appreciate the effort put into the test and the video production too. Had a bike shop guy want to sell me some 700's with more thread than the tires my bike came with after I had worn them out. His point was that tired with tread have less rolling resistance than tires the have the smooth/slick center a road bike rides upon. Don't know if he knew his stuff or not but at my skill level and age (67) I could run Fred Flinstone's cycle tires, as could many. Thanks and be well.

[@ronskayakingandfishing414]

Another great video. I'm not sure if you pointed out, but that site for tire rolling resistance is probably only useful if you ride in a velodrome, or something else with a perfectly smooth surface. Skinny tires pumped to high pressures will be super fast on either of those (drum or velodrome). So using that site to determine what is good for the road (or not) will definitely be deceiving. In one of his back issues Jan Heine points this out as well. I'm a big Jan Heine fan, but I'm not sure I"m convinced anymore so much of the "wider is faster" concept. For a 100+ mile ride, you might be fresher at the end with a wider tire and thus start being faster, but anything like a 20-40 mile ride you won't be. I'm still trying to do some tests myself, I have a Trek Emonda I just put some 28mm's on, but also have a steel rando bike very similar to yours with some 650b x 42mm. And I'm definitely slower on the rando bike than the Emonda. I didn't get the ExtraLight casings... those are the ones that Jan advises for the best speed... perhaps I'll spring for those this year and give them a try and see if there's any improvement. But even though my frame was built with the thin-walled tubing that Jan sells, by the time you add a handlebag rack, a bag with some items in it, fenders, a front generator hub... I think the extra 5+ pounds starts making the difference.

[@scottchudley8646]

Looking at a gravel bike and trying to figure out what wheel size option I want to go with 650b x 47 or 700c x 38…I’m inclined to go with the 650b as my goal is leaning toward comfort on long rides. Thanks for doing this series, it has been very helpful!

[@felixjackson2670]

Yes,tyre width and pressure is most interesting. Past belief that skinny 23mm and 100psi is fastest...Over past few years been using 650x47 on Gravel Bike....has led me to look at different beliefs regarding tyre volume and pressure. Have to confess to meeting great reluctance to change old ideas...However am slowly coming to appreciate that fatter is not slower,less pressure is not slower and that many factors,like comfort and smooth rolling over bumpy roads are important factors. Also considerations like ones normal average speed is pretty similar whatever tyres we ride.

[@rollinrat4850]

Read some of the tire testing done on the Rene Herse website and Bicycle Quarterly. Jan Heine is the guy responsible for bringing high quality, high volume, low pressure, 'supple' tires to the forefront of performance riding. This is where the market has been headed for several years now. He's done lots of real world tire testing. Many randonneurs such as myself have been in on this knowledge for decades. Ive always despised rock hard skinny tires. I hated them the first 10 miles of trying them. They beat me up and slow me down on long rides and common rough roads. Comfort, traction and safety makes LOTS of (not so) common sense! A skinny rock hard tire's speed is simply an illusion, unless you're riding on velodrome smooth roads.

[@davidnall4445]

You never brought up hysteresis. That's okay though, this was an informative addition to the apparently endless discussion of the benefits of various tire sizes, widths, etc in Bicycle Quarterly, Josh Portner of Silca and others. My 2 cents are that I have been using Rene Herse Snoqualmie Pass 700x44 mm Extralights on my Salsa Warbird for some time now and find that I'm just as fast if not faster than my road bikes using 25 mm tires and a whole lot more comfortable and they are also superb on gravel. Thanks again for informative content.

[@Jaydad4701]

I just like my tires not flat, thanks for putting this together. But I’m starting to think that we are putting way to much thought into this stuff lately , back when I got my first job at an LBS I feel we just wanted our bikes to be well made and comfortable and shift smoothly so we could go for a ride with our friends and have fun . This all getting way to complicated for the average person.

[@SurpriseMeJT]

The more complicated the subject matter, the more the marketing can and will hijack the subject and push their version of truth and make people believe what the industries want to make you buy new stuff, even if the new stuff isn't an improvement.

[@Henrywildeberry]

I was hoping with this series we could cut through the complication by demonstrating both mathematically (part 1 and 2) and empirically (part 3 and now 4) most things are about equal. Pick a tire and be satisfied, it's not likely to be much different than any other tires on the market. However, if you're a tinker type and like to adjust your ride and experience there are some finer points to be made. I know not everyone is a super bike geek like me, so hopefully this effort will help those from having to overthink it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[@Jaydad4701]

@@Henrywildeberry First of all I love the channel because of the vibe ,and you and Mrs Cools I hope you didn’t think I was criticizing the content! I just have customers coming into the shop on a daily basis asking what should I buy next because of the next big thing this and next big thing that . And I just want to say enjoy what you have. I also agree tinkering on a bike is AWESOME 👍🏻

[@Henrywildeberry]

@@Jaydad4701 Thanks Jason. I didn't take it as a criticism. I like and appreciate it when people share their thoughts.

