Some Factor LS photos

Some random photos of the Factor from the Kodi trip and others.

Factor LS gravel bike - build and initial review

So earlier, i had written an article about why your first road bike should be a gravel bike.    Of course, while writing that, I was acutely aware that my 2 bikes at the time were a Specialized Venge and a Cervelo R5:  both of them fantastic bikes but neither really designed for being ridden off-road.

My wife and I take our bikes on cycling vacations - some are to places with great roads and others, to places where the roads can vary a lot.   One particularly favorite cycling destination is Bhutan - which has some lovely climbs on great tarmac, but also some very interesting jeep trails going into secluded valleys and forests.     While the Venge was my tarmac speed-machine, for my second bike, it made more sense for me to get a bike that would let me ride a wider range of roads.    And thus, with a very heavy heart, I decided to sell my Cervelo R5 frameset (one of the nicest bikes I have ever ridden - Hambini is an idiot), and replace it with a gravel bike.     

Gravel bikes come in a wide variety of styles, and while I wanted to have the option to go off-road, my primary riding was still going to be on tarmac of all types.    So I needed a gravel bike that was more road/race oriented.     My initial list had bikes like the Trek Domane, Trek Checkpoint, Look 695 RS, Open UP, 3T Explore and Cervelo Aspero.      If Cervelo had a distributor in India who knew their ass from their elbow, I would have likely purchased the Aspero - but they showed zero interest in selling me a bike and with the others, availability and pricing were issues.  

Then, as luck would have it, Factor announced the release of their LS gravel bike - a sub-1000gm frame weight, Factor's reputation for quality and something off the beaten track:   that got me interested and Vivek Bhateja of Mastermind Bikes got me a very competitive price on it, and thus deal was done.

THE BUILD

The bike arrived in early September.   My plan was to carry over most of the parts from the Cervelo onto the LS, but at the last minute, I decided to and try a Power2Max unit, sourced from the good folks of Happy Earth, as a change of pace from my usual Quarqs.  

Power2Max powermeter - trying something new after a decade of using Quarqs, 

That led to the first delay - I needed a BBRight to M30 bottom bracket.   Happy Earth ordered one but Customs did its thing and the package was delayed for nearly a  month, reaching me only around mid-October.   No worries - now that I had all the bits and bobs, I dropped the bike off to Pro Bikers to get it built.       And then the second delay happend:   two days later, I get a call from them, telling me that there was a problem with the seatpost clamp.    Apparently, the "Small Parts Box" that came with the frameset had the incorrect seatpost clamp.     An understandable mistake, given that this is a new model but I I really, really wanted to take this bike for a riding camp in Kodaikanal in 10 days time - and it would have been an absolute disappointment if that did not happen.

A frantic call to Mastermind led to a instant escalation with Factor - who responded like champs, and send the part over to me by DHL the very next day.     There was a small issue with an incorrect-entered pin code for my address, which led to an additional delay of 1-2 days, but I received the part well in time to have the bike built up.   Kudos to both Mastermind and Factor for solving the problem quickly.

The final build:

• Groupset:   Shimano Ultegra Di2
• Cranks:   Power2max Powermeter, 50/34 with 172.5mm Praxis Zayante carbon arms
• Handlebars:   3T Superergo 440mm
• Stem:   Zipp Sprint SL 100mm
• Seatpost:   Controltech 0 setback
• Pedals:   Speedplay Zero, stainless steel
• Wheels:   Roval CL50
• Cassette:   11-32 
• Rotors:  160mm front, 140mm rear
• Tires:   Specialized RapidAir 2Bliss 26mm, run tubeless
• Saddle:   Generic carbon jobbie off Ali Express

I have avoided all integrated/concealed cabling.   I have that on my Venge, it is brilliant to look at and concealing the cables is obviously going to make me win all the races I enter now - but it is also a pain in the ass to travel with.     In fact, that was one of the reasons I wanted a second bike:  something with a more traditional cockpit, for ease of dismantling for travel.

This above incarnation is my road-oriented guise of the bike, although I plan to replace the RapidAirs once they are done with 28-30mm tires for even more plush.     I also plan to put a pair of thicker, treaded tires on a pair of Lightbicycle AR36 wheels for more off-road/gravel usage, although I still have to decide what those tires are going to be:  am leaning towards a pair of Conti Terra Speeds or similar.    For now, that wheelset has a pair of S-Works Turbo 26 wheels on it.     

Pictured here with Lightbicycle 36mm wheels with S-Works Turbo tires

The frame came in 1086gm for a size 56, and the fork added 457gm to the build.      The bike, as built - with bottle cages but no bottles - clocked in at a little under 7.8kg.    With the lighter AR36 wheels, it is under 7.7kg.     For a serious lightweight, road-focused build, you can shave 200gm off the wheelset quite easily, 150gm by using lighter tires/tubes and perhaps another 150gm with a lighter stem and cassette.    That's without geting into exotic parts or even Dura Ace territory - damn impressive for a gravel bike.

RIDE QUALITY - FIRST IMPRESSIONS

While I bought the frame with certain expectations based on Factor's reputation as well as the race-oriented focus of the bike, the fact that it was so new meant that there were literally no reviews of the bike on the market.   I have to admit, I was a little concerned about how this bike would ride.       

One of the most critical attributes I look for in a bike is BB stiffness - a bike with some flex there may not actually be slower on the road (case in point - my old titanium Lynskey, which felt flexy but on which I have done some of my fastest rides ever), but I don't like how it rides.   The Cervelo R5 was one of the stiffest bikes I have ridden in terms of efficiency - pushing down on the pedals felt like pushing off a wall:  zero give.     And it matched that with very good comfort as well, making for a ride that was plush without being boring.   

Now, comparing a gravel bike to a Pro Tour level frameset is not a fair comparison - but hey, since I sold the latter to get the former, the Factor was going to undergo that comparison.      I built up the bike in time to get in a short test ride and then head to the afore-mentioned cycling camp in Kodaicanal for a long weekend.    

Great roads and a lot of climbing!

This included pretty much entirely of climbing (2300m on one day) and descending, with only 1 4km stretch that was flat - all of which gave me a good idea of the ride quality of the bike.

