I’m limited to 25c on my updated Colnago C50. I wish I could go up to 28 but I can’t. I use 28 (which inflate to 29/30mm actually) on my other, more recent bikes
definly the worst part of old bikes. i aint sweatin' disc brakes or aero integration or electrics. i just wanna fit bigger tires as it's proven to be both faster and more comfy.
@user-if1gh4xl5h same. My poor bike sweats every time I watch one of these videos showing how going from 28-30 is a performance increase seeing as it doesn't have the clearance for 25s 😂😅. New bike coming as soon as I get the money
Would love to see this comparison up hill. Rotational weight is 3X actual at the furthest distance from the hub. With the additional mass of a larger tire+wider/deeper rim, I find them slower to accelerate and more difficult to maintain speed while climbing. 25mm handmade clinchers(Veloflex, Challenge, Vittoria, Dugast, FMB) still feel the fastest and plenty comfortable. Please include them in a climbing comparison.
Average on Tour de France is 25-26 mm. Might have been less a decade(s) ago, although in older times like 100 years ago maybe, they had very big tyres at some point (and very bad roads!)... For recreational road biking 28 mm feels like a good compromise to me, maybe slightly more if you are a "big guy".
@@barryl1995 No, in 2023 average was 25-26 mm. Vandegaard won stages with 24 mm, Pogacar had 30-32 mm on several occasions, they use a lot of different gear, anyway, so it's difficult to keep track and make exact statistics.
Clinchers have always been so uncomfortable it is no wonder riders in the post tub error appreciate the improved comfort of larger tires and lower pressures. Regardless, it would be nice to see some tubs in these tests, even as a benchmark, since they have 25 to 30% more hoop stress for a given diameter and pressure, and should therefore be run at even lower pressures. Also, similar to tire pressure creating the correct hoop stress for each size tire, the rim width is also a critical factor in aerodynamic drag and must be matched to the tire width. And don't forget the rotational inertia of the wheels is critical especially in a crit. Heavy wheels are a huge disadvantage in a corner...
Interesting video. Would've been interesting if you went over the external rim width of the wheelset in question because the ratio of tire and external rim width is important for aerodynamics, looks like it's about 32mm from the comparison picture. On a wheelset with 28mm external width I reckon the 32 and 34 wouldn't have tested as well but who knows. Would've also been interesting if there was a bigger difference between each size on climbs and descents in particular.
Yes, this test is very flawed. They need to change rims to be aero optimized for each tire. Also if the bike has clearance for wide tires, that means with narrow tires the gaps between the frame and tire are bigger and therefore likely less aero. It would be a good test to do if you already have your frame and wheels and don’t intend to change those but you can’t expect that everyone will have this result if they have different frames and wheels.
The 32s blew up to under 31. Old Conti 4000 28s measure 31 on modern rims. I didn't see you caliper the 28s, but I have to assume they measured at or below 27, like an older 25. I agree that wider tires can be faster, but i think we're losing perspective on actual tire width by just reading the numbers on the box. New tires are labeled according to width on a modern internal rim width. A 2023 32 isn't much wider than a 2013 28. That being said, I loved the video, and I'm surprised that surpassing the "rule of 105" didn't slow you down with the wider tires as those speeds.
Hi, lovely video! I also put in 32 mm tires after my 25's, I have not tried them yet though. We have a lot of snow nowadays and can not wait to ride them once possible. One question, what gear you used to capture the action shots? They look buttery smooth. Many thanks.
I have a dilemma I'd like to share with the group. I could go wider it seems faster on the same tyre and love the idea of added comfort but the only thing is I'd have to take a rolling resistance penalty of 5 watts by getting the brand that sells the tyres in this thicker dimension thoughts people any opinions appreciated for sure 😊
Your right on , I put 25c tyres on my new wheelset , Pro Lite Garda , those rims are wider than an older rim , tyres are 27 mm wide now ? Makes a huge difference on rim width ....A 32 on my new wheels would be 34 wide etc
It would be interesting to see the Strava segment "compare" view of the different runs/sizes given the varying terrain of the course. In other words, did the wider tires gain their time steadily throughout the course or were they significantly faster in certain sections and potentially slower in others, etc. Might shed some additional light on their strengths.