[@rollinrat4850]

@@Jaydad4701 I wrench in a shop too. Ive been messing' with bikes for about 50 years now. I hear you loud and clear. The marketing koolaide BS so many folks drink is fascinating and kinda scary. So many can't think for themselves any longer. Is this where modern tech has brought us? I try to help folks simply enjoy more time spent on two wheels. Its a very simple thing. I believe simplicity is a bicycle's beauty. I'll actually try to help them save a few bucks even. My managers don't like that but I don't give a rip. I don't fix bikes for the money. I do it because I love bicycles and spending time riding them. But if these people truly believe that a mere machine can give them better fitness and skills, I'll gladly take their money. Maybe I'll even chuckle a bit. It's their money and their decision to part with it. I'm very certain, its the RIDER, not the bike which makes the wheels turn.

[@davetbassbos]

137 BPM is right in the range of UK Bassline music, you should consider that for some or your riding scenes?

[@moonsadventure8092]

I really appreciate your videos and the fact that there are no commercials. Would not blame you if you do monazite (is that the correct word?). Interesting info.

[@poulidor69]

Monetize 😉

[@peterharrington8709]

Most of the roads that I ride are a long way from being perfectly smooth. I've known pot holes open up within days of a road being relaid! Given that, I feel a lot more confident knowing that, at a pinch I can ride over most trouble with the bigger tyres. That especially applies on fast descents; so I definitely feel that I can maintain momentum much better, and also corner more safely using the wider stuff.

[@davehoover8853]

Interesting stuff and enough detail and insight to help us make decisions. I completely agree that a smoother ride provides a lot of energy savings over the long haul and ends up being faster and way more comfortable. I was surprised the you started out with tires at such different air pressures. You certainly wouldn’t want to run them both at the same pressure as that is just not real world. I am sure you have enough experience with both tire sets to inflate each set at their optimum pressure. You could run the test again using best perceived optimum tire pressure and see how the results look. I would think real world pressures provide results that you can act on. You aren’t in a lab and you don’t have a bunch of gear, but setting up the tires and similar wheelsets might also be useful. Enjoyed the video and great job discussing bias and testing methods. I will take the fat tire most any day!

[@kawabus]

Great content. I am not looking to set speed records. I run 700c with 32's on rims with 25mm internal width (that measure 34) at 55-60 psi tubeless and the comfort makes me faster 🚴✨✨

[@weisanhui1531]

I built my own wheels so I got tons of em' to try on for various sizes, shapes and forms. Here's what I gonna say about 650b vs 700c, it's not about the wheels or the tires but the occasions and the mood you are in. I have days when I jumped on my 650b wheels and felt sluggish and I have days when I am on 700c wheels and felt sitting on needles, it just depends. Just as changing up the scenery and the pace is a healthy thing to keep cycling fresh and fun, i like to switch around my wheels/tires just for the heck of it especially after riding one type for a while. It's nice to have one or two bikes that can accommodate various wheel sizes and tire widths, that way you get to experience different riding sensations. I have hit the same trails on SwitchBack Hills 650bx48 one day and then swapped over to 700X44 the next, they provide different riding experience. Instead of using average speed or wattage to measure success, I like to measure how wide the grin goes on my face and how long it stays on after I get off the bike. I think those metrics are a more accurate way to determine whether I have picked the right wheel choice for the day. :-)

[@Henrywildeberry]

Well said, Wei! I think you summed it up pretty nicely.

[@BenitoAndito]

Hi Henry. Love the content as usual. Do you have experience with any Panaracer tires under 30mm? I love their 38 and 35s, and I want some good rubber for my skinny tire race bike. Cheers

[@Henrywildeberry]

Thanks Ben! Early on when I first discovered Compass tires (Rene Herse) I decided to try a pair on my road bike. They were 700 x 28mm. I found them to be very supple compared to the Conti 4000's I was running at the time. However, at that size and air pressure, I was getting a few more punctures than with the Conti's. They also felt a little different handling (cornering). In the end I've decided for narrow road (700c) tires I still prefer the Conti tires. These new 5000's feel pretty nice, not quite as smooth as the Rene Herse, but still very good and very fast. Play around with the air pressure until you get the desired ride and handling qualities you're looking for. All the best, and good luck with your decision.

[@BenitoAndito]

@@Henrywildeberry Thanks for sharing that experience. Given the price difference between GP5ks and Panaracer GKs 28mm, I'll take the Contis. I'm very curious to try the supple panaracer tubes you mentioned though.