So let's get the big question out of the way:  was the BB/drivetrain as stiff as the Cervelo?   No, not really - it lacked that sense of implacable lack of give that greeted every pedal stroke on the R5.    But that's a hard ask of any bike (even my Venge doesn't achieve that).    By any other standard,  it's certainly very stiff and responsive.      On the climbs, when your legs are tired, BB flex feels as though the bike is sucking the energy away.   That was not the case here.      Put the power down, and the bike surges forward in a very satisfying manner - not once did I feel a sense of mushiness when pedaling.      

We got rained on during an extended descent - cold hands, pouring rain and steep hairpin curves on dirty/broken made for a very bad combo.    While I definitely was not going all out on the descents, I did choose to take some sharp lines when it was safe to do so, and the bike rewarded that with very confident and deliberate steering/handling.    There was no hint of wobble, no feeling of oversteer/understeer - all I had to do was pick my line and the Factor LS followed.     Very confidence-inspiring!

And on broken patches, even with road tires, the bike did a great job of attenuating the impact of that initial hit.    No, it  was not as cushy as my steel bike, but it was surprisingly comfortable - there were a few times when I was bracing myself for a pretty serious jolt coming to my arms, but the actual impact was a lot less than I expected.    

In short, this is pretty much what you would expect from a bike that is designed for riding on rough roads:   racy stiff but balanced with comfort:   perfect for an all-rounder.    And speaking of "designed for rough roads", the handling is surprisingly agile for a bike with a slacker head tube - the short chainstays and wheelbase help, I imagine.  As far as a trade-off between agility and stability goes, I never felt myself noticing one (or missing the other) more - which would make the Factor LS very balanced in terms of how it handles.

Cranks and valves not aligned, bottles still present, chimney.... this shot wouldnt make the Bike Vault!

In fact, balanced is the perfect way to describe the bike:  it is a very good mix of stiff in the right areas and comfortable in others (the dreaded "laterally stiff / vertically compliant" phrase comes to mind), and also balances agility vs stability, as mentioned earlier.       At no point during the ride did I ever find it lacking in any area - and that overall competence is what makes the Factor LS a very versatile bike.

What about the negatives?      There are a couple of minor ones, as it turns out.

The frame comes with mounting points for fenders and a bento box on the top tube.   Each of these holes are concealed by rubber plugs.   And these plugs get lost very easily.    In the time I have had it, the bike has been in the car a lot - to/from the bike shop to get built, to Kodi and back and also in a van each day to/from the start/end point of the day's ride.    In that time, I have managed to lose 3 of the 4 rubber plugs, leaving each screw hole exposed.      It is hardly the end of the world and perhaps for people who don't travel a lot with their bike, this may not be an issue - but I gotta say, seeing the gaping holes there affects my Roadie OCD something fierce.    I have asked Mastermind to see if Factor can send in a few more plugs - given how good Factor's service has been so far, I expect this won't be an issue.   But I will always be hoping I don't lose those replacements in the future!    Perhaps a less fussy alternative on the next iteration of the bike?    Or, of course, you could do what most normal people would do and just put regular bolts in there.

I have, since, replaced the missing plug with a bolt, but it still bothers my OCD

The second is that initially, attaching the rear through axle was initially very finicky.   The RD hanger was moving a little and you need to push it just so, in order to be able to thread the TA easily.    Upon follow up with Factor - who were super-responsive, as always - it turned out to have been user error when the bike was built:  the mechanic simply did not tighten the through axle enough.    So this negative is not on Factor.

   

SUMMARY

So far, I am very pleased with the bike indeed (and no, it isn't just the new bike honeymoon phase).   

Like all right-thinking roadies, how a bike looks is almost as important as other attributes.   And if you are only going to sell a particular model in one color, some combo of black, white and red is always the safest (looking at you, Cannondale: "I want a bike in taupe" said no roadie, ever).   Factor obviously pays attention to the Tao of Guadzilla, as this raw/black/white colorway shows.    

Truth be told, I would have preferred a custom paint option, as Factor offers with their other bikes, but apparently they were unable to do so in 2020 due to excessive demand.   Fair enough.    And my desire for a different paint is mainly because I already have a fully-blacked out Venge, and so wanted something different.   I was considering getting the bike re-painted and bidding goodbye to the warranty - however, the exposed-carbon paint with a glossy clearcoat looks very sharp and now that I have it, I no longer feel any urgency to get it repainted.  

The Factor also clocks in lighter than most gravel bikes out there, including far more expensive models from Trek, Specialized and others, including versions with trims like S-Works, SLR, EVO, CLX and such:  all of which are priced a fair bit more than the LS.   While bike weight really doesn't matter that much from a performance point of view, let's face it - there is something very cool/fun about having a light bike.     Even an aero geek like me gets warm fuzzies at seeing a low number on the scale.       Another big point to the Factor LS.

As far as performance goes, this is a fantastic all-rounder and for me, the perfect complement to the aggressive Venge.     This is a bike I can smash out long rides in (included 5.5 hours a few days ago) without getting beaten up and while still retaining that agile, racy feel.   

Not all days are hammerfests - sometimes, you want to celebrate a lovely ride in the mountains with food and great views

So to recap:   a bike with top-tier performance, a price that is lot lower than comparable options elsewhere, the ability to build it up exactly the way you want, pricing that is comparable with international levels and great service, both locally and from the manufacturer.       If you are looking for a road bike that can do it all - fast rides, long endurance efforts and off-road - the Factor LS should definitely be on your list.

So you just bought a bike - what now?

 One good thing about the pandemic is that it has encouraged a lot of people to buy bikes.   While The Guadz in general don't believe that every cyclist has to be their friend, they agree that this is, for the most part, a Good Thing.     

But buying a bike and making it a sustainable interest are 2 different things.   Several of my friends have purchased bikes and are using them to various degrees - some have made it a part of their riding habit, and others have ridden it a few times and then stashed it away.   

The motivation for riding has to come from within you.   However, there are things you can do which will make getting started in the sport - as well as continuing with it - a lot easier.   

Here are a few tips, in no particular order, on what to do once you get a bike.

1)   Learn to fix flats yourself:    Punctures happen.   Unlike car flats, which are a pain in the ass to fix, you can fix a cycle flat very easily and in a few minutes.    To do so, you need the following:  (1)  2 tire levers (3 is better, in case one snaps), (2) a spare tube and (3) a mini pump.     Spend 15 minutes on Youtube watching a video on how to change a flat and you are good to go.    It is also recommended you get a patch kit - on the ride, replace the tube and when you are home, use the patch kit to fix the hole on the punctured tube.    The patch actually makes it stronger than before.  

