Bicycle Rolling Resistance: Tire Rolling Resistance Tests and More

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Site and Business Model

  • Many appreciate the site as a rare, systematic testing resource in a niche domain, similar in spirit to deep-dive tech review sites.
  • Most data is free; a paid “Pro” tier exists.
  • A long subthread debates the phrasing “one-time payment” vs “$0.79/month”:
    • One side says it’s clear: you prepay for a fixed duration (30 days / 1 year / 2 years) with no auto-renewal; “per month” is just an amortized rate.
    • Others find “one-time payment” misleading because continued use requires repeated payments and sounds like lifetime access; they would prefer it be described explicitly as a non-auto-renewing subscription.

Testing Methodology and Real-World Relevance

  • Supporters value the controlled, roller-based rolling-resistance tests and puncture tests as a common baseline across brands and models.
  • Critics argue that metal-drum tests over-emphasize high pressure and skinny tires, and don’t account for “suspension losses” from real-world vibration of bike and rider.
  • Some riders report that fatter, softer tires feel and often are faster on rough surfaces, despite test results favoring higher pressures on smooth drums.
  • There is agreement that results should be interpreted with context, not as absolute real-world performance.

Tire Width, Pressure, and Aerodynamics

  • Ongoing debate:
    • One camp: wider, lower-pressure tires can be as fast or faster due to comfort and reduced vibration losses, especially on rough pavement, gravel, or dirt.
    • Another camp: above ~15–20 mph, aerodynamic drag matters more; narrower road tires (e.g., 25–28 mm) at moderate pressures are faster, especially on descents and smoother roads.
  • Several point out that differences between otherwise similar tires can be on the order of 10–20 W, which is noticeable for many riders; others say such gains are marginal for non-racers compared to comfort and rider fitness.

Grip, Off‑Road, and MTB/Gravel Use

  • Some wish for comparable, systematic grip testing; others note grip is hard to measure and highly surface-dependent, especially off-road.
  • Mixed views on BRR’s relevance for MTB and gravel:
    • Skeptics say roller tests don’t map well to rocks, roots, and variable terrain.
    • Others claim “fast on BRR tends to be fast everywhere,” at least as a useful heuristic.

Practical Priorities and Use Cases

  • Many non-racers prioritize comfort, flat resistance, and reliability (e.g., touring/city tires like Schwalbe Marathons) over small performance differences.
  • Some emphasize feel and confidence over lab numbers, especially as riders age or ride for transport.
  • A minority argue that obsessing over tiny rolling-resistance gains is “hyper-optimizing” unless you’re at a competitive level.