Bicycle Rolling Resistance: Tire Rolling Resistance Tests and More

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A niche site that lab-tests bicycle tire rolling resistance prompts both praise for its detailed, mostly free data and criticism of how realistic its smooth-drum tests are for real-world roads and trails. Commenters debate tire width, pressure, and construction, weighing rolling resistance against comfort, grip, aerodynamics, puncture protection, and use case (commuting, gravel, MTB, or racing), with many arguing that wider, lower-pressure tires can be as fast or faster outside perfectly smooth pavement. The site’s modest paid “Pro” model also draws scrutiny over marketing language like “one-time payment,” highlighting broader frustration with subscription-style pricing in cycling gear and media.

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.