The shape of bikes to come
wow its the same bike very dentist brand has been making for 15 years, except with even more proprietary junk and QA-Failed Bin SRAM instead of Entry Level Shimano
That guy who got killed by the electric scooter dirtbag was riding one of thoseI really do not understand the appeal, it's so shamelessly a cash grab aimed at people who open their wallets at the word SCIENCE, and it's permanently stigmatized by the association with Israel, genuinely how are they even in business?
Thats not a recumbent though....
>>2074857>le aero cutout>le aero rims>for knobby tires that create fucktons of turbulence, inherent rolling resistance by design, and are wider than le aero rims/frame negating all performance benefitsfurther proof that cyclists don't actually understand bicycles, or really any vehicle at all, and are merely meme obsessed base slaves
>>2074863Amen, brudda. Show us a correct design.
>>2074863>you're not allowed to optimize aerodynimcs if you want to use the wider tyre???>inherent rolling resistance by design, and are wider than le aero rims/frame negating all performance benefitsthat's not even true
i hate dropped stays
>>2074873[muffled rap music in distance]
>>2074861>That guy who got killed by the electric scooter dirtbag was riding one of thoseAnd nothing of value was lost.
>>2074875For a dick bike, I would unironically find that bike to be close to ideal looks-wise, if not for the fuckin specialized s on the head tube. It really channels the classic unc breaks frame aesthetic that was sadly lost when progress happened (I like dick breaks but they don't look as good)I hate specialized so much it's unreal though, so I do not feel any urge to acquire that thing. It is totally not because I cannot afford it, ok? It's a matter of principle. Let me tell you what I'd get if I had money. (insert something obscure and autistically researched to show how sophisticated I am)
>>2074863>inherent rolling resistance by designI'll give you that they are decidedly not aero, but 'Tals are successors to the 'Kings, and Kings already rolled stupidly fast even in lab tests. In real world, thin tires are entirely obsolete.
>>2074882what is traction and how does it work
>>2074882>'Tals are successors to the 'Kings, andArgotals?Hydrotals?Kryptotals?Xynotals?Rubantals?Magnotals?Trinotals?Maybe you should stop posting if you're this ignorant.
>>2074882>the hub is better so soft tires magically don't lose any energy anymore but also extra magically maintain perfect traction without deformation
>>2074877Please kill yourself.
>>2074877>DUIcycle
>>2074857The cause of unnecessary back strains to come
>>2074863design a better bike then you fatbodied cunt nigger
>>2074986buy me a pipe bender and a welder and i will
>>2074947>>2074902the rubber compound is the single biggest factorwider tires roll better than narrow ones, you can go look up the data on various tire manufacturer sites rnthe more you know
>>2074875Go make another overpriced aluminum bike Ron.
>>2074997yes, up to a point.And byciclerolllingresistance.com uses a rather small drum for their tests, which possibly favours tires that do well under significat deformation.Under a different testing scenario, there can be large penalties for wide tires on pavement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq9ydwkRt0Q&t=969s
>>2075002wish the guy on that website would quit testing the same fucking tires repeatedly. who keeps voting for this shit.Don't need 100 tests of the same Grand Prix 5000Don't need 40 tests of Pirelli P Zero tires that are literally the same fucking thingDon't need 50 tests of this __slightly__ different version of Vittorias that perform the same god damn thing.Don't need 100
>>2075016I only sub for a month at a time when it's new tires tiem, but one of my gripes with the site is that he publishes like one test of one line of tires that has like 18 sizes available, IDGAF what the performance of the 700x23 is if I'm not riding 700x23So although I've never participated in the voting I can understand why he's doing that
>>2074905The anon with dyslexia is propably refering to Conti Race Kings and Conti Dubnitals>>2075002It is questionable, whether such tiny drum lab tests without a rider can be transfered to real world riding at all. The trend goes to running testing rigs out in the field with some interesting new insights:https://www.renehersecycles.com/tires-and-pressure-new-research-and-what-it-means/
that a tire "rolls faster" makes no fucking sense as an engineering statement
>>2074863Youre slow.
>>2075037X amount of wats through the wheel + Y distance travelled over set period of time= Z rolling efficiency If the x remains constant and the Y changes you have a faster or slower rolling tire. I swear most engineers are actual retards.
>>2075039it would be more useful to describe the tire as having (fewer/less in) losses, not "being faster", and some of those losses are Good, Actually because they're associated with actually having grip. if you were to listen to bike nerds about what makes a good tire, you'd end up with 0.2mm of silicone sheeting around a three inch wide carbon fibre coil and it would be absolute dogshitsaying the tire is "faster" is pure marketing copy slop to appeal to retarded dentists who think the same pedaling speed will magically get them better times down the MUP because they got 120$ tires instead of 9$ ones. it is 100% a trick to fool (You) into thinking you will get a higher top speed despite ghost pedaling at a blistering 15kmh due to modern retardo gearing setupsyou'll notice that this sort of language almost never appears in marketing for tires for any other sort of vehicle and as you get to the "fastest" variant of a whole wheel with tire for any other sort of vehicle, you either see comparatively thin tires on fuckhuge rims for tarmac with the only limit being the wheel's structural integrity (and the driver's unwillingness to crush his spine whenever he hits a pebble), or "fuck it we ball" huge tires on tiny rims for offroad because the losses from a "slow" tire are outpaced by not having traction at allalso a big lol on >>2075035 because i am fond of calling out cyclists and bike "engineers" for trying to re-invent shit that the automotive world has called old hat for decades if not almost a century:>Why hasn’t anybody else tested tires on real roads under carefully controlled conditions until now?picrel has existed for 99 fucking years. literally. it was completed in 1927and even then there are LITERALLY specialized machines specifically for testing tires. wild how none of these ad rag magazines think to call up a company that has one
>>2075037coefficient of rolling resistance
>>2075050>>2075046>>2075039>>2075038>>2075037*hits crack pipe* u sayin i gotta in flate my tyre's?
>>2075051Nah.
>>2075046>would be more useful to describe the tire as having (fewer/less in) losses, not "being fasterYou're just arguing about semantics which is retarded>you'll notice that this sort of language almost never appears in marketing for tires for any other sort of vehicleFuel efficient tiresYou're so convinced you're smart but you're actually a fucking dimwit.
>>2074857If your bike doesn't look like this you're poor
>>2075393Yawn
>>2074902traction is simply the static friction between your tire and the ground times the normal forcerolling resistance is energy loss during tire shape restoration as it is deloadedthey are not necessarily the same thinga train has fuck all rolling resistance and literally tons of traction
>>2075051NO!!! DO NOT DO THIS> YOU HAVE TO RUN TUBELESS FOR LOWER PRESSURE