Yeah, we looked at that. The results seemed consistent throughout the course, with no definite places where one tire size was gaining or losing time (Similar to our cheap vs expensive tire testing video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6x1uROsxBNk.html ) Granted, GPS Data can be inconsistent which is why we were looking at lapped time comparisons.
The difference between the 32s and 34s is well within the margin of error. I ride 35 gravel king slicks for road riding on my gravel bike. I don’t see much of a difference between these and the 28mm Conti 5000 on my second set of wheels. Larger is less rolling resistance but if you you get too large the weight and aerodynamic penalty will set in. The question is, How large is that. For a recreational rider, I think comfort is king. At the end of the day you’ll be happier!😊
I’m a recreational rider. I’ve got a lovely ti road bike I managed to get 28/30s into, but I never use it, I just use my gravel bike with slick 650/47s on light 24mm ID MTB rims on the road all year. The roads are so crappy and broken especially in winter that they’re perfect, don’t puncture, and grip really well on cornering, so downhill they’re actually faster, plus in the summer I can go down any trails I like the look of while I’m out. They aren’t aero, but neither am I!😅
In this test the 28s are too high pressure wise, the drop from the 28 to the 32 is huge compared to the 32- 34mm (31 and 33mm actual). If that is what Silca calc is stating for these lightweight riders then on that broken surface the 75/73psi is far too much and the results are not comparable. If the take 10psi out of the 28mm tyre then we'd have a proper comparison and suspect the 28mm would be same or better.
@@DR_1_1 not possible to be so accurate. You would need a lab-grade test setup for that. And your position on the bike would have much more influence (on the end-time), even if you put out the same power to the watt. But this is not meant as a scientific measurement.
Two years ago I changed 25 for 28, because I wanted more comfort, but I was dead sure that I would loose on speed. Quite lately I learned something about pressure (never used calculators), turned out I pumped way too much..I compare myself riding 25c with 105-110psi two years ago with the present 28c and 70-75 psi and these are two different worlds in terms of comfort and stability. And now I learn that on top of that I have actually a faster bike! Amazing
I think inner width and outer width of the rim will determine which tire is the fastest. That set of roval wheels I heard test really well with wider tires. BTW, you should also test, wider rear tires than front tires. Peaktorque says rear tire width does not matter for areodynamics.
In addition the tire clearance of the bike also makes a huge difference. On bikes with 45mm clearance, a 40mm tire would be optimal, whereas a bike with 32mm clearance, I think a 30 or 28mm tire would be optimal. Then there is the design of the bike. 3T, for example, has the same clearance for their Exploro Racemax model and their Exploro Ultra model. The Racemax model is optimised for smaller tires and the Ultra of course for larger tires.
I know this isn’t ideal for testing, but would be interesting to see this same test but on tubeless. I think you’ll see those 32’s actually measuring out at the correct size as your test confirmed 30’s is the best setup😅
@@joneaton3366 do some experimenting on the same wheel set and you’ll be able to measure the difference when it’s only air filling up the volume of the tire vs an internal tube.
Guessing that the aero profile of the wheel is greatly affected by the time you get to 34s. But again, in a crit race that'd probably be insignificant. Good test guys!
It depends on the rim/tire interface. On some tire and rim combos 32s are faster than 28s (aerodynamically). On other configurations the 28s will be faster. Peak Torque did a video about this a while back. But for my riding, I prefer the cornering, braking and comfort of wider tires, sacrificing tiny bit in weight and aerodynamics.
inner rim width might help a lot with that. I have a road bike with 17mm inner width and another one with 23mm inner rim width and it's totally different how it affects the shape of the tyre
Yes, in essence PeakTorque found that the aero advantage of a deep section wheel was quickly lost once the tyre width exceeded the external width of the rims... a near flat profile being ideal. And as mentioned, a smooth transition between tyre and rim would also be very helpful, though that would normally require you to run hookless rims. I may be wrong, but I think we've got a set of Winspace Hypers on one bike (28.5mm ext) and similar Rovals... CLXII?? (30mm ext) on the other. The Winspace taper down towards the tyre a little, and are thereby *aerodynamically* optimised for a narrower tyre.... likely a 25c. I think the Rovals have a flatter profile and probably assume a 28c. BUT as this test shows, the wheel manufacturers need to be looking at optimising for 32c.... maybe even more! I also wonder if there's a substantial aero penalty from using Corsas, which have quite substantial and continuous grooves as tred. I'd bet that Contis and Goodyears would cut the air better, and maybe even grip as well given the lower pressures being run.