You can carry all these parts either in a ziplock bag in your cycling jersey pocket - or, if you are just cycling in a regular tee-shirt, put them in a saddle bag that goes underneath your bicycle saddle.

Puncture repair kit - patches, tire lever, tire sanding buff and glue.   You can also get pre-glued patches which don't require glue

One tip - when replacing a tube in the tire, make sure you find the cause of the puncture and remove it from the tire first.   Or your second tube is also going to go flat in no time.   Second tip - get a mini pump with a flexible hose   It is easier to use on the road.

Punctures are an inevitable part of cycling and should not be something to be feared.  

2)  Get a track pump for home use:   Tires work best if they are regularly pumped.   I pump my road bike tires up before every ride, for example.     You can use the mini pump to fill up your tires but they are a pain in the ass to use daily.    A track pump (or a floor-standing pump) is far easier to use on a daily basis.

Good track pumps are a little expensive, true - but well worth it.  Remember - the easier you make your cycling experience, the more likely you are to continue with it.

3) Padded shorts are your friend:      If you just commuting or riding short distances, you can ride wearing what you are comfortable.   But if you plan to get into sports riding, consider buying a pair of padded shorts.  Padded shorts make your bum feel more comfortable - get them, dont get gel seat covers.   Gel seat covers are a horrible idea and actually increase friction on your perineum, which can cause numbness in your groin.

Padded shorts should be snug-to-tight.     This is because their other purpose, for male riders, is to keep the boys snug and out of the way.    You do not want your privates moving around when you cycle - that hurts.   Tight shorts prevent this.

This is how you tuck in your boys in a bib.   Fold them up and to the side.

And this is why bib shorts should be black, atleast in the front, unless you want to flaunt it

If you are still getting some friction, feel free to slather some Vaseline on your unders.   Also, needless to say, you do NOT wear underwear under padded shorts.     They go against skin.     

Good padded shorts can actually get very expensive - people that ride a lot of miles each week spend Rs 10k or more for high quality padded shorts from Assos, etc.     You dont have to spend so much yet.   But get a decent pair of padded shorts from Decathlon or, better yet, Apace or Heini (support local) and you will be a lot more comfortable on the bike.   If you are too self-conscious about wearing shorts like this, put on a pair of running shorts over them if you must.   If budget allows, get riding-specific baggy shorts.  The inseam stitching on the crotch is more comfortable.  

PS - cycling jerseys are nice to have - they have pockets in the back where you can stash stuff (food, phone, tools, etc).    However, they are not essential.   You can get by with any kind of moisture-wicking technical t-shirt or even a singlet, if need be, and stash your goodies in a saddle bag or a small "bento-box" on top of the top tube.

   

4)  Get your bike fit sorted:   I have written some articles on this site about how to achieve a good bike fit - read them.   Also read other sources online.  A bike fit done by an experienced professional will nail your fit down really well - but even as a relative beginner, you can get fairly close to an optimal fit by playing around with parts yourself - adjusting the height and fore-aft of your saddle, the height of your bars and the size of your stem.       Fit is an always-evolving thing - so don't feel locked into one position.

Cycling is no-impact sport.  You should not finish a ride with hurting knees, hurting lower back, numb hand or a numb crotch.    Any of those is typically a sign of a bad bike fit.  

If you are not sure, you can always post a video of yourself cycling on BikesZone Reborn on Facebook, and get some feedback from people who know what they are doing.

5) Get a multi-tool:   This is really handy thing to have when you need to do some minor work on your bike, be it on the road or at home (although at home, full sized tools are more convenient).   There is a trade-off between having too many and too few tools - a multi-tool which tries to cram in every imaginable tool becomes a pain in the ass to use.   And obviously, you don't want too spartan a multi-tool either.    For road use, I like having a multi-tool that has a Philips screwdriver and #3, #4 and #5 Allen keys:  it is small and compact, and easy to carry.

Sample multi-tool

If you want a more feature-rich multi-tool, you can get one which has a spoke key, a chain breaker tool, and maybe even a built-in tire lever.

All the tools you want in one, and then some!

6)  Find other people to ride with:   If you are just doing loops around your housing society, it is one thing (a very dull thing, but whatever).   But one of the nice benefits of cycling is being able to go explore nicer roads and countryside.  When you are starting out, it can be a bit intimidating to think of doing so alone.   Find some company to ride with - for one, there is safety in numbers.   Second, if you have a problem, a more experienced rider can help you solve it.    Thirdly, it is usually more fun.    Lastly, it is a great way to stay motivated.

You don't have to do all your rides with others.  There is value to riding alone, at your own pace, as well.   But when you are starting out, company is a good thing.   You can then later decide to go off on your own.

Do note - do try to make sure you ride with a group with a pace and interests that are similar to yours.   If you want a leisurely Sunday ride with chai and samosas on the way, you may not want to join a group of speed-focused roadies who are looking for a suffer-fest.  That won't be fun for you, and it won't be fun for them.     

7)   Progress sensibly:    Everyone wants to get a 100km ride or a 30kph ride or whatever.   That's all well and good.  But really, riding 100km at a very slow speed and then ending up sore for the next 5 days isn't really that great an achievement.   It may impress your non-cycling friends and it may even be a big achievement to you initially, but the reality is that it is better to build your fitness up to the point where you can ride 100km regularly without it feeling like an achievement.   

So if you have just started cycling, refrain from focusing on social media adulation and instead, develop your fitness.     Start out slow, build up your weekly volume.    Do atleast one long ride on the weekend (how long that is depends on your fitness - it should tire you out nicely, but should not break you) and do a few rides on weekdays.      In fact, it is better if you stop worrying about distance and just focus on time when you are starting out - that will avoid an excessive emphasis on distance and allow you to focus more on volume. 

Use this time to do things like learning to improve your cycling cadence (you should be cycling at a relatively easier gear and spinning your legs more), figuring out your gearing, getting comfortable on the bike 

8)  Be safe on the road:    If you are in India, you know what the traffic is like.   Be careful.   The helmet is there for protection if you fall off the bike - it is not there to protect you if you get smooshed by a car.    

Be visible - lights are your friend:  bright light in the front, flashing red light at the back, even in daytime.  Be predictable.   Keep an alert eye on your surroundings.  Slow down in traffic or congested areas.      If you are in doubt, stop entirely rather than risk getting pasted.

A few tips:

• Always ride in the same direction as vehicular traffic.   For running and walking, it is recommended that you run into traffic.  Not for cycling.     The relative speeds get too high if you are riding into traffic.     
• As far as possible, stay out of the way of motorists.   If there is a shoulder, use that.     If there is a lane with more 2-wheelers, stay there.   
• Sometimes, you have to share a lane with cars.    Your natural tendency will be to stay to the edge of the lane.   However, what this does is encourage some jackass in a car - most likely an Innova with commerical plates - to pass you very closely in the same lane.   That can be very dangerous.   In such cases, it may be better for you to be more assertive about "taking the lane" (ie, occupying the middle) - or finding safety in numbers with 2-wheelers.    If you are unsure, consider avoiding such roads as much as possible
• If you ARE going to take the lane, make sure it is clear before you move out.   Suddenly swerving into the lane is recipe for getting creamed.
• Also, if you are occupying a lane, signal to the car behind you - I generally give them a hand sign to ask for patience, and then I try to get out of the way as soon as it is safe (or maybe the road opens up and they have room to pass me safely)
• If you are going to stay towards the edge of the lane, atleast stay far out enough that you have room to swerve towards the SIDE of the lane if some unexpected pothole comes up.
• Never, EVER swerve into the traffic side unless you are 100% clear it is safe - hit the pothole or stop if you must, instead.

Be very aware of how drivers act.   For example:   on a two lane road, if there is no traffic, typically cars will pass you in the other lane.   However, if there is a slow moving truck - usually in the right lane - then cars will try to overtake them on the left:  which is where you are.     So if you hear a truck coming by on the far lane, be careful of a car passing you very close by.

Roads vary.  Traffic conditions vary.   These are not rules, but some ideas to keep in mind - feel free to adapt them to your specific riding conditions.   

9)  Learn more about your bike, maintenance and upgrade options:    Properly maintained bikes go years without issues.   I lived by the seaside for 17 years and rode in the rain and on broken roads, and never had a mechanical.      Park Tools is a great website for learning maintenance.     Specifically, focus on keeping your drive train (chainrings, chain and cogs) clean and well-lubed, and give your bike some TLA once a week with soapy water and a sponge/cloth.    Your bike will love you back.

Also, while not essential - upgrades are fun and can give your bike a new life.     New bar tape to add a pop of color.   New tires are almost always a big improvement over the stock heavy POSes that come with the bike.    New wheels can glam up your bike and shave as much as 500gm off the weight.    Will these necessarily help you go faster?   Not at all.   But a bling bike is a bike you are excited about - and that only makes you more excited about riding it.     

10)  Dont waste money on fancy nutrition:   If you are riding for 60- 90 minutes, you don't need electrolytes or nutrition.   Water is fine.    Maybe a banana, tops.   For longer rides, you can get pre-packaged gels, bars, etc.   Or you can just take a couple of bananas and a Snickers bar.     After 2.5 hours on a hot day, nothing beats a cold Coke for that extra kick to take you home.

I used to ride 100km in the middle east - with the temperature in the mid 40s at the start - with just water and bananas, and a Cola + snack after 2 hours.    That's how I still ride.  Gels and stuff are saved for race-day and maybe a few trial rides before.    Your mileage may vary, but don't feel the need to overdo nutrition.     Like I said, 60-90 minutes should be absolutely fine with just 1-2 bottles of water - and if you are starting out, that is likely the duration of your rides anyway. 

The most important thing to do, however, is ride.   Sounds obvious, but many people are too busy looking for the perfect opportunity to go riding, or always have excuses for why they cannot do so.   Work, family, etc.   Rubbish.   You can always find a way to make a few hours a week to ride - all you need to do is prioritize the cycling.     Set up your bike and clothes the night before, get up and go.

For all the obsessing we do about bicycles, gear, training, etc, remember that this is a very simple sport - get out and ride.    Eddy Merckx, when asked about how to get better at cycling, came up with a very pithy and very appropriate answer:  Ride More.   That still holds.

The Argument AGAINST (too) low tire pressure - and too wide tires

So I had written a post earlier about the argument for wider tires and posted it, among other places, on BikesZone Reborn.      A few people raised some very interesting questions and that made me dig into things a bit deeper and email a few wheel makers.   

While the argument is sound, I have found what appear to be a few discrepancies which apply mainly to those who are looking to optimize speed and get every marginal gain possible.     Please note this last statement, because it provides context for the rest of this analysis (which is going to be very focused on very minor differences).  

Before we get into that, let me recap the argument for wider/softer tires: 

- For a given pressure, rolling resistance (RR) decreases with tire size

- Increasing the tire pressure actually reduces rolling resistance (atleast on smooth surfaces)

- However, in the real world, surfaces are not smooth and as you increase tire pressure, vibration losses start to increase and beyond a certain point, they go up significantly.

So in short, there is an optimal tire pressure where the sum of rolling resistance and vibration losses are minimized.      And if in doubt, it is better to have too low a pressure (and deal with 1-2W of increased RR) than have too high a pressure (and deal with 5-10W of increased vibration losses).

Before we go further, one thing to keep in mind, however - the difference in rolling resistance with tire sizes and pressure is quite small - less than a watt when you go up a tire size, and maybe 1W or so for every 10psi pressure change.    See this table from the previous article:

As you can see, a wider tire has less than 1W of difference in terms of RR for a given pressure.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Well, the problem is two-fold.   Let's start with the graph of rolling resistance and vibration losses as discussed in the previous article.   It looks as follows:

Let's look at just the 25c tire for now - its rolling resistance is depicted by the line in blue and decreases with tire pressure.    On the other hand, the vibration loss for the tire (the green line) increases with tire pressure.     At some point, there is an optimal point where the sum of the two - ie, the total energy losses - are minimzed.

Now, if you take a 28c tire and plot its rolling resistance curve, it will be the line in red.   That line is going to be slightly below the RR curve of the 25c tire, as you might expect (RR for a thicker tire is lower for a given pressure).

However, based on info I got  one in reply to a question sent to one of the top makers of aero wheels in the world, the vibration curve does not change too much by tire width - for a given surface, that curve is dependent almost entirely on the tire pressure.     So the vibration curve remains the same - the line in green.

That means that the wider tire will indeed have lower total resistance.    This is what the brands have been telling us  so far, right.

HOWEVER - because the curve of the 28c tire is very close to the curve of the 25c tire (remember - less than 1W difference in RR between the two sizes), the optimal point for the 28c tire is going to be very close to the optimal point for the 25c tire.       Heck, even the optimal point for a 32c tire is going to be very close to the optimal point for the 25c tire.

And that is where the problem begins.   If you look at the Silca chart I had referenced in my earlier article, the optimal point for a 25c tire is in the 90-110psi range for asphalt:

So by extension, the optimal point for the 28c or even 32c tire should also be in the same ballpark.      While we can expect some improvements, those improvements will not be huge, simply because the curves don't change that much for 25 vs 28mm tires.

Also, this improvement will be in the same ballpark tire pressure range as well.    Let's be generous and assume 10psi lower - that means an optimal range of 80-100psi.    However, the new wheelsets from Enve and Zipp are all coming with a maximum recommended pressure of 70psi.    So what gives, there?

That is problem #1.

And now, let's get to the second issue - aerodynamics.    We haven't considered the effect of a wider tire (on a suitable optimized rim) vs a narrower tire (on a correspondingly optimized rim).     I have searched high and low, but have been unable to find any data comparing the two.   

The closest I have come is to something from DT Swiss's website, which looks as follows:

According to this, wider tires do have a disadvantage in aero, especially as speeds increase (whether that cut-off is 35kph, a bit higher or a bit lower doesn't matter so much).   

So in short - when we go to a wider tire, we are looking a rolling efficiency improvement that is less than a 1W for a given tire pressure.   But when speeds increase, there is a larger aerodynamic penalty.  

So what exactly ARE we gaining with lower pressure, especially at higher speeds (ie, the very sort of speeds for which we buy expensive carbon wheels)?       Comfort?   Sure.    That is important.   If these wheels were marketing as "endurance wheels", balancing speed and comfort, I would have no problems with things.     

To be fair, Zipp and Roval are both calling their new wider wheels "fastest allround" wheels, implying they will be the fastest for a wide range of surfaces - and for rougher roads, like unfinished concrete or chipseal, lower pressures make a lot of sense as the point of optimal pressure is a lot lower.   And Silca's studies show that it is better to be lower (a lot lower, even) than optimal pressure rather than even a little higher.     So trading off a couple of watts for all these benefits makes a lot of sense for most of the riding.

But what does that mean for people who want to squeeze out the maximum speed for their watts and so want the absolute fastest wheels for riding on good tarmac - eg, for ITTs or triathlons?    Does that mean that narrower rims/wheels are still faster?   There is no data that clearly shows this to be the case.  

So what's going on here?

Let me be clear:  I am going to rule out "it is a conspiracy to sell more wheels".    I'll leave such simple-minded nonsense to 5-year old Youtubers with a questionable track record of telling the truth.      It does not work that way.     While the bicycle industry certainly has a track record of hyping very marginal gains and selling snake oil, their claims also rarely *contradict* science (as opposed to merely being hard to prove/disprove).       Even if one company were to falsify science and put out an inferior product, it would leave them vulnerable to independent tests and to competitor products.   The market does not work like that.       When Zipp, ENVE, etc release a wider rim, it could be that the benefits of this are marginal or even non-existent - but it is definitely not going to be WORSE (atleast not as per their analysis).

What options are left, in that case?    A few things to keep in mind:

- The above analysis is cobbled together using analysis from different sources.     Differences in methodologies could account for the difference in numbers, and they may not be directly comparable

- The analysis by Zipp, ENVE, etc comes up with a different optimal point from the one shown on Silca's blog.   Silca's blog uses a total rider+bike weight of 190lb - a different number shift the curve and also potentially change its shape

- Differences in tires and rider weight could also change the shape of the curve

- I have not factored in the physiological cost of reduced comfort and its effect on ability to put down power.   Eg, my titanium bike was never the most exciting of rides, but over longer distances, I have done some of my fastest rides on it.    Would the comfort gains realized from giving up 1-2W in rolling efficiency result in the ability to put down 20-30W more later?   I don't know - but I do think that if the manufacturers had analyzed this, they would have referenced it.   As far as I know, no one has.

- In the real world, the odds of consistently encountering smooth roads - even during races - is fairly low.     So as earlier, taking the 1-2W hit in overall rolling efficiency may be worth the trade-off of not losing 10-15W when the road gets rougher.      So it isnt worth making a wheel optimized just for very smooth roads.

Either way, I think this is still developing science and we haven't reached steady state yet.      

I also suspect that for absolute, optimized efficiency, there is an upper limit to how wide/how soft we can go.     32mm may be great for everyday riding, but if you want to save those 1-2W, you may be better off in the 25-28mm range and north of 80psi.

Questions or comments?   Post on our Facebook group, BikesZone Reborn

The argument for wider tires

Those of you who have been riding road bikes for a while "know" that the fastest tires are 23c tires, filled to 110psi, right?  In fact, for time trials, you may even have used 20c tires filled to even higher pressures.     That was the way.

In theory, it is correct - but recent studies are increasingly showing that this is generally true only in ideal cases.   Tires filled to higher pressures are faster but only on really smooth surfaces, like indoor tracks.     Narrower tires are also more aero, but again, only in zero yaw (when the wind is coming head-on).   In the real world of imperfect roads and wind coming from various angles, this is no longer true.

Some of these conclusions fly against what many of us have "known" to be true for all these years.  In addition, there is a lot of misinterpreted versions of this info online as well.   This article is meant to be a primer to help you cut through the noise.    Resources for additional information are provided at the end of the article.


WIDER TIRES HAVE LOWER ROLLING RESISTANCE

When you sit on your bicycle, your tires deform, creating a contact patch that touches the road.     The area of this contact patch is such that it offsets the weight of the rider+bike.   When two tires are filled to the same pressure, the area of this contact patch is the same - after all, the contact patch is supporting the same force (weight of rider+bike) with the same pressure.

Tire Contact Surface (Source:  DT Swiss)

So what does this mean?  We know that Area = Length x Width - so for a wider tire, the length is going to be lower.

This, in turn, leads to lower tire sag and results in lower rolling resistance.     Obviously, this holds true to equal air pressures - ie, a 28mm tire will have lower RR than a 23mm tire at the same pressure.     Drop the pressure too much, and rolling resistance increases.

Here is an example of tire size, pressure and RR, as measured on a drum:

Source:   BicycleRollingResistance.com (Link at the end of the article)

As you can see - wider tires have lower rolling resistance.   But dropping the pressure does result in an increase in rolling resistance.   

However, keep in mind that this is based on a test done on drums.   When this experiment was replicated on various road conditions, it gave rise to the next point, namely...


LOWER PRESSURE IS FASTER ON IMPERFECT ROADS

I don't know where you live, but in most parts of India, you are not likely to have perfect tarmac.    And when the tarmac is imperfect, tires filled to high pressure will cause the bike and rider to bounce up and down - this doesn't have to be extreme:  even the force that causes small vibrations transmitted up your frame and body is energy that is coming from your pedaling.       Compounded over the course of a long ride, that's a fairly significant loss of energy.   

This loss of energy is referred to as impedance - you can think of this as the extra force when you get off smooth tarmac onto bumpy asphalt.    Then there is also casing losses - the loss of energy caused by your tire rubber compressing and expanding when your tires or wheel bounce - or even micro-bounce - over rough surfaces (which is not perfect in energy retention - some energy is transferred as heat)

Here is what the graph of total resistance (CRR + impedance + casing loss) looks like for different surfaces:

Source:  Silca (link at the bottom)

As you can see, as tire pressure increases, total resistance does reduce - up to a point, but after that, it rises up very significantly as well.    So in each case, there is a "sweet spot" which represents the ideal tire pressure - and in this case, for, say, rough asphalt, that is a fair bit lower than the 110-120psi that many people are used to.

Keep in mind that the efficiency losses are not symetrical - take a look at this chart, which shows a change in resistance when you change the tire pressure by 10psi over optimal:

Source:  Silca

As you can see, if you err on the side of too low pressure, there isnt a very significant change in wattage - 1-2W loss only with a 10psi reduction.   On the other hand, increasing the pressure beyond optimal results in a pretty significant increase in watts required. 

So if you aren't sure about what kind of roads you are going to encounter, it is better to be err on the side of lower pressure than higher.

The one downside to lower pressure used to be (and still is) the risk of pinch flats - go over a pothole at too high a speed and you flat your tire.       However, with the advent of tubeless technology, you are now able to get the benefits of riding at lower pressure without the risk of pinch flats.


WIDER IS AERO - KINDA

The early days of aero involved V-shaped airfoil shapes (NACA profiles), based on lessons in aerodynamics learned from planes.    But the thing is -  bicycles don't move at aeroplane speeds and without getting into the details of aerodynamics, they are more prone to facing apparent sidewinds (aka, wind coming from an angle or yaw).     This results in differential air pressures on either side of the airfoil shape - which is great on a plane (it lets it fly!), but is not so good on a wheel, as it results in sidewards force. 

Anyone who has ridden deep sections wheels on a windy day knows what that feels like - the wheel may be fast in no wind, but the moment there is a wind, it becomes a struggle to hold it steady, which defeats all the aero gains.

So the focus shifted from aerodynamics at 0 yaw to aerodynamics across a range of wind angles (0-15 or 0-20 degrees, typically).   This resulted in rim shape evolving from V-shaped to the more commonly-used U-shaped or toroidal shapes in vogue today.     The purpose of this was to improve the range of wind angles at which a wheel would provide an aerodynamic benefit.

(Note my use of the word "apparent wind angle" - that refers to the angle of wind as seen from the rider's perspective.   It depends on two things-  the actual speed and direction of the wind, and also the speed of the rider.   Faster riders generally see wind at a lower range of angles, whereas slower riders see wind at a larger of angles)

The advent of disc brakes - and the fact that it allowed manufacturers more freedom in rim shape - has changed the goals of wheel design these days.   Manufacturers are now increasingly thinking of overall speed - not just aerodynamic speed - and factoring in tire width and lower pressures into their wheel design.     After all, what is the point of building a wheel that is 2W faster with 23c tires, if you lose 10W in impedance losses in real world use? 

So yes, looking purely at aero, a narrow wheel with thin tires would indeed end up being faster in a wind tunnel.     But they would be very twitchy in crosswinds (poorer drag characteristics and also greater side force) and in addition, suffer from the increase in resistance described in the earlier sections. 

So optimizing speed basically involves balancing aerodynamic benefits (which depends on a rider's speed) vs impedancy/RR losses.   And this, in turn, depends on how a given wheel is designed.   For example, DT Swiss has the following recommendation for their wheels:

Roval also recommends using 26mm tires with their CLX64 wheels, even though the 24mm tires test a little faster in the wind tunnel.

So in practical terms - wider = better, although the exact point of "how wide is wide enough" depends on your speed and road conditions.

Do note, however -  in order to get the maximum aero efficiency out of your wheelset, the tire width should be no more than 95% of the width of the rim at the brake track.     This creates the most aerodynamic profile and results in improved aero gains across a range of yaw angles.   A tire that has a bulbous profile (much thicker than the rim) has a very heavy aero penalty.    Thanks to disc brakes, bikes can now take wider rims, which in turn allow wider tires.

And while on the subject of tire width:  even regular 23mm tires, when mounted on wider rims, will measure out wider as they get spread out more.      Eg, on my 21mm internal width rims, a pair of tires with a stated size of 24mm actually measures out to 28mm.     So don't go by the nominal size measured on the case - actually measure the tyres to see where you are ending up.


SUMMARY & PARTING THOUGHTS

So in summary, all this means that you need to find the right balance of tire width and pressure - and for a lot of people riding on less than perfect roads, that means wider tires/lower pressures.

A few guidelines to  consider:

• The ideal tire pressure depends on your weight and surface conditions
• The rougher the surface, the lower your ideal tire pressure
• It is better to err on the side of slightly lower pressure than slightly higher pressure
• If you are about maximizing aero, make sure that the outer width of your wheel, at around the brake track, is 105% of the measured width of the tire

At the time of writing this article, 28mm (measured width) is around the optimal width for  uncompromised speed on smooth tarmac, whereas 30-32mm would be the real-world "optimal" width that balances speed, comfort and efficiency.     Keep in mind these are just ballpark estimates, not hard-and-fast rules. 

There are tradeoffs, of course.    To get the benefit of these tire widths, you may need a disc frame - and the extra weight/maintenance issues that entails.     If you are running lower pressure, you may also need to run tubeless to minimize pinch flats - and that is a whole different can of worms.    And of course, if you live in a place with really smooth asphalt, you are good with thin tires pumped to high pressures.   Or if you don't deal with a lot of wind, you can go with narrower-profile aero wheels.