[@drtoothpaste]

When you were speak of stretching the contact patch of the tire to the road, you said it gets longer. From my understanding, it is that having less pressure in a tire makes the contact patch on the road wider because the tires "mushes" outward. Wider contact patches apparently are faster, because there is less contact thus less friction, than longer contact patches due to the surface area creating friction being larger. So I'm not sure if we are speaking of the same thing. Interesting though.

[@Gieszkanne]

Yes you are right. He confused it here.

[@brianmaldonado3723]

Ok, ok....but what brand of AIR are you using. Ty.

[@Henrywildeberry]

Imported from the UK. It's pricey but offers the highest loft.

[@allrounderbicycle7193]

One point that you're making that I can accept without more testing or debate is that at around 18-19 miles per hour, wheel size does not play a significant part whether you get to your destination sooner or later. So if I can take the road to the dirt portion of the ride, and get there in the same amount of time, for sure I'm taking the plump tire, 650x48 for sure. Though I think the reason this debate between tire sizes will go on forever is that each of us has our own set of expectations about how a bike should feel. I have both 700x42 and 650x48 bikes, and I find I like riding the 700x42 mostly because of the steering. I like how that tire carves the corners better. The comfort is probably better on the 650x48, but I like how the other bike handles better. But maybe that's a consequence of frame design more than tire size. I wish I was a frame builder so I could find out. Thanks for the deep-dive Mr. Wildberry. Enjoying it all as usual.

[@BenjaminSmith2]

I feel like you spent a lot of effort putting the road tires on the best setup they could have been on. And the dynohub definitely put the Rene Herse tires at a disadvantage. It looks like that the results are within margin of error for both of these setups, which makes sense because it would be unlikely a significant difference would be observed over 5 minutes. Rider position contributes more significantly to total resistance than any other factor, and the difference might also be from a change in position between wider and narrower tires. Even if we assume that the tire size alone contributed to the difference in time, it would be about 30 seconds over the course of an hour on the same surface. And still the larger tire would be faster on rough roads. I don't think most people would trade a the benefits of a larger tire for about 30 seconds over an hour on a smooth surface, that's my takeaway at least.

[@philheiman7009]

Hi Henry, I enjoy your v-log very much! Are you familiar with the Silca Tire Pressure (STP) calculator? The calculator takes into account the weight of the system (rider and bike), the measured width of the tires and the condition of the road surface to determine the ideal pressure at which to run the tires. I will post the link at the end of this comment. Silca put in quite a bit of work to create this calculator that you can explore on their website, if you are interested. I suggest that you consider using this as a basis for the appropriate tire pressure for each iteration of the test, as opposed to the SWAG that I get the impression you used for your video. That way you can compare the ideal rolling tire pressure for each configuration and get more of an apples to apples comparison. Also, a simple roll down a hill test could remove the human bias that you reference, because your effort would then be minimized. Anyway, just a thought. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. Cheers! Here's the STP link I use: silca.cc/pages/sppc-form?Pressure%20Calculator&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--VNh1heMSSDYF1ZEkfgwXtFi218YpEn4RV4284b3p2ls4MJ5lUQud-QihstsxGd8fwLhH2fbonfC_y1LwUFdN80wD69g&_hsmi=84158091&hsCtaTracking=d4136be0-805e-4ca3-9fb2-13700cc72275%7C8bc71a6c-e1a0-4a5b-9caf-4f0befd2f93a

[@Henrywildeberry]

Thanks, Phil! I'm not sure if this was the same calculator I have used in the past, but I have used one similar. I tend to run my tires slightly lower than most of these online calculators would suggest. It's highly possible my floor pump gage reads incorrectly and between the two floor pumps I own neither read the same anyhow. Over the years I have made it a point to squeeze my tires and press them with my thumb, especially before and after inflating them. I know this isn't very accurate, but there's a certain tread and sidewall tension I can feel and know when it's getting pretty close to the right pressure. Some people say that's total BS, but people can tune a guitar with their ears, so I would say feeling tires can be a decent way to gage the tire pressure. Any way, there's a very good chance I'm running below optimum tire pressure for overall speed, but I think running lower pressure helps to reduce sidewall cuts and punctures. I've kind of made that (and comfort) my priority. I do agree with you, my experiment could have been done much better had I selected the optimal tire pressure (among many other things) for each tire before running the test.

[@drtoothpaste]

When you were speak of stretching the contact patch of the tire to the road, you said it gets longer. From my understanding, it is that having less pressure in a tire makes the contact patch on the road wider because the tires "mushes" outward. Wider contact patches apparently are faster than longer contact patches due to the surface area creating friction being larger. So I'm not sure if we are speaking of the same thing.

