Newly updated on 3/20/2010 !!! Al Morrison is back at it with his Crr data sets (just click on pdf links in the table after the jump)
|
Date |
File name |
revision # |
|
11/29/2006 |
1 |
|
|
12/11/2006 |
2 |
|
|
12/18/2006 |
3 |
|
|
01/10/2007 |
4 |
|
|
05/21/2007 |
5 |
|
|
05/31/2007 |
6 |
|
|
05/11/2008 |
7 |
|
|
11/18/2008 |
8 |
|
|
03/20/2010 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Users who would like to do custom sorting, or other data visualization can find an unformatted *.csv file here.
Additional reading/commentary on how these rolling resistance tests compare to the real world:
Forum Thread
Blog Entry
email us today with your own links that we can incorporate on this page.
Al Morrison's Bumpy Roller Data sets
|
Date |
File name |
revision # |
| 03/29/2007 | AFM_Bumpy_Data_BTR_rev1.pdf |
1 |
Trackback(0)
Comments (5)

written by kraig, February 23, 2010
Hi Steve,
Thanks for stopping by! :-)
I'd recommend you mosy on over to the forum ( http://forum.biketechreview.com ) and see if you can sweet talk Al into giving your test suggestion a go.
FWIW, I'd be very surprised if the lower pressure did anything but made things worse from a Crr perspectve on the rollers. I've also found similar trends when it comes to lower pressures and on-road testing as well (as noted in a couple links above).
Thanks for stopping by! :-)
I'd recommend you mosy on over to the forum ( http://forum.biketechreview.com ) and see if you can sweet talk Al into giving your test suggestion a go.
FWIW, I'd be very surprised if the lower pressure did anything but made things worse from a Crr perspectve on the rollers. I've also found similar trends when it comes to lower pressures and on-road testing as well (as noted in a couple links above).
written by Dodger, April 09, 2010
It looks to me, based on the .csv file, that the 'fat' tires are faster than the 'skinny' tires - at least the same tire by the same manufacturer. This holds for 7 out of 10 clinchers (with two having no difference), and 4 out of 5 tubulars. Note that the difference is greater than the std dev.
Any idea at what point in a climb weight become more significant than Crr? Or in a jump? More to the point, my guess is that it makes sense to go with 25s instead of 23s or skinnier. Am I off-base with this conclusion?
Any idea at what point in a climb weight become more significant than Crr? Or in a jump? More to the point, my guess is that it makes sense to go with 25s instead of 23s or skinnier. Am I off-base with this conclusion?
Write comment






It really depends on the specifics of the comparison you are wanting to make, and to generalize things would really be a disservice to you, I think. I think it would be tough to outperform (hey, keep in mind that bike racin' ain't a math problem, eh?
) a clincher veloflex record 20mm during a hillclimb (well, at least the VF record I have tested on my own rollers). That sucker is light, low Crr, and narrower than 25mm.


Just ready the dealio about the new IRC Tubeless tires.
Noticed that your tests are done inflating the tires to 120psi.
Our Road Tubeless tires are recommended to be run at 100 pounds or less depending on rider weight. At 100 pounds, you will experience the true benefits of Road Tubeless, including a more comfortable ride, and faster rolling on most road surfaces.
It would be cool if you could re-test at the recommended numbers and see the advantages.
Thanks. Cool site.
gpeace,
SB (Marketing for Hutchinson Tires North America)