Rubber is a natural material with inherent tolerances. A tire advertised as 32 mm can measure 30 mm or vice versa. So changing a tire by such a small increment might not change anything about your bike's performance at all.
It's amazing ! I remember a well known very experienced " Cyclo tourist "was engaged in a conversation with an equally well known "Bike Racer "in my local bike shop ! This is in the early 1980's ! The Cyclo tourist said the TDF pros should use lower gears and wider tyres ! All the racers in the shop were laughing at him ! Look at the TDF peloton today ! I have an ancient Steel Racing Bike and love my 23 tyres and my 52/42 6 speed freewheel ! There you go !
@@NorCalCycling Exactly, for the nerds like me out there, for every increase of 4mm of internal rim width, it is like going up 1 tire size. A 21mm internal rim width wheel with a 30c tire will be the same as running a 25mm internal width rim on a 28c tire. Sure there will be tiny differences in contact patches and comfort due to the way the tire will stretch and shape itself on the rim, but they will measure out the same final width.
When I bought my bike 3 years ago with 32mm tires, people were like it’s slowing you down blah blah, but I was out-cornering everyone and now data is coming out wider tires are better. I’m also getting way less pinch punctures, haven’t had a puncture since 2 years ago 🤷♂️ I guess I was ahead of my time
A properly matched 19 on a thin road racing rim would be faster than a 28-30etc on a properly wide rim of the same model rim. Just more comfort. Ck TOUR Magazine in German testing. They even say anything deeper than 40-50 deep is not worth the increased poor handling etc.
In case this helps a newer rider: I’ve only been riding for about 18 months. I switched from lower quality 25s to good 28s and the difference was clear as day.
according to the internet your wheel is 35mm externaly:) unexpirienced riders with skinny wheels (the most of them have 27-28 externaly will buy 32m tyres and be fucked up:)
I think it is so ridiculous that there was ALL kinds of time and resources a few years ago to PROVE that the sweet spot was 25s. According to all the cycling BROS it will be whatever is the most popular or what they are using in the pro peloton. Why not just race on fat bikes??? All this stuff is totally ruining cycling. Definitely makes average cyclists feel like they should not be out there, or that they are somehow deficient because they are not riding the latest greatest carbon bike with 32s on it. All of it is in the name of selling more bikes and more parts to people. NONE of the changes to brakes or wheels or tires were really necessary, but here we are!!!
German Tour magazine made the same test but in a lab/wind tunnel, with very similar findings. However, rim widths could change that game again. Once rims are aerodynamically optimized for 34 mm, how much faster will that be? I am also surprised how narrow these Vittorias measure. Already six years ago, my 28 mm GP4000 measured 31 mm on Easton EC90 wheels. Back then, some riders caught up with me on a climb and they were absolutely convinced it is those big tires slowing me down 😂
The rim size used to make measurements changed a few years ago I think. Measurements were done on bigger rims matching current trends, so new tyres may be rated higher compared to older tyres of the same size.
Great test guys and the results don’t surprise me all that much. I own a gravel bike with 40 mm tyres and while it is slower than my road bike with 28mm it’s not as big a difference in pure speed as you would expect and it’s so much more comfortable.
Plus one to this comment! I'm in exactly the same boat. I do the same loops in about the same times on my gravel bike on 40mm gravel slicks. But gee, it's kinder on my bones!
Jeff I love all the race recaps and Alviso videos, but I really love seeing these science-based videos. You inspire me a lot and I’ve always been a fan since I first learned about you, keep up all the great work and thanks for the videos!
I put 32 Mondo’s on for winter riding. They measured 31 when I first put them on, but now measure 34 on my Alpinist wheel set after about 1000 miles of riding. While a smidge heavier, I don’t feel slower, and the comfort of rough desert roads is much better.
It's cool to see the results are very similar on both tests. This is probably one of the most useful comparison videos I've seen you do, simply because most people can afford almost any tire. Awesome video!
Yes, as the tire+rim is less slender the laminar flow should be impacted. Also the larger frontal area should also have an impact. The aero drag must be impacted when increasing the profile width. I understand if the high volyme tires is faster over rough surfaces, but what about smooth tarmac?
I think you should clearly mention the inner / outer width of the rim. I guess it's 25mm inner, but outer...? At 0:36 you can clearly see that 28mm is not wide enough to have a smooth transition with the rim. 32mm looks way better, while 34mm looks the best.
@@Greg-fg8zo Most rims have a fairly consistent width of the carbon of around 4mm, so e.g. a 21mm inner width will result in outer width of 28-29mm, and a 25mm inner width will result in around 32-33mm outer width. In that respect, I would first look at outer rim width, so if you have a 32mm outer rim width, and a 32c, it will most likely mean you have a 25mm inner width and this will match with a 32C tire. A 32C tire will ofcourse also fit a 21mm inner / 28-29mm outer rim, but it will bulge a bit.
For crits especially. 32s and 34s have more contact patch which could increase your cornering speed or at least help the bike feel more stable when leaned way over in a corner.
@paxundpeace9970 i switched 23mm with 2.0" and had the same top speed during the descent. I was far more confident during cornering on the wider tyre though.
Hi, do you think it may be because of aerodynamics? The Roval wheels are very wide outside, and the gap between tire and rim seemed to come down the wider the tire got. Sure "smooth is fast" but the difference could also be the aerodynamic profit too. Edit: more rubber, more grip, could aslo be down to more confidence in corners
I have 30s on mine, from factory. Im not racing. So I may just run up to 34s and enjoy the added comfort. Ill be able to ride longer, which will help me build more endurance. Then if i get good enough i can go back to 32.
Thanks for the video. This is very interesting. My first road bike I had 28mm tires and the handling felt a little squishy. I sent down to 25mm and it woke the handling up. I have preferred 25mm because of the handling feel rather than the comfort. How did the bigger tires affect the handling of the bike? Responsiveness and cornering primarily is what I am asking.
Since this is NorCal cycling my opinion is that 25s are better for a road like Page Mill or King’s Mountain. Cornering to me seems crisper when there are a number of switch backs or chicanes to navigate. If the road is more straight forward wider I like better for more vibration damping. I can’t believe how low pressure the Silica guidelines are. It’s very hard for me to go under 100 on 25s or 95 on 28s. Decades of habit.
Been riding with 32's since 2016 love them once you are rolling around 29 30 mph the bike feels like it's floating and the tires make a humming sound, love it.
SRAM uses internal rim width and the tire’s labeled width. Silca uses the width of the tire as measured. Both end up almost the same in practice, but Silca’s method is more accurate since SRAM is estimating the final tire width.
@@Adonis-qj1nq silca doesn't allow you to specify your rim's internal width which can have a significant impact on optimal pressure. All other things remaining equal, a wider rim requires less pressure. I recently went from a rim with 19.5mm internal width to a rim with 25mm internal width. The difference in required pressure is 10psi less with the same size tire.
@@chrismitsou9686 For the same tire, say a 700x28, as you increase the size of the internal rim width, the same tire will increase in its measured width. For example, my 700x28 GP5000 S TR measures 30mm on 21 internal rim width. Same exact tire moved to my 25 mm internal rim width now measures 31.5mm. It isn’t the internal rim width which impacts the pressure but the final width of the tire once it is installed onto the rim. SRAM calculator estimates final measured width of the tire/rim combo, Silca makes you measure it, which not everyone has the tools for. Put another way, say you have a 21mm internal width rim and a 700x30 tire that measures out to 31.5mm, and you have a second wheel that is 25mm internal with a 700x28 tire that also measures out to exactly the same 31.5mm, both the Silca and SRAM calculators will recommend the same pressures for both setups.
It's refreshing to see roadies with an open mind who can do some basic testing without letting their bias completely screw up the results. Thanks for the video.
Hi, thank you for the video. It is an interesting comparaison. Maybe the rim width could influence the result and the couple rim width+tire width is to taken in account to have the best and coherent aerodynamism. Another factor could be the elevation of the ride, during a long climb with a slower speed, the weight could change the game in favor of 28mm. But thank for this work that could help everyone to undestand the best option !
NO BS, spot on, I love you guys! That's just what I want to do but without the time and resource! Plus there might be another plus for bigger tyres, there's no strong evidence, just my own feeling, that the bigger tyres feels a lot more grippier in the corner than slimmer ones. If that is true, then bigger tyres would have another plus for maybe more cornering speed, which could translates to faster descent or less race time for some guys, or a more stable "safer" downhill feeling for other less racey guys. Hope you guys could do some experiment with this. It will be interesting to see if this is really a thing.
This sort of goes with what sram and zipp have stated in the past about vibration loses and that many 10s of watts can be found using wider tiers or other devices that can soak up vibration. There certainly is a trade off between aero and this but we saw many tour riders running shallower wheels with wide tiers this year. It would great to see of shallower wheels with wider tiers make an even bigger difference to what you found here.
A few weeks a go i did CFD analasys on those specific wheels (roval rapide) in regards to aero drag by tire size. I tested with 26mm (stock) and 30 mm on UiT Arctic Univerity of Norway, Narvik's supercomputer. I found the wider tire to give a 1,2w saving from aero drag. With the added gain in rolling resistance it seems plausible that the increase in speed that you saw is correct. I'd like to point out however that on those wheels that a larger than normal benefit is due to the aero drag that comes from a significant improvement in C_d. My best guess would be around 20-30% of it. The front has the 35 mm wide rim that most others do not have, so do not expect an equal 2-2,6% speed increase like you did. more like 1-1.5% or worse dependent on the rim. This needs a wide rim to fully exploit the gains.
If I am going to be on tarmac I am on 32's, I won't go any thinner. I have an allroad bike that can go up to 700x47 - and on gravel 40's are always a lovely sweet spot, but on the road - 32 has always been great. Tubeless of course. I am not racing, I ride for endurance and gravel. So comfort is key to me, Not speed, but I have seen plenty of "tests" like these that said the wider sizes of 32 or 34 on a road bike actually made it faster.
Great video, your results don't disagree with some similar tests by GCN and others. As a point of history from a now old guy racing crits/track in the 90s, Conti used to make 18mm tires with a sidewall rating of 150PSI which I ran regularly up to 170PSI on the road. I worked in a shop too and it was believed by nearly all racers that skinnier and harder tires were faster, no one was discussing hysteresis and I believed it too. But, even then we knew these skinny hard tires were not so great in the turns of a crit and my crit tire setup was to run a fat at the time front 23-25mm and a skinnier rear around 20mm, again thinking the 20mm=lower rolling resistance, both tubular. I think it's great that today's cyclists have access to so much scientific facts and data to support current trends in gear, nutrition, training, etc.. I only wish we had power meters and a strava to record back in the 90s; I raced as high as CAT 1 on the track, 3 on the road and I have no idea how fast or fit I really was.
Remember when VREDESTEIN started to be imported to the US in the late 90s? We couldn't believe that a clincher could go up to 170psi! (Not that it was needed). 115-120 was good enough. I still have a stash of Vredestein fortezza 23mm in the back of my closet away from sunlight...with a steel Colnago Master.
Matching the profile of your rim is going to give you the fastest times unless the roads are terrible. You can see in the face-on images that the 32mm tire best matches up with the rim profile for this test which is why it was the fastest and why it was a bigger advantage for Will as aerodynamics became a bigger factor at the higher speed.
It might be worth looking at the video on this subject by Peaktorque where he extensively tests wheels and tyres. The evidence seems to suggest the results are highly dependant on the wheel / tyre combination, so maybe a 32 is best for this particular wheel type.
I would love to see the results of running 25mm and 30mm tires as well. Obviously the expectation is that 25s would be slowest, but are 30s or 32s faster? Also, does the "sweet spot" change if you go to a different but also high end/good tire like a GP5000?
Very happy on my "vintage" 24s at 90-95 psi even on some occasionally rough pavement. Many of the most competitive local, Strava leader board segments still have a mix of best efforts from 2011-16 all within seconds +- of 2020-23 best times despite narrower tires, rims, rim brakes etc back then predominatly.
Right. I've been riding 25s @ 95-100 PSI and I don't have any real complaints but I sort of assume I'm missing out somehow. I'd like to quantify it before the next time I replace my tires.@@ReVoltaire
@@andrewpetersen2901 thanks. Would be interested if you would post an update here. Just for some context or FWIW, I did my usual 5.33 mi flat TT loop near the airport alternating one on the hoods and the next on my clip on aero bars with similar watts. On the hoods was 16:06/ 19.9 avg/251w vs clip on aero position 14:53 / 21.5 avg / 254w. Body position has to matter (a lot) more than any tire width, psi or rim depth. And that was at low 20mph speed. At 23-25 the difference in improvement hoods vs aero bars would be much greater still.
