23 vs 25 war

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

jack smith

Veteran
Location
Durham
 

Erudin

Veteran
Location
Cornwall

Big_Dave

The unlikely Cyclist
You guys need to get with the program!

20c is where it's at......
This extract is from the 1990 brochure for the Raleigh road bike I have bought for my son. It is on 23c tyres at the moment but I am wondering if I should swap them to 20c for period correctness? :laugh:
My old record sprint was on 20c, I was going to put my Kellogg's on 20c's (originally on 25c) but opted for 23c as there was more choice of tyres
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
I can't make my mind up. Where can I get some 24s to split the difference?
Vittoria open pave come in 24c and 27c. I have the latter
image.jpg
 

Rob3rt

Man or Moose!
Location
Manchester
25s are a little more aerodynamic than 23s and have virtually no rolling resistance difference. That is why pros are moving towards them.

If you want to extract the last 0.1% from your effort, use 25s. Otherwise ride whatever feels comfortable

The above is not strictly true. 25's tend to offer reduced rolling resistance and MAY offer improved aerodynamics IF they are mounted to a suitable rim so as to minimise bulbing and optimise the tyre-rim transition and enhance the overall rim profile. However, this is talking only about the tyre/wheel in isolation, put it in a bike with a rider on it and you might find the combo that was best in isolation is actually worse as part of the whole system.

Additionally, you might end up with a situation where a 25 offers lower rolling resistance, but is an aerodynamic compromise or vice versa.

I have field tested the following:

19mm Continental podium TT tubular on a FFWD Trispoke vs a 22mm Continental podium TT tubular on a FFWD Trispoke
The rear wheel was held constant, FFWD Disc with a 22mm Continental Podium TT tubular.

The aerodynamic advantage from the thinner tyre in my testing was MUCH larger than the rolling resistance increase, that is to say, even though the rolling resistance of the overall system increased a little, the CdA of the entire system decreased by an amount that far outweighed the increase in rolling resistance. I believe this to be for 2 reasons, in simplest terms, a lower frontal area, A, and a visibly better transition between the tyre and the rim, lower, Cd. If anyone is particularly interested I can provide ratios (I can not disclose absolute values).

That's a good one!

If you are going to mock, at least do it from a position of having a clue!
 
Last edited:

Cuchilo

Prize winning member X2
Location
London
I think my Conti 25c grandsport race are faster than my Schwalbe 23c ultremo zx but the 20c I tried on an old steel pug where faster than both . IMHO .
 

I like Skol

A Minging Manc...
It may have slipped by me but nobody seems to have mentioned tyre weight? Isn't an equivalent tyre in 23c going to be lighter than the 25c and the 20c even lighter than both of them? And isn't this weight loss going to be at the very outside of the wheels circumference where it can have the maximum affect on performance and acceleration? Surely this overrides the aero and rolling resistance issues completely?
 

Rob3rt

Man or Moose!
Location
Manchester
It may have slipped by me but nobody seems to have mentioned tyre weight? Isn't an equivalent tyre in 23c going to be lighter than the 25c and the 20c even lighter than both of them? And isn't this weight loss going to be at the very outside of the wheels circumference where it can have the maximum affect on performance and acceleration? Surely this overrides the aero and rolling resistance issues completely?

Most of the resistance a cyclist is fighting to overcome is air resistance, as such aerodynamics are by far the greatest concern in most contexts.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom