I got some Dubs to test out pre-season and on a whim also threw in a Trinotal. Put the Tri on the front, Dub in the back. The grip on the Tri is substantial. I was riding out in the high desert a couple weeks ago and was railing flat corners. It’s pretty awesome imo. Now, I gotta test it in the wet, which I’m less optimistic about, but we’ll see. RR isn’t too bad comparatively, but even so I was able to set some pretty big PR’s across a course I’v ridden quite a lot.
All that said, I haven’t tried a Dub in the front yet. I’ve tried every other “fast” mtb tire out there except the new Scorpion. This set up grips better than everything else I’ve tried.
I’ve been racing Schwalbe Ricks and they are great if you really lean them in the corners. Many people I ride/race with want something grippier in the front like a Racing Ray or Rekon/Rekon Race. Barzo would be a great front tire also. Very few of my buddies are riding Conti XC tires. A lot of my gravity friends like the Conti gravity tires.
Haha! We cross posted. Glad to hear someone else is on the same wavelength. I bet two Tri’s would be crazy. I honestly felt like I was riding a lightweight gravity tire. It hooks up really well.
I’m sure there is more to it than just rolling resistance. For road bikes I can see how toe overlap could be a potential problem. For mtbs and thight single track 29ers could still be faster despite rolling slower. But agreed, Pros can’t ignore 5W on pavement let alone 6-10W offroad. I wonder how that would translate to road tires in 32mm for example and what implications a 32” road bike would have for bike fits for, let’s say, Jonas and Remco.
For me as a hobbyist I’m in awe at the level of testing jkarrash is doing here. It’s interesting to look on from the sidelines. 5-10W less rolling resistance isn’t getting me to sell my bikes.
I was being facetious about selling my bikes, but 5-10w is absolutely a massive difference.
If that really is a preview the data that’s coming down the line, every racer 5’8 and up will be on 32” by 2030 without a doubt in my mind. It’ll be up to the frame manufacturers to make all the other factors fall in line.
And hey, look at that timing. 32” wheels just won a stage at Cape Epic.
I love the technicality of all aspects in cycling as much as doing the sport itself. Having forum members like john, who regularly post their science backed data and seeing this transition from 29 to 32 is so interesting to witness. I agree with your statement about most riders being on 32” wheels by 2030 because that’s what will be available - and people usually ride what’s available. You don’t see new 26” bikes for adults today - will probably be the same with 29” in 2030+
No, a person won, not the wheels. How much advantage did the wheels provide? That’s very debatable. What shoes were they wearing? Were the shoes the reason they won the race? Of course not. How much did their chain live, suspension tuning, tires, tire pressure, handling skills, fitness, strategy and tactics all contribute? We’ll never know.
So we have no idea how much the wheel size mattered, at least not based just on the fact that a single rider won a single race on them. Heck even if every race was won this year on 32” wheels, go back a few decades and you could say the same about 26” wheels!
I can just feel cassinos eyeballs rolling backwards from the other side of the pond…
coincidence or not - the measured difference in rolling resistance of 5-10W is not nothing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Pros running 32” bikes this year at Unbound.
It is notable. It is the first major win on 32” wheels to my knowledge. That’s why I mentioned it. It’ll be a big deal when someone finally wins a WC DH race on a Gates drive system too. New tech is fun and interesting. That’s the point of this thread.
It’s not worth getting up in arms because of the phrasing I used, but you do you.
If 32’s translate to 5-10 watts improvement in rolling resistance in real race conditions, they will be impossible to ignore. At least for some riders on some courses. There will be a weight and aero penalty to offset some the the crr gains, but it’s won’t be a 5 watt penalty at off road speeds.
Winning a cape epic stage on 32’s doesn’t say much, but I’d definitely put some stock into the test results from jkarrash.
“Pros can’t ignore 5W on pavement let alone 6-10W offroad.”
I largely agree with this, but we also know that pros are limited by sponsor agreements. Based on existing rr testing, there certainly is a 5-10w delta for tires actively used in the pro peloton. Given the limited availability of 32” tires right now, I think the next year or two will be a lot pros claiming advantages to whatever wheel size their tire sponsor supports (see 26” vs 29”).
I’m curious if there will be a trend to wider rims and hubs with 32” tires. You can only go so wide in back with a 148 Boost frame, so are we going to see 32” adopt 157 Superboost hubs? The industry seems to have settled on 30mm as the width for everything, but certainly that isn’t truly optimal for all types of bikes and conditions.
the 5-10W is after accounting for all that. He outlines his test methodology in the article openly. Certainly there are faster tires than an Aspen but that’s besides the point since you have to try and do an apples to apples comparison. Having two Aspens in two sizes with the same casing thickness, thread width and measuring and outlining all that speaks to the tests methodology and results. Are other tires going to be even faster? Possibly. Does it matter in this context? No it doesn’t. 32” Aspens roll faster on every tested surface as outlined in the article. Those are not marginal gains, we are talking 5-10W.
As you add suspension travel, the bike needs to get bigger, which will mean the height threshold of who will fit comfortably on a 32er goes up.
In the testing John K. did, he was riding a hard tail, rigid fork 32er. He’s 5’9” and fit Ok on that. But what if the bike was a 120mm F/R suspension travel? I’d bet we’ll see that realistically, of full suspension XC race bikes, they’ll really only work for taller riders, say 6’ and up?
As you go out of the XC race bikes, and into down country, trail and beyond - it’s hard to se how the geometry can work for 32er with small to average height riders. But - someone probably said that about 29ers also, so I wait to be proven wrong in the coming years.
Because they are a new tech that has now been a part of a winning team? The same way one might mention that any piece of equipment, a manufacturer, or any other brand/nation/etc is represented in a win - not because the win is completely due to it but just because it’s relevant to the discussion.
No, a person won, not the wheels. How much advantage did the wheels provide? That’s very debatable. What shoes were they wearing? Were the shoes the reason they won the race? Of course not. How much did their chain live, suspension tuning, tires, tire pressure, handling skills, fitness, strategy and tactics all contribute? We’ll never know.