[@Henrywildeberry]

You're right, I didn't explain myself very well. The contact patch shape is more or less the shape of an ellipse. When the pressure in the tire drops the size of the ellipse grows both in width and length. What I've noticed is that the length of the ellipse tends to be longer and skinnier with narrower tires.

[@bicycleutopia]

when will there be team wildeberry bicycle hats available???

[@Henrywildeberry]

😆 we'll be like the bad news bears.

[@SeeYouUpTheRoad]

Thank You ... ramble on people are always in a hurry they need to slow down a bit

[@wallacedavidg]

The best part of the video was the music bed on the short riding segments. Sounds like 'Foxy Brown.' I have two sets of wheels for my road bike. The original factory wheels (cheap and slow) and aftermarket carbon from a top European brand. In my experience I didn't need any measuring device (power meter, heart rate) to know that the factory wheels are not as fast. However, it was quite eyeopening to see the difference measured using a top of the range power meter (dual leg). It required over 7 watts more output to maintain a consistent speed on a measured flat course going both directions (out and back). It was fun to do the test but the conclusion was forgone. Just spinning the wheels in the bike stand told the tale. The factory wheels would free wheel for only 30 seconds while the aftermarket wheel spun for three minutes. Obviously the hubs and bearings were the major factor in the difference.

[@bengt_axle]

I see that this discussion is really about rolling resistance but the question of weight may still be present. But I also think there’s something to be said for kinetic energy. Just like a fully loaded train, a heavy wheel may actually roll longer (if the bearings don’t create any noticeable difference in friction), even though it is harder to spin up. Leonard Zinn and others have shown that this is why even on a climb, bike weight does not matter as much as people think. A light wheel will accelerate faster and feel different, but it will also slow down faster when countered with body air drag. And can this extra kinetic energy offset the increased rolling resistance of an under-inflated, high volume tire?

[@Henrywildeberry]

Absolutely, weight, aerodynamics, and friction within the drivetrain are all part of the equation too. In part one and two of this series we took a look at how much energy it takes to accelerate the different wheel/tire combos. The 650b wheel is lighter, but the tire is heavier while the 700c wheel is slightly heavier, but the tire is lighter. The net difference in weight between the two are nearly equal and they both share about the same rolling diameter. That's why I ran this test. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[@jkeiffer]

Also keep in mind that stated tire width and actual width (good you measured with a caliper) is very dependent on a given rim's internal width. Wider rims will help increase width, and narrower (which you probably are using) will narrow that number. My 650B rims are 23mm internal width and my 48mm tire measure exactly 48mm.

[@drouleau]

I've done my own testing not on wheel diameter, but wide vs. narrow as an overall system on a "fast" road bike vs. a "relatively fast" gravel bike. Both bikes are set up approx the same regarding position/drop. I compared my Rene Herse Barlow Pass tires (38mm set up tubeless, but measure 41mm on my wheels) on my gravel/rando bike (19 pound Merlin Sandstone titanium) compared to my Schwalbe Pro One TLEs (25mm, but using tubes at the moment so slower and measures at 25mm) on my 15 pound Trek Emonda over a fairly flat 27 mile course (around 700 feet of climbing) with good pavement. The Merlin has 38mm deep carbon wheels, and I currently have my daily beater wheels (30mm deep carbon wheels) on the Emonda. Not surprisingly, the Trek was faster at approx the same power (within a few watts), but only by about a half mph. Now, if I was using my 50mm carbon wheels and set up tubeless, then the speed difference would be more. The takeaway that I noticed is that on the flats and slight downhills, both bikes feel somewhat similar.....it's when the road starts pointing uphill (even 1-2%) is when the Trek starts to shine and just feels faster overall. The wider and heavier tires on the gravel bike feel more.....cumbersome/sluggish I guess you could say. I know Jan loves to tout how the super wide gravel tires and bikes are just as fast as a road racing setup, but that hasn't been my experience. Now, it's not too far behind, but it's simply not a true statement. While a half mph isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things, it's when you extrapolate that over longer distance events, then it becomes a big deal. However, is someone going to run a 25mm "narrow" tire on an ultra-distance event like a 1200k when they're carrying a bunch of gear? Most likely not - and if they do, it'll be a slower setup. I have some more testing to do, but 30-32mm seems like the sweet spot for something like that. But, would someone use a 25mm tire on a "shorter" event like a 200-400k where you really don't need to carry a lot of gear (dependent of course on weather/time of year/etc) and assuming it's on halfway decent pavement? Sure. On a 15 hour course, that 1/2 mph savings could save you around 30-40 minutes at the same power output.....although if I use my faster wheels on my Emonda over my Merlin, it would likely save around an hour. But, if the pavement is poor/broken/extremely rough, then I'd opt for the wider tires which will be far more comfy and faster overall. All in all, it's good to have options.

