Don’t let me burst your balloon (tires).

Famed though I may be, as one with a talent for analyzing matters of an artistic or cultural manner, there are times when even a humanities snob like myself must deign to speak in empirical terms. Today, it is to dispel a myth going around that balloon tires are fast. If they could be pumped to 100psi without emulating the big bang, that would almost be true. But they can’t, and neither would anyone want to do that, as the supposed reason for these tires’ being, is to provide cushioning.

The term rolling resistance refers to the energy that goes into constantly massaging your normally convex tires into the flat surface they present to the road. A good solid 100 pounds per square inch (psi) will keep rolling resistance low, by reducing the size of the contact patch being massaged. Massaging one knot in your friend’s back, by kneading hard with a thumb, takes less energy than massaging their whole back with both hands and your chest (we’ll return to the question of which is more fun). The contact patch expands until equilibrium is achieved between the equal and opposite weight of your bum pushing back off the road, and the pressure pushing on the dark side of your rubber. If you and your bike weigh 200lbs, and that weight, for argument’s sake, is shared evenly between both of the wheels, then a one-square-inch contact patch for each tire, inflated to 100psi, will establish this equilibrium of which I speak. Comprende amigo? One square inch of tire, with a weight of 100 pounds of air from behind, will oppose that 100 pound force of the road. [Ref. 1]

Now focus your thoughts on that inch square patch of rubber at the moment when the hard road is massaging it flat, and imagine all the tiny forces in those fibers of rubber. Hear them squelching, making sound energy. Feel them rubbing, generating some heat. Sound and heat are two forms of energy other than kinetic energy, the energy form you’re trying to make from that your pasta you ate. You can reduce those stresses by using tires made from a soft compound rubber. However, such tires are more prone to punctures, and will wear out much quicker. Better still, pump your tires to 200psi (they, might not pop), and halve the size of that contact patch being massaged. The certain problem with this last approach, is your bike will feel like a tuning fork. Ever wonder why Lance Armstrong had troubles "down there"?

Balloon tires permit low inflation, and a super soft ride. Now the proud owner of a Velorbis Scrap Deluxe balloon bike, I’ve been doing the maths. Together, it and I weigh 200lbs, with roughly one third (66) of those pounds over the front wheel, and the other two thirds over the rear. 22psi in the front wheel feels just right to me, eliminating those jolts from the forks. Okay, sure, that leaves a whopping 3 inch square contact patch beneath the front tire (66/22=3), but it’s a fairly localised patch, not insinuating sides walls into its dramas, as the diagram above kind of explains. Besides, I figure I will more than account for the rolling resistance on the unloaded front tire, when I inflate the hell out of the loaded up rear one, from which I don’t require cushioning, because my bike has a sprung saddle and long slender seat stays.

But herein lies the rub: the max pressure rating for Fat Frank tires, is 60psi—balloon tires just don’t go any higher. That means I still have a contact patch of 2.2 square inches beneath my rear tire, a tire from which I don’t require dampening. 

I would say that’s a fairly standard Balloon tire story these days, that would apply for Electra Townie bikes, Retro Velo models, and so on.. Contact patches might be local to the actual patch, but by racing bike standards they’re triple size, and still double what they would be if we all just kept riding to work on our 1.5" commuting tires inflated to 85psi, that hold their shape just as well, if you keep them pumped up. Balloon tire makers like Schwalbe know balloon tires cannot really be fast, because they can’t be pumped up very hard, so use soft rubber compounds to compensate, then downplay the attendant high wear and lack of resistance to punctures.

In the end, the best argument for balloon tires, is that they provide some especially non-compliant (in other words, hard riding), bikes with the sorely needed road cushioning they otherwise lack. Why do such bikes exist, when we know how to make slender forks and cushioning frames? Well, we can mainly blame the makers, and millions of recent buyers, of bikes made from aluminium. Cheap to make, yet easy to lift, these bikes appeal to buyers whose sole criteria, are price and weight. They test ride them in front of the shop, where they only have a chance to notice the smooth ride from those space hoppers with axles, but not the rolling resistance they will be cursing half an hour into each ride. I’m not here to promote balloon tires as cures for problems of a naive market’s creation.
 