I'm in the frozen northern part of the midwest of the USA, so unlikely to be riding outside for several months, so unfortunately I'm unlikely to be able to provide any real data any time soon.@@ReVoltaire
@@ReVoltaire Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fact is most older generation road bikes and wheelsets can't take wider than 25s. So it only makes sense to go to wider tires if you get a completely new bike. But if you are a happy with your current bike, there is no point.
As a road-biased rider riding 38s for the potholes, debris and occasional detour, these results don't surprise. 28s were endorsed by 25 diehards and now with disc brakes allowing frame clearances, 30+ will be tablestakes for all disciplines. Once you divorce yourself from the need to spin up fast and take the new pros with those few old-school cons, wider is a pleasure and merely gives you reason to pedal a lil harder uphill. No biggie with modern gear ratios too. Now, about modern road tire prices....
Great video! It would also be interesting to do a test on mixed tire sizes. I saw in a bike check video that some pros had narrower tires up front, and wider in the rear. Either for better aerodynamics and comfort, or to trick their opponents.
Wide tyres are faster on a road bike. I have had the stays and front fork modified on my Specialised Allez to run 700c x 60c slicks at 22psi and I have never gone faster fact
Interesting results but the tests should be repeated at the same pressure for every tyre. I suspect the optimum tyre width is actually above 34mm when properly inflated and matched to the wheel rims to avoid aerodynamic penalties. Wide tyres are narrow compared to humans and reduce energy-sapping vibrations. A lot of the time I ride on 50mm tyres.
If you have the leg to push constant 300watts, wider tires will benefit u because of the rotation ratio. Weaker rider will not benefit from it, it will actually drained them out faster.
I would suggest that using the tube actually diminished the differences somewhat. The pressure recommendations are for use with tubeless. The lower pressures with tubes will "theoretically" cause more friction drag. I can completely understand why you wouldn't try to do this test using tubeless set up. That would be the world's longest day and very little of it spent riding.
There was a time when MTB tires got wider and wider (up to 3"). They have come back to 2.3" to 2.4" which appears to be the sweet spot. Likewise, widths for road tires could overshoot in the coming years (perhaps 35-38mm) and eventually come back to a more reasonable width of 28-32 mm.
It depends on the bike it depends on the terrain. If you ride glass smooth roads all the time then yes 28, 32 would be ideal. If you ride the real roads, as in Most states with crumbling infrastructure than 34, 35 even 38 may be better performing under rough conditions.
On the current Vuelta I looked at the bikes and most of them use 28C tires, but for example on Lotto bikes I saw 30C. Many people don't know this, but a wider tire is much harder at the same pressure as a narrow one. If we inflate 25C at 70psi and 32C at 70psi, 32C will be faster. But if we inflate both tires to such pressures that they have identical deflection (identical comfort), then the narrow tire will be faster (weighs less - faster acceleration and lower aerodynamic resistance). I don't know how the SILCA calculator selects pressures, but maybe it doesn't take into account the fact that deflection depends on tire capacity and that's why wider tires are faster.
smaller riders dont need to go as big, i would guess the cut off for small riders would be 28 or 30, whereas for bigger guys its 32. i wouldve liked to see how 25's stacked up.
I didn't hear you guys talk about it, but did you do any hard efforts or sprints? I'm curious how you would describe the feeling at lower pressures with the bigger tires. I run the Vittoria Corsa Pro and tried the 32s coming from 28s. And when sprinting, the 32s feel really squishy and unpleasant. They felt too soft, like they were losing air (they weren't), and almost unstable during sprints. Curious if you guys had any similar experience.
oh wow, I'm on 32s and have moved to a hilly area with smooth roads. Was thinking I'd go to 28s when I change tyres or get deeper dish rims but I'll have to reasses.
Honestly the more I ride, I consider myself slightly above the average rider of an average 25-28km enjoying my ride If you really think why do you actually need a two chain ring setup? Recently I just went with 38t oval with 32t cassette. I get my speed and climb with ease. Am not going to do 40kmh to 50kmh anyways.. Why torture yourself 😂😂 It's always been a good cadence that gives you that average speed