What is missing from all the analysis so far is the qualitative effect of being less fatigued on a  rider's ability to maintain power.      Does the fact that you havent gotten beaten up by the roads for the last 2-3 hours make you fresher and more able to maintain power?

Brands like HED, Zipp, Enve, Roval and more are all releasing wheels that measure 30mm or wider (outer diameter) with an inner diameter of 21-25mm makes it very clear that wide is here to stay.       While we can always debate the magnitude of the benefits, no company would deliberately release a product that was worse - there are too many independent tests being conducted these days to risk that.      So that fact that almost all the big brands have moved in this direction (HED has been banging the drum of wider rims for nearly a decade now!) supports this as well.

Personally, having ridden wider tires, I find the benefits to be very much worth it.     I do not notice any increase in required wattage in going from 23/25mm tires to 28mm, but i definitely find an increase in comfort.      

Hell, I have even started doing some group rides using Panaracer Gravelking 35mms, which measure a whopping 37mm on my wheels - I am sure it is a little slower than my normal race-oriented tires, but that difference is not as much as one might imagine.      For sure, on tarmac, they dont feel as fast - but  "feeling fast" and "being fast" are 2 different things:   the softer tires dont feel as fast because they deform around road imperfections, as opposed to bouncing on them - and that is the very same reason they actually are fast.     Certainly, the difference in power required to hold the same speed is lower than my ability to notice.    And if the road gets even slightly rough, there is a huge advantage. 

I am convinced enough to make 32mm my "normal" riding tire width, with 25-28mms reserved for races or fast group rides where I am barely hanging on for life.      In fact, I have just sold off my Cervelo R5 (one of the nicest bikes I have ridden) to get a Factor LS because I want to make 32-35mm tires my daily riding tires.

Note, of course - all this depends on the wider tire also being equally (or almost equally) fast-rolling.   That is not always the case.      In my experience, Panaracer Gravelking Slicks are very nice, fast wider slicks, as are Continental GP5000s.   Rene Herse also makes very fast wide tires (no personal experience, however).    So don't expect to put on touring/commuting tires with a lot of puncture protection and expect the same kind of speeds as a race-oriented thinner tire.

Questions?   Feel free to ask on our Facebook group, BikesZone Reborn.


FURTHER READING

Here are some links that do a very good job explaining the rationale.   Note that they are all manufacturer sites, but I have chosen them because they have made the science more accessible to laypeople.    You can dispute the magnitude of those numbers, but the science is solid.

BicycleRollingResistance - a review of CRR, tire width and pressure
Zipp and Total System Efficiency
DT Swiss on Endurance and balancing Aero vs Efficiency
Silca Blog on Rim and Tire Width - Effect on Aerodynamics
November Bicycles:  Wider is Better - Until It Isnt
Roval - Designing Aero Wheels Around Wider Tires
Slowtwitch article on Tire Pressure and Rolling Resistance
Silca Blog on Tire Rolling Resistance and Impedance
Active - Are Wide Wheels Faster
Enve - Real World Fast

Your first road bike should be a gravel bike with disc brakes

The typical progression for a new cyclist is as follows:

Stage 1 - he starts out thinking that he needs a mountain bike, because, you know, suspension, disc brakes, they look bad ass.    So he buys one, and rides it for a bit before realizing that it is utter rubbish, that the suspension does nothing more than absorb energy, the cheap disc brakes dont have a lot of stopping power and the entire bike is a pig and rides like one, too.

And thus enlightened, he moves on to to the next phase.   Or maybe he was warned off by a friend who knows bikes and avoided the entire mess that is Stage 1.    Or maybe he looks at road bikes, get scared off by the prices and decides to compromise.    Regardless, he is now in Stage 2 of his cycling journey:  he increases his budget and buys a hybrid.    This one is a bit better.    A higher budget means quality parts, the brakes actually work and while the bike may have suspension, it also works (hallelujah!).    The cyclist finally starts to understand the meaning of the phrase "you get what you pay for".   

For many cyclists, Phase 2 is sufficient.   If they just want to ride 15-20 min a day for exercise, or use the bike to run errands, or whatever, a hybrid is all the bike they need - and also the ideal bike for their requirements.    But other cyclists get hooked to the sport.    They actually enjoy the act of riding (as opposed to merely posting cycling memes online), and want to ride more - longer distances and faster.    And now they are ready to move on to Stage 3 - getting a road bike.

But stage 3 comes with some problems.   One is price.   Not much that can be done about that (see:  "you get what you pay for").   I suggest selling drugs or perhaps a kidney.     

The other is concern about  usability.  Maybe you have really broken roads where you are and are concerned about comfort.   Or maybe you want a bike you can ride on tarmac, and perhaps also take onto some light trails, or go exploring some country roads where you don't know what you might encounter.   And that has held you back.

Well, gravel bikes are the answer to all of that - read on to learn why.

DISC BRAKES SHALL SET YOU FREE

In the old days (read:  as late as 5 years ago), road bikes came with rim brakes.    They were fine as far as stopping power went, but they did limit the maximum rim and tire width that could fit in them.  Then carbon wheels started becoming popular - and it only took one ride in the rain on carbon wheels and rim brakes to realize that this was a really, really crappy idea:  braking was only notional at best.    And on long descents, the carbon rims would overhead, causing tubes to blow out.       Not fun.    But carbon was cool and carbon wheels were not going anywhere....  and thus were born disc brake road bikes.   

While rim brakes offer more than enough stopping power (under most circumstances - see exceptions above), disc brakes do a better job with modulating the power, allowing for precise braking.   And they work better in the rain and on long descents, especially with carbon rims.   This alone makes them a significant upgrade over rim brakes.

But perhaps even more importantly, by getting rid of a brake caliper, disc brakes allow a lot more flexibility in terms of rim widths and shapes.   And this is where things start to get interesting (more on this in a bit).

Most top-end bikes these days - be it from Specialized, Trek, Cervelo or Cannondale - are disc-only.   In the rare cases a rim-brake version is available, it is typically sold as "frameset only"

Yes, disc brakes are a little heavier (on average, about 200-300gm more) and a little more finicky to set up and maintain - especially hydraulics - but it is indicative of their benefits that the market has moved over almost overwhelmingly to disc brakes now.   Virtually all bikes being sold these days are disc brake models - and that is not just because the manufacturers are trying to shove them down our throats (contrary to popular opinion, marketing doesn't work that way).   Disc brake bikes are becoming more popular because most people who ride them realize how much nicer they are.