The kind of hard riding bike I can support, that could do with balloons lest fillings be shaken loose from our teeth, are those with over-sized tubes, designed to look all Bauhaus Moderne. I think of the Victor Bike (above left) designed to look good, and who cares how it feels. I think of that bulbous fork on my Scrap Deluxe, curved like the steel in a Wassily chair, a chair designed by architect Marcel Breuer to recall the handlebars of his much loved Adler bicycle, and around the references go. Verily that fork is over engineered, to look great. My "Flat Frank" (as I call my 22psi front balloon tire), is what these beautiful forks need. Before letting the air down, I felt like I was holding a jackhammer.

If after all this, you still can’t decide,
do as I do, with
Billy Crystal my guide.

Nando, don’t be a schnook. It’s not how you feel, it’s how, you, look.
 

And retro bikes with fat tires look marvewous darling. Ab-so-wutely marvewous. Crave as you might, to die in your sleep, I would rather die of discomfort, with a fashionable corpse left behind me. I would rather work up a sweat commuting on a cool looking bike, than get to work early on a bike with no sense of style. And really, all things considered—headwinds, hills, the art school chicks who will line up to be doubled—by how much will those low pressure tires really make you go slower? If one punctures, take the opportunity to let those girls see how you’re not only hip, but Mr. Fix-it as well.

Need convincing that chicks dig fat tires? Then search a few stock photo libraries for romantic pictures of couples with bikes. Not sure if the arty look will lure someone attractive? Just google "art school girl". Not "suicide girl"; us bike bloggers worked hard to win you from porn, we can’t have you go back there.

References
1. Sheldon Brown tells me on this page, that "The area of the contact patch equals the weight load, divided by the air pressure. For example, if the air pressure is 50 PSI and the weight load is 100 pounds, the contact patch will be two square inches".

Further Reading
http://yarchive.net/bike/tire_pressure.html
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html

14 Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Are you sure?

    OK 60psi vs 100 does makes a difference. However, a 60psi wide tire will have less drag than a 60psi narrower tire. The contact patch of the wide tire will be more or less circular, the narrow tire’s contact patch will be oval i.e.; longer and narrower. Because the wheel is moving forward not sideways, a long contact patch suffers more tire deformation and drag than a short contact patch. Returning to tires with different pressures, further research is required to determine if the circular vs oval benefit offsets the higher pressure benefit. The difference may be less than initially thought.

  2. James says:

    Your point is only valid when you are considering very high pressures on narrow tires that provide essentially no road cushioning. This appeals to racers, but not most commuters who would rather have a reasonable level of cush balanced with rolling resistance. In most cases, they are riding 1.5-2″ tires to begin with so using a ballon tire only improves their ride quality using the same pressures or slightly lower than they previously were.

    Additionally, if Schwalbe ballon tires are using such soft compounds, then why are there so many satisfied customers riding thousands of kilometers on them with minimal punctures? The sidewalls are weaker, but the main belt isn’t. Sure they’re not going to last as long at Marathon Plus tires, but they also weight much less and provide better traction and comfort.

  3. Adam says:

    Steven, read this:
    https://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/tires-how-wide-is-too-wide/

    For how many “bicycle users”, max possible speed is a priority ? Probably for racers only. How many bicycle users do actually race ? 1% ?
    I have been cycling on very narrow-high pressure tyres and on bit wider-lower pressure tyres (28-38mm, 50-80psi in my case-I am very tall and rather heavy) and also on Big Apple tyres (700c x 50 and 26″ x 2″).
    Big Apple tyre (baloon tyre) is wonderful, very well (fast) rolling tyre,
    that works beautifully both on bitumen and on dirt made trails.
    It is nonsense to install suspension forks on bikes that spend 90% of riding on bitumen when this tyre provides excellent comfort and two of them are LOT lighter (weigh) than any susp. fork. Personally I use Big Apple Plus tyres on MTB and on town bike and on heavy loaded touring bike and I am very very happy with results.

