• en
  • fr
  • ja

How Fast are Rene Herse Tires?

How fast are our tires? We know that the casing, and not the width, determines a tire’s speed. When I rode Paris-Brest-Paris on 42 mm-wide tires (above), I knew that I wasn’t giving up any speed over narrower rubber. But in absolute terms, how fast are our Rene Herse tires?

Manufacturers’ claims always are taken with a grain of salt… So let’s look at two independent tests of our tires. They still list the old ‘Compass’ name, but the tires tested were the same as the current Rene Herse models.

The respected German magazine TOUR found our Bon Jon Pass as one of the five fastest tires they’ve ever tested. TOUR tested the Standard model. The much more supple and speedy Extralight would have fared even better.

TOUR’s test rig is a pendulum that rolls the tires back and forth. The longer the pendulum swings, the lower the rolling resistance.

Like all tests that don’t include a rider, this test measures only losses due to deformation of the tire (hysteretic losses). In the real world, there are also suspension losses as vibrations are absorbed by the bike and the rider. Wide tires vibrate less than narrow ones, so they tend to roll even faster than these tests suggest.

In any case, the result is clear: In TOUR’s test, the Bon Jon Pass is one of the fastest tires in the world, closely matching the best racing tires. Being 9-12 mm wider than the racing tires doesn’t make the Bon Jon Pass any slower.

What’s the best gravel tire? – 10 models in comparison

How about comparing our tires to other wide tires? Gran Fondo magazine recently tested ten popular gravel tires. Rolling resistance (and puncture resistance) were tested by Schwalbe’s engineers in the company’s test lab.

Our Barlow Pass Extralight had the lowest rolling resistance (red bar) of all tires in the test. (100% is the best in the test.)

The engineers at TOUR and Schwalbe are among the most respected in the cycling world. Their tests show that our casings are among the most supple, and roll as fast or faster than the best tires in the world.

On real roads, the advantage of supple tires is even greater: Not only do they absorb less energy as they flex, they also vibrate less. And that reduces the suspension losses. Both effects work in tandem: Supple tires have less tire deformation and less vibration. As a result, the greater speed of supple, wide tires becomes very noticeable when you ride on real roads. When you try different tires back-to-back, you realize that tires are the biggest performance upgrade you can make to your bike.

A little more about the Gran Fondo test: The testers were impressed by the “superb levels of comfort” of the Barlow Pass and called it “almost as nice as flying.” They also were surprised how much grip the supple tires offered on gravel and dry dirt roads. Of course, reading that makes us happy, even if it just confirms what we’ve found in our own testing.

Further reading:

42 Responses to How Fast are Rene Herse Tires?

  1. Cyclosomatic September 16, 2019 at 7:25 am #

    The Bon Jon remains my favourite all-round ‘road’ tire, and also my favourite tire period, as it is so pleasant to ride and versatile, from good pavement to gravel. The only reason I swap to smaller, 28mm Compass tires is for road training road and criterium races, where I need to hold speeds at and above 40kph, and feel I benefit from the reduced aerodynamic resistance of a smaller tire and more favourable tire/rim dynamic (proportion of tire width to rim width). But that’s for riding at my physical limit. The rest of the time, I’m much happier on the Bon Jons. Like Jan, I’ve also found the 650b x 42mm Baby Shoe Pass tires to be really high performing, not to mention extremely ‘sporty’ in terms of handling. When it comes to long days where you want to save energy you’d bleed via ‘suspension losses’ with 700c x 25-28mm tires, for example, the lager, supple tires like the Bon Jons through Baby Shoes absorb all that vibration and spare the body. Further, the 650b x 48mm Switchback Hills take up even more vibration, further sparing the body, without stealing too much in terms of aerodynamics. I’ve tried them for a full-blown drop road ride, and couldn’t handle the power requirements on the power climbs, but when we’re talking about lower, more typical speeds, they are fantastic. The writing seems to be on the wall, 28mm tires are becoming the standard for performance road riding and racing, and next it will be 30mm. For real-world riding, tires like the Bon Jons are phenomenal, and there are no countless great bikes in all materials that will accommodate them well.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 10:10 am #

      Thank you for sharing your impressions, Matt. I think the aero disadvantage of wider tires is smaller than you think. We tested both 25 and 31 mm (actual width) tires in the wind tunnel, and the differences were too small to be statistically significant. On bikes, what influences wind resistance most is the frontal area. If wider tires were much slower, then bigger down tubes also would slow down the bike…

      Your impression of needing a stiffer tire during high-power climbs is also interesting. I think this depends on whether you prefer a stiff frame or one that ‘planes.’ When we race our Bicycle Quarterly test bikes up the steep hill at Golden Gardens in Seattle to assess their performance, our power output is in the 600-700 Watt range. Even at that very high power output, we find that bikes with 54 mm Extralight tires climb as well as racing bikes with narrow tires, if their weight and frame flex characteristics are similar.

