My 42’s measured as 42’s, but you make a good point about the 47’s because they measured 45 on my wheels (23mm IW). So yeah, what is the point of a 45? 
Unless they have the 47’s actually measure 47 now.
1 Like
RH extralights are some of the slowest tires available because they flat almost instantly… Fixing a flat is always slow!
4 Likes
Yep, I know. I was defending you because someone had mentioned you hadn’t done any good gravel tires. I was just saying that the terra speed is a good one and that you had used it. Could have spelled that out better.
1 Like
My 42 sworks measured 45mm on a 24mm IW rim. My 47 pathfinder pros measure 48mm on a 27mm IW rim.
1 Like
All good. 
1 Like
Mine measure 48 on 25mm IW also. Not new tires, this was last year.
I’m sure I’ve measured my 42’s as well, but can’t remember what they came in at. But there is a significant size difference. With 42’s, I can easily fit my index finder between tire and chainstays/fork for clearing mud if needed. 47’s are tight with a finger, more like pinky width.
If they are resetting sizes, I hope they keep something around 47/48 because it’s about the limit of what my current bike can run with a bit of mud clearance.
1 Like
Def need some Semi Rad style charts of resistance to bigger tires vs current bike tire clearance
I’d love to see these tires run on pavement to see how they compare to Dylan’s results.
1 Like
I hope they release a 50 but I could see them not just because non of their current gravel bikes can clear they just going off manufacturing spec. But maybe it means a new diverge and crux with 50 clearance is on the horizon if they do release them !
Oh I’ve done them all on pavement. I’ve got one really nice pavement track that runs a little faster than BRR and one that’s close to identical but has more traffic so harder to use.
They are all similar to BRR drum data
at regular riding pressure for me.
4 Likes
Again, I’m not debating the outcome, I’m pointing out they describe a test of MTB tyres against ‘traditional gravel tyres’ of which there is a single tyre in a 45mm width. Therefore the conclusion is logically flawed. It doesn’t matter what other people have tested or even if there is a huge body of scientific literature that clearly concludes that mountain bike tyres are faster… this podcast discusses only one testing methodology with a conclusion that makes no sense for what was actually tested.
The only reasonable conclusion there is that the various MTB tyres tested are faster than the Conti Terra Speed, and only the Conti Terra Speed. There is no 40mm tyre, no 43mm tyre, no different manufacturers or casings. I am sure those tests will come and they will prove the MTB tyres faster, but that hasn’t happened yet, in these tests.
1 Like
I’d like to see a Tufo Thundero in a 48mm (more modern gravel tyre) as well as some slim (40mm?) fast rolling gravel tyres on grade one or combo tarmac / grade 1.
You’re missing the point. If you count a 45mm Terra Speed as a traditional gravel tyre, then the test was still versus a single data point, so the conclusion in the podcast (notes at least) was patently invalid.
I believe the conclusion, I just want good science, not inferring an outcome that doesn’t tie up with the actual testing that took place. You would say the same thing if he had tested 5 gravel tyres and 1 MTB tyre and concluded that gravel tyres were faster.
This would never make it through peer review.
Once @jkarrasch has added a number of data points for other gravel tyres in difference sizes across different terrains, then perhaps that conclusion can be fairly drawn.
Except @jkarrasch isn’t the only source for data….other people have tested other tires and everyone has reached the same conclusion.
Again, if anyone has any data pointing to thinner gravel tires being faster, I’m sure we’d all love to see it.
Sure but that has absolutely nothing to do with the conclusion in the podcast that is drawn SOLELY from this specific set of tests.
You can’t do a science experiment that doesn’t draw a logical conclusion but then use a wider body of research to say that it does. This wasn’t a meta-analysis.
Ah, so are we now ignoring DJ’s latest Silverstone rig tests? I thought we had concluded that ‘it depends’? Seems to be a lot of preference bias here.
What data did DJ come up with that showed thinner tires were faster on gravel?
I don’t think you read the article or listened to the podcast, because there were plenty of qualifications made about the conclusions. No one is saying these tests were the definitive or final determination.
1 Like
Ignoring the Silverstone results, entirely, is probably the best option right now. DJ’s test and the Cyclingnews test produced results that were opposite each other, and at the same time each result went against prior testing. The SSE-PER don’t seem applicable, because what can be applied from the two tests?
- Wide XC tire suffers an extreme penalty on pavement - DJ Result
- Wide XC tire offers a benefit on pavement - CN Result
- As tires become wider the power requirements increase - DJ Result
- As tires become wider the power requirements decrease - CN Result
If you showed a tire enthusiast the points above and told them one tire was a Race King and the other a Terreno Dry they’d say obviously because the Race King would have the good result and the Terreno Dry the bad. Which is opposite of what the SSE-PER actually found.
Obviously these results are influenced by the tires themselves, but when DJ was testing what is generally considered the 2nd fastest XC tire, and CN was testing one of the slower XC tires - the relevance of both tests is questionable.
And this is before the issues that come from the cobbled surface used. Fundamentally, the SSE-PER is another type of roller test, and there isn’t enough data to tell if we should pay attention, or not.
7 Likes
So the Race Kings and Burt’s really are faster than the gravel tires on pavement as well?
I don’t think the semantics of calling a tire “MTB” or “gravel” really matters. We are just trying to find the fastest tires for given conditions.
3 Likes
Rolling resistance wise… yes.
1 Like