Now, to head off the inevitable - for those of you who already have rim brake bikes, this doesnt mean that your rim brake bike is going to assplode or that you have to go out and upgrade.   Of course not.   Or maybe you are a climber and prefer the lightest bike possible - in which case you still might want to look for rim brake bikes.   But for the vast majority of people looking for a new road bike, especially first-time buyers, disc brakes should definitely be on your radar. 

Note:  this holds true for any bike model from one of the reputed international brands, which will typically be fitted with Tiagra or higher and cost Rs 70,000 or more.   If you are getting an absolute budget model, with parts that are below Sora-level, then you might be better off with rim brakes because at that price range, you are not going to get decent disc brakes.

WIDE TIRES ARE BETTER EVERYWHERE (EXCEPT AROUND YOUR WAIST)

Not having the brake calipers limit the rim/tire size has freed up manufacturers to make the wheel rims wider, which in turn means that tires have a wider profile on the wheels,     Without getting into the physics of this too much, this results in a tire shape that allows for lower rolling resistance, greater comfort and also improved aerodynamics at yaw.     In other words, an improvement in every single area.

In those same "old days" of yore, roadies rode 23mm tires - or 25mm, if they felt like a comfort ride - filled to 90-110psi of pressure.    This was the generally accepted formula for speed.   But these tires were absolute nightmares on broken roads.   I remember doing the Tour of Nilgiris in 2010 and 2011, and each year, there would be one stage with a lot of broken, potholed roads and all of us on road bikes with 23mm or 25mm tires would be cursing the entire ride.

These days, that has changed.   28-30mm tire widths are the new standard for going fast - most modern wheels are optimized with such tires in mind.    Add in tubeless technology and these tires can be run at lower pressures - 65-75psi is common - without the risk of pinch flats.    That results in greater comfort (the tire acts as a shock absorber), lower rolling resistance and indeed, greater speed (the tire deforms around imperfections in the road, as opposed to bouncing up and down over it, reducing vibration loss).    

So there is no longer a compromise between speed and comfort - you get more speed AND more comfort when you go to wider tires.

And it does not stop at 28-30mm widths.   While this is the current sweet spot for maximum aerodynamic efficiency and speed on smooth roads, studies and empirical ride reports have shown that  going even wider with tires - 32mm width or larger - and running them tubeless at low pressures of 50-60 psi can have a massive improvement in comfort.       

And the interesting thing is:  while this increase in comfort comes with a tradeoff of reduced speed, that reduction is very, very minor.     You are looking at a few minutes over the course of a 2-3 hour ride only - insignificant unless you are racing.   In fact, on rough roads, the wider tires may be even faster.   Not only that, the increased comfort reduces fatigue, which can make you even faster.  

Yes, you read that correctly - 32mm wide tires at low pressures may actually be faster on rough surfaces like chipseal or rough concrete,     The bike ends up floating over road imperfections, road buzz is muted and your ride becomes super plush and comfortable.   

In fact, the most recent wheels released by  Zipp and Enve, at the time of writing this article, are optimized for use with 32mm tires!

  

So I will repeat it again - wider slick tires (30-32mm) give you much greater comfort and have a minimal effect on your speed.   If you are not racing, there is no reason for you to be riding anything narrower than a 30-32mm tire these days.     And if you are racing and are on smooth tarmac, you still shouldn't be on anything lower than 28mm.   

ENTER THE GRAVEL BIKE

By moving to wider tires at lower pressures - 30-32mm at 60-70psi, let's say - you have pretty much solved the question of comfort on tarmac and have gotten a plush, comfortable magic carpet ride.  Virtually all modern road bikes these days (ie, disc brake bikes) allow you to fit a 30mm tire.   A lot of endurance bikes and even some race bikes, like the above-mentioned Venge and R5, will actually fit up to 32mm tires.

So far so good.    But let's go back to my original question - what if you wanted to ride your bike on more than just tarmac, but also on trails, dirt roads and gravel paths?    Until recently, you had to pick one - the nature of the bicycle mean that you could either get a bike that was good on tarmac (rigid, fast, skinny tires) or you could get a bike that was good on trail (fat tires, suspension).   But now, that is no longer the case.

Imagine, if you will, a road bike that has the clearance to let you put on tires that go all the way to a massive 40-42mm (or even 2.1" MTB tires, in some cases) with a choice of treads - slick, semi-slick, light treads or heavy treads.       This could be that mythical single bike that lets you do EVERYTHING.

And the good news, freed from the restraints of rim brakes on road bikes, manufacturers have created such a bike - it is called a gravel bike.   

Gravel bikes are basically endurance bikes (as described in my Race vs Endurance bikes article) with clearance for very large tires and the geometry tweaked some more for off-road riding.     Some versions are tweaked very heavily, to be more off-road oriented.   Others are tweaked a little less, and are designed to mostly road bikes with some off-road capabilities.   It's a pretty wide spectrum and no matter how you prefer to split your priorities, there is a bike for you.

But regardless of which flavor you get, you get an immensely versatile machine.    Put on a pair of wheels with 30mm slicks and go out for a fast group ride with some friends.   Swap in wheels with 35-38mm light treads and go ride a mix of tarmac and forest trails.     Or put on 42mm knobbies and go entirely off-road.   The choice is yours.   And the bikes often come with more storage capabilities to support those epic rides.   And you get all of this without the weight, speed or riding position compromises of a hybrid or MTB.

Are there compromises over a pure road bike?   Of course there are.   Gravel bikes are designed to be a bit more robust - and so are a little heavier.    The greater stability for off-road use results in a bike that is not as agile as preferred by road racers.   Similarly, if your goal is to ride really technical off-road stuff, you would still be better off with a MTB with a good amount of suspension.    Special interests require specialized bikes.

But for the vast majority of people who just want to ride for fun, still care about going fast on tarmac without necessarily becoming hard-core racers, and who also want to go off the road a little without getting into super-technical stuff, the gravel bike is the perfect solution with very little in the way of compromises.

It truly is the "One Bike To Rule Them All".    

Questions?   Feel free to ask on BikesZone Reborn.