[@michaelmcl2511]

May I suggest a follow up procedure. Do the same test but first do multi runs with different air pressure on the 48's.. 20, 25, 30, 35.. do each pressure more than once on multiple days. Then u will have figured out the optimal pressure for the large tire (very important). With such a large air mass, rolling resistance, vibrational losses and planing all factor in a lot. Once done, then compare it to the 28's..

[@ChrisinOSMS]

So if comfort matters then leave a few seconds earlier.

[@ericpmoss]

:) and enjoy having a few more seconds of comfort in life.

[@erikewald7264]

Pro riders have moved to 25c, and 28-30c for PR, so wider is happening. For the vast majority of everyday riders, 35-48c will serve them well on smooth roads to hardpack and fire roads. Does one give up rolling efficiency going from a 25c at 90psi to a 48c at 35psi? With the right tires, very little, and comfort for the long haul is far more valuable. I ride for the pure enjoyment. Fast is fun, but some fraction of one mile per hour is not the goal I chase.

[@bwinmaine]

It's a good thing that the actual choice between these two tires has almost nothing to do with rolling resistance. The choice is obvious when comparing smooth pavement with rough road surfaces. Nothing else really matters unless you start factoring in puncture resistance under excessive loads.

[@rollinrat4850]

When you're spending more and more time rolling around on two wheels, comfort will naturally become more and more important than nearly anything else. As the ride becomes longer that comfort will translate into being less fatigued snd fresher towards the end of long rides. Then you can ride even further! Everywhere I ride, the roads are fairly bad and not maintained very well. I also prefer riding roads only to get to dirt trails. Road riding for me has simply become a necessary evil to get to a place. I don't trust motorists, don't enjoy breathing exhaust and all the mess on my typical public roads. When your riding surfaces are rough you must also consider the stress of simply keeping the bike on line and going where you want it to. This adds mental fatigue as well. High volume, low pressure tires are always going to grip better in rough cornering and allow better braking traction as well. Ive always enjoyed rough empty backroads paved or not, and taking the long or more difficult path to get somewhere. Therefore fat tires have always been a no brainer. I always used fat sew ups (such as silk Del Mondos) in my road racing days. Ultra skinny 21c tires were the norm way back when. 'High performance' clinchers pumped up to 110 psi were a new thing. They were not much different than solid rubber tires! How clinchers have improved!! I never got dropped much more than anyone else in training and races. I was usually near the front on descents or able to make up time lost when I got left behind. Long grueling rides have always been my forte. I seem to get faster the longer the ride gets and the tougher the conditions are. I've never been very motivated by short, really fast or 'easy rides'. Rock hard, skinny tires give the illusion of speed, they might 'feel' fast, but we are merely beating ourselves into oblivion. Its a very real misperception, unless you're on velodrome smooth roads. My serious racing friends hate the ultra long rides I lead! They won't listen to my theories on tires and I just don't get it.

[@davidbee9563]

The two standards for all road bikes seems to be 650x48 and 700x42. The industry seems to be moving away from the 650 with changes in geometry to fit the larger diameter wheel. How do these two sizes compare in overall volume? It seems that the total amount of air is the relevant measure not just the cross section area. If they are close then the 700x42 should provide similar deformation with a given weight. On my gravel bike with 700x42 at 35psi the problem seems to be toe overlap! This would be an advantage of the smaller 650 tire. As to the results of your test, the differences do not seem significant enough to declare a clear winner but that the 700c is slightly quicker. This would likely be consistent with how the bike feels on the road.

[@Henrywildeberry]

It does seem like those two tires are the norm now. For some reason the 700c is still the preference for gravel racers. Perhaps gravel racing still has a strong road racing influence, and since most road bikes have a very evolved set of geometries around 700c, a slightly wider tire (38-42mm) doesn't veer too far off from the norms? Admittedly, a 650b wheel and tire looks a little funny at first, especially on a larger bike frame. I've gotten used to the look of it, but I also like running fenders and having larger volume tires with fenders makes it look proportional to 700c set up. It will be interesting to see if more people go toward 650b or if it will lose interest soon?

[@davidbee9563]

@@Henrywildeberry 650b/27.5 seems to be a default for smaller frames but most companies do not carry it much past a med size. I think they put 42s on to keep to the 700c geometry they are more comfortable with. I had a Haro city bike with 27.5x 2.1 tires and shortish wheelbase that did quite well with 700x35/38 tires as a commuting bike. My gravel bike has 42s but clearance for a 60mm fender and 650x55 tires. So many choices...

[@tmagee27]

I think a significant reason that the industry sticks to 700 is because it's already the industry standard and had been for about 40 years. Unless you are a racer, I would personally prefer a 650b, better handling over rough stuff and more comfortable over long distances. I've tried out carbon gone back to steel, gave up on hollowtech after 4 bottom brackets and 2 cranksets in 7 years. I was a bike messenger for most of the 2000s and have done a bit of track racing (but these days am actually moving towards Randonneuring). I break stuff. A lot of what the industry sells you is designed with pros in mind, not comfort or durability.

[@florianbartschiger1616]

The best test is to let yourself roll down a straight downhill from a stand still. No effort needed 😀

[@trick700]

This test would have less bias, assuming it’s not windy 🌬

[@PrabuddhaDasGupta1966]

Going downhill, will the heavier tire/wheel not have a slight advantage?

[@bicycleutopia]

very illuminating comparison and discussion. what does your adorable dog think? fat tires are the way to go, as i ride too many miles suffering the abysmal and embarrassing roads of the wealthiest nation of earth, with the worst roads in the industrialized world...

[@Henrywildeberry]

She thinks all the tires are too fast! "Why don't we slow down and smell all the things on the side of the road," she asks. It's pretty interesting how poor the wealthiest country on earth is.

[@tyronearnold6692]

Vredestein was my favorite because of how supple the casing was. Running 23 mm tri comps with 145 psi feels like running Continental grand prix 23 mm at 100 psi. They were the absolute fastest handling and had the best ride quality, but lacked sidewall durability and I blew out one once on a Sweetwater descent, and a second one in the corner of a rough criterium. Never used them again.

[@jameslang861]

I loved my Vredestein’s. I ran them at 160 psi; not easy to do with a floor pump. I had issues with tubes splitting and had to stick to Vredestein tubes.

[@Henrywildeberry]

I used to see those tires on the rack back in the day. I always wanted to try them, and read the thread count on the packaging and was sold, but at the time I was experimenting with the Michelin Pro-race tires. Then I found Conti's, gave them a try, and had fewer flats, so I felt sold on the added durability. It's hard to try new stuff once you get familiar with a tire. Like you I was running higher pressure, but 110-120. Our blowouts sounded like a shotgun going off! Good times!

[@tyronearnold6692]

@@Henrywildeberry Gatorskin Hardshell or 4 Season Grand Prix 28mm tire at 80 and 70 psi is what I rode eventually. Great durability, but a real crap road feel compared to Tri Comps. Put some 30 mm Schwalbe Marathons on my town bike, and I gotta say, they might be pretty good all rounders. (I have no idea how they would rail around corners at speed). I bought a Campagnolo Zonda 2 way fit wheelset, but never invested in the pair of tubeless Schwalbe One Pro 26 mm that I wanted to try.

[@rollinrat4850]

@@tyronearnold6692 Dont waste your money on road tubeless unless you're racing. Even then I'd much rather use sew ups. Waaaay faster on mixed road surfaces and much more reliable. I rode fat silk tubulars when I raced back in the day. Even Offroad at 55 psi. Best riding tires I ever owned. Not cheap though! I wrench in a high end shop. I can't recommend high pressure road tubeless at all. Tire and rim Compatibilities have certainly improved but they still suck as far as I'm concerned. All my fellow mechanics hate them with a passion. We will pawn the job off on each other if possible! Its a little prank! I discourage folks from buying them but some idiots insist. I'll take their money gladly and repeatedly! Its like job security, Haha! They might be best for time trialists due to the rolling resistance , But for average road riding it's simply nothing but marketing BS Best left for those suckers born every minute. I regularly get customers with a leak just large enough that it won't seal back up due to all that high pressure. Otherwise the tire with a tube is just fine. But the sealant keeps spitting out. It Makes a huge mess on your bike and your clothing. This often happens on practically new tires and all we can do is install a new $90 tire. The Customer's always unhappy sometimes quite angry. High volume, low pressure tubeless tires make way more sense and are waaaay more reliable. They are way more practical for the vast majority of average road riders as well. Never use tubeless tires over 70 psi. I use 33c or bigger at 30-50. I'll go even lower offroad, especially for 'cross. Even on my smoothest roads I would use 28c and no more than 70psi with tubes. But Im skinny and know how to float over the bumps. Again, the roads are shitty here. High volume, low pressure tubeless is like a magic carpet ride, feel similar to tubs but my roads are pretty rough or often dirt trails. Skinny rock hard tires are for velodrome smooth roads. They don't exist in the places I ride. Theyre useless as far as I'm concerned, but I'll admit to being a tire snob. Good tires can transform your ride!

[@tyronearnold6692]

@@rollinrat4850 thanks for your informed take on tubeless. The 2 way fit rims will remain rim stripless wheels with clinchers and tunes. Our roads here are also terrible, although with beautiful scenery and a few smooth spots.

[@cecilecorpuz5735]

I'm good with both sizes, but if I was on a long tour ride, riding for days and days on the road then 700c would be my choice, only because if I need to a new tire, bicycle shops are more likely to have some type of a 700c replacement, 650s this will be a hit or miss.

[@eeeskiii2916]

Tells us how power meters are inaccurate but fails to mention heart rate can be dependent down to what you eat or what you drink. Let’s just say there are tons more factors with heart rate than power meters.

[@Henrywildeberry]

I believe I did mention how heart rate is inaccurate and that the measurement is only as good as the device and the care/skill by the person using the device to take the measurement. My experience using a HR monitor is much more accurate for me since I've not used a power meter. Every measurement has error to include power meters, heart rate, cadence sensors, temperature, air pressure, stopwatches, etc. I ran the test on the same day, so heart rate is not likely to vary much between efforts especially at a zone 1-2 effort where HR is pretty stable. A power meter on the other hand uses strain gauges to measure force (sometimes on only one side of a crank arm) and a cadence monitor to measure time. The device itself takes a sample at specific intervals of time during the pedal cycle and then calculates average power. Peak power is sometimes lost depending on when the device collects a sample. Given a rider does not apply equal pressure nor equal cadence through the entire pedal stroke and equally through every pedal cycle, at best, power is an average of averages. There is easily 2 to 5% error in average power. As an example, take a 200 watt effort a 2% error equals 4-watts and a 5% error is 10-watts. In a 5 minute time trial 2% is 6 seconds. From here you can imagine multiples of that error extended out over longer and longer periods of time and see that most bicycle studies, regardless of devices used, are highly inaccurate. If you look at the data from my test in this video and the previous video we are also within a 2% margin of error. What I'm aiming to show is that the difference in speed between two very different wheel and tire combo's is nearly the same. That wasn't what I was expecting going into the test. I had imagined a much larger difference. At this point it would take much more accurate measuring device to suss out the difference, but is that even necessary? To me a few seconds is marginal, but marginal in the sense that I would rather have a more comfortable ride by giving up a few seconds. You might want the opposite? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope this experiment helps to confirm your bias.

[@gothic.cyclist]

👍👍

[@king2kk]

The power (not force!) needed to overcome wind resistance is proprotional to the third power of the velocity, there is not an exponatial dependence. (E.g. with twice the velocity the force due to wind resistance is four times higher. In addition, the distance travelled per second is twice as long, therefore, we have a factor of 8 for the power.) With rolling resistance you are right, there is an linear depenance power - velocity. Already at around 12 mph wind resistance an rolling resistance are about the same.

[@John-Nada]

Riding fatties is like floating on clouds

[@Freightlinerbob]

I find it curious that in randoneuring there seems to be a trend toward fatter tires , ( presumably for greater speed and comfort) but in ultra distance cycling, the top riders are on relatively skinny, 28mm tires. Some good info here, Henry. www.schwalbe.com/en/balloonbikes

[@Henrywildeberry]

Thanks Robert! There is some very good information in the article. The vibration test performed by German Sports University Cologn show wider tires give better comfort over a complicated suspension system. That's pretty incredible! Imagine how much less complicated the bike can be without suspension (lighter too). I also like my steel fork because it acts like a spring and the tire is the damper (dashpot). Thanks again!

[@PrabuddhaDasGupta1966]

I know it would be a hugely tiresome exercise, but would it not yield more balanced and sorted results if these tests were done over much longer distances? For instance, if one set of tires was ridden for 2 hours, at 7am, and the next day, the other set of tires was ridden at the same time and for the same duration, also ensuring the same heart rate zone was maintained? Of course, on the same route.

[@Henrywildeberry]

Longer tests generally introduce a larger margin for error as the conditions change over time. It's very difficult to find a very flat road with consistent road conditions for 2 hours. Day to day tests are also problematic as the conditions are hard to control (e.g. temperature, and wind change). Back to back longer tests are difficult as the morning temperature and wind is different than the afternoon temperature and wind. I've seen a few cycling channels attempt this type of experiment and the results yielded a very large difference between the two tests. If I recall correctly, one test had over a 2 minute difference in a 30 minute time trial. There's something very wrong with the test protocol when two almost identical bikes (same rider) have such a drastically large difference. If you look at my data on a five minute test you can see a difference of 2 to 5 seconds. I've repeated this test about half a dozen times on the same road with the same results. Now, if I project y data out for 30 minutes, using the largest difference of 5-seconds, the difference would be 30minutes/5minutes = 6. Take 6 and multiply it by the 5 second difference and we get 30 seconds assuming the worst case scenario. I say worst case because there is error in my 5 minute test. If the longer test (30 minutes or more) reveals a much larger difference than what a short test would scale up to, the longer test has introduced additional variables and is yielding a much larger error. The long test needs to correlate with the short test. A better test is to run more tests repeatedly on the same road back to back with higher precision testing equipment. Civil Engineers run experiments like these to test for rolling resistance and traction on different surfaces using a trailer that is pulled behind a vehicle. This testing apparatus has weight on it and wind resistance is eliminated because, the truck in front creates a wind screen. A test like that would be much better. If a cyclist could also ride the bike testing apparatus behind a vehicle we could better isolate the rolling resistance and suspension losses. If you were inclined on your own to try long tests you could do this by collecting info on your personal rides using different tires. If you collect enough data from multiple rides over many months you might start to see a pattern.

[@PrabuddhaDasGupta1966]

@@Henrywildeberry I wrote halfway through a long reply and all of a sudden, it went missing. I shall have to write it all over again.

[@PrabuddhaDasGupta1966]

@@Henrywildeberry Thank you for your detailed reply. This is the first time I am commenting on your channel and I must add here that you have a great gift of expressing your thoughts in a logically organised manner while at the same time maintaining an air of positivity, often lightheartedness. I enjoy road cycling and I enjoy tinkering with my bicycles and equipment. I tend to arrive at conclusions regarding what works for me and what does not, mainly on the basis of my own experience. I take hints from test results published online and try out similar tests on my own, but unless I experience similar results I tend to ignore those tests. For instance, I have concluded that I can ride faster on a 10+kg Steel bike that fits me perfectly, than I can on a 9 kg carbon bike that just about fits me, but imperfectly. I have also concluded that I ride faster on 28mm tyres than on 25 or 23mm tyres. How I have arrived at these conclusions is by comparing my Strava data gathered from rides over more or less the same route. To me this gives very real world and palpable information. I am sure there would be detractors who would find fault in basic conditions on which my conclusions are premised, but the crux of the matter is that I ride faster on my heavier steel bike with 28 mm tires. My two steel frames take upto 32 mm tires but due to Covid and the Government's import policies, there is a huge shortage of tires here in Mumbai, India. That is why I have been looking for these test results online. Otherwise, I would have tried out those tires and sought conclusions based on repeated rides on my routes. I agree that your test results are relatively unbiased in terms of adequate disclosure and the results therefore, do indicate the advantage of picking the 650B. I am now wondering if I should test my aluminium mtb converted to drop handlebars on similar rides. I have 1.5 inch tires on that bike. What do you think the results shall indicate?

[@phillipcowan1444]

For a 100 mile ride my butt votes for the 48's. Seriously though there doesn't seem to be much real world difference.

[@richardharker2775]

The analytical brain says..... What if??? The cogs start turning and the brain needs an answer it can be satisfied with. So the thumb and forefinger wraps around the chin whilst the eyes scan the wheels and tires in front of them. Let me see.... I've pondered this many a time when you have a brevet that is 2, 3, 4 or 600 kilometres. Any help from things like rolling resistance, less weight, less wind resistance all help to some degree. But then again so does comfort, puncture resistance and practicality. And so a balance has to be met and the scales measured for the brain to be happy. And each brain is different.

[@Thomas-sk6ot]

The tire you have, is the one that gets you the longest. As with the bicycle.

[@jkeiffer]

When I heard the tire pressures you were going to use I knew that it was going to be a problem. I highly suggest you use a tire pressure calculator like this one info.silca.cc/silca-professional-pressure-calculator According to their calculator (just using similar variable for both tire sizes and an assumed weight of 190lbs for rider and bike - note I'm guessing your weight and your bikes weight to be 190lbs)... The 700cx28mm pressure should be 77/79psi, while the 650Bx48mm should be 33/35psi. That is a big difference. IMO you underinflated both sets, and underinflated the 700c by more. I personally ride 650bX48mm and I ride them all the time at 33/35psi.

[@brianmiller1254]

Within reason, running abnormally low pressure has very little effect on my speed running the 700c x 35mm Compass Bon Jon Pass. (I won a town line sprint with only 35 psi and losing air.) But the squishiness bothers me.

[@blakenielsen716]

WARNING: DO NOT BUY RENE HERSE! Rene Herse's customer service is terrible. Went for a refund on a poor quality product. They wouldn't do it. If their tire is defective or doesn't fit you will not get a refund/exchange. No customer service phone number either.

[@djkenny1202]

Did the tire fail?

[@davidburgess741]

26" for smaller riders, 700c + 29r for larger riders anything finer is silly. Buy the frame that fits. Worry less about fenders. Toe clearance is more important. No janky geometry to make the wrong wheel size work!No surprise Gatorskins! are faster, the tread pattern is most of the difference. Gatorskins, a race tire, really! How slow do you go? Science?