  4. Daniel says:

    Hi, what do you suggest? I would like to transform my 26″ 2006 mtb Specialized Stumpjumper in an overall smoother and faster gravel bike (I usually run 85 asphalt 15 light gravel). I’m now on 26×2.00 Specialized fast trak pro. My options are:
    – 26×2.35 Schwalbe Big Apple (bigger wheel diameter, bigger width)
    or
    -26×1.2 Btwin Resist 9 slick tires (shorter wheel diameter, shorter width)

    I would like to have less drag and, given the same power on the pedal, the fastest possible ride on asphalt.
    Many thanks.

    • Daniel no choice. Big Apples I’m soon to be on my 3rd set. Flippin Lovely.

      My only wish is that Swchalbe would make a Big Apple Deluxe with HD Guard instead of Race Guard, which is pretty good but is a little on the weak side.

      In terms of the “soft rubber” compounds mentioned above I cannot agree, my rear tire is 3 years or 4 years old, and has covered probably 2000 miles and is just begining to show signs of degradation. I ride it all over on horrible sharp gravel tracks but mostly on road. I have tried other tires (all schwalbe) but I love the big apples.

  5. Phil says:

    On Mavic XM719 rims the max tyre width spec says 2.7″ and I have just come to the end of the lives of the current 2.1″ wide tyres which are Tioga Factory FS100s – a lovely tyre they’ve stopped making. The schwalbe big apple and bIg ben tyres look briadly similar if you close one eye but I am unable;e to decide. I was thinking of having 1.75″ or 2″ on the front and 2″ or 2.15 on the back. does anyone have any observations re differing tyres?
    Note: motorbikes used to have differing tyres in this way with circumferal tread on the front and radial detail on the back. The theory being that the front tyre would show preferential friction on cornering and less on braking since front-wheel side-slip means you are off the bike and on your arse.
    It seems theoretically likely that a thinner front tyre would provide greater steering precision and agility whereas the weight of one’s carcass is mostly on the back.

    • Steven says:

      I would rather skid my rear mountain bike wheel before my front wheel, so I’ve got big tread and a fat tire up front and the opposite at the back. There are other factors too, like having less clearance on my old frame at the back, and liking the fact that the smoother rear tire means one less tire slowed by thick tread when going fast on the road. To my mind, your thin front and fat rear idea misses a big plus with fat tires, whether it be for a mountain bike or a road bike, which is that fat tires are sure-footed when encountering pot holes or cracks in the pavement.

  6. phil says:

    Your comment regarding women liking fat tyres is, I think, based on the fact that men equate suffering and discomfort with virtue. That the real hard-man’s ride should be in pain. It’s almost as though men generally feel themselves at such a disadvantage in the world that they need this phoney virtue to help in the pretense that they are not wimps. The persistence of the narrow-tyre fraternity in rejecting rolling-road tests confirming the fat tyre as having least friction shows this well. Now the narrowist’s excuse becomes wind resistance. This, latter, factor – when compared to that of the monkey in the saddle – is negligible – and completely so when one’s purpose in riding is pleasure and fitness rather than developing an insecure alpha-male delusion. I rest my case, your honour.

  7. phil says:

    Hi Steve. the idea of having a thinner one on the front comes from the fact that most of one’s weight is on the back. Maybe your plan to keep fat tyres on both is best. As it stands I have the big apple on the back and the tioga font one remains. Praps I’ll just get another 2.1″ apple when the front one’s time is up.
    Second thought from Steve – re weight: This ain’t testosterone city here. I am ancient, still kicking. These are 26″ tyres. The apple tyre is not heavy, neither was the tioga, both being thin sidewall bouncy tyres. When I say “ain’t heavy” I mean when compared to touring or knobblies for mountain bikes. Yes; compared to the racer’s tyres I spoze they are heavier. However, as wags often point out, taking a pee will alleviate you of more weight than we are considering in tyres. I fitted the apple yesterday hoping to go out for a spin on the cliffs but today is horizontal rain with strong gusts off the atlantic so I am cowering indoors dreaming of better. Meantime my lightweight Hobbs Blue Riband racer sits in the outhouse wondering when I am going to restore it (again) and pass it on to someone. I retired it because it is terrifying coming down steep hills due to it’s fork design and flimsy Reynolds tubes. Lovely to look at but too flexy and insecure. I got a Marin Point Reyes 2010 – totally stiff and a great thechnological leap in hydroforming, hydraulics and now a Rohloff hub. Sorted eh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.