      • Cyclosomatic September 16, 2019 at 12:30 pm #

        For sure, sometimes the aero differences amount to splitting hairs, especially when looking at the ‘whole-picture,’ which factors both rolling resistance and a broad range of yaw angles and wind speeds, which are not necessarily ‘representative’ in wind tunnel tests. If we look at 25 and 31mm tires, particularly if both are on the same fork and frame, a 25 with 1.5cm space around it in a fork will not – as I understand – get into a boundary layer drag situation, but will roll slower than a 31. Meanwhile, that 31, with maybe 5mm space around it, might get into a boundary layer issue (front wheel pushing air forward while wind pushes rearward, both flows coming into contact between fork and tire), thus diminishing some of the benefits of its lower rolling resistance. So in ‘real world’ terms, I’d tend to consider the 31 more desirable if the roads I was on were not quite smooth and/or there’s cornering that will take the tires to their limit, and I’d be safer on 31s. When we compare 28s to 48s, however, even with the smaller 650b diameter, I feel pretty confident there’s a significant, measurable difference. I believe the aero losses follow a linear progression once we get beyond the optimal tire/rim width ratio. The question, I believer, is not whether there’s an aero difference, but whether it matters, and if so, how. In the case of the throwdown training ride I tried my 48s on, I was already quite tired (so I factor that), and it was not a long foray, only about an hour into 3 hours. I was pretty clearly working harder than others to ride the 40kph pace on the flats – partially on account of a gravel position, not the low-CDA road position I’d have on a road race bike – so the relatively ‘easy’ climbs at full gas were too much for me. This is the sort of situation where it’s a bit of an arms race re. efficiency in the wind, where 1% difference can mean holding a wheel or not. I’d be interested to run the same experiment without the fatigue and on a bike with the right position (which I’ll have next season) to isolate the wheel format on more equal terms. But I’ll reiterate, I find the 48s very efficient for long days at a minimum, and definitely high performing under high load situation. I just remain skeptical that I can ride them as effectively at the most competitive regional level (Cat 1/2), so I hope to gather more ‘data.’

        • Jan Heine September 17, 2019 at 12:12 pm #

          It’s hard to gather enough data in normal rides to make meaningful comparisons. If you want to get statistical significance, you’d need dozens, if not hundreds, of rides where you randomly switch tires and wheels.

          Our wind tunnel tests showed that riding position has a far greater effect on aerodynamics than tire width. It will be interesting to hear your feedback once you run wide tires on the same bike, rather than a different one that also may have different flex characteristics and thus allow you to put out more or less power…

      • Reuben September 16, 2019 at 7:59 pm #

        for 25 vs 31 mm tires, what was the rim width and profile? on aero wheels, it’s important to match tire width for optimum ‘reflow’ of the air from the tire to the rim.

        • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:16 pm #

          Both tires were measured on the same box section wheels. We didn’t use aero wheels, because, as you mentioned, how well rim and tire are matched influences the aerodynamics.

  2. Xaver September 16, 2019 at 8:12 am #

    I am a fan of Rene Herse tires. I don’t understand the first diagram though. How is a higher watt value in rolling resistance positive? Can you explain?

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:25 am #

      The chart lists the five fastest tires TOUR has tested. More Watts means slower – so the Standard casing Bon Jon Pass is fourth-fastest on smooth roads and fifth-fastest on rough roads.

      Beyond that, it gets a little complicated: TOUR’s test considers only the hysteretic losses, and the Bon Jons were inflated to lower pressure, which gives you higher hysteretic losses. On real roads with a rider, the suspension losses are lower for a wider tire at lower pressure… so the Bon Jons will score even better than they do in TOUR’s test.

      • Xaver September 16, 2019 at 11:03 am #

        Ok. Now I understand. Thx. My experience has been that in the real world my Snoqualmie Pass pumped to 2.3 bar was as fast as a Schwalbe ProOne 28mm with 5.5 bar. On tarmac.

        I recently did a roadrace 100km with my Snoqualmie Pass and placed myself in the first quarter of my age group, racing against aero narrow tire roadbikes. Maybe next time I try a Jon Bon pass but tbh I feel the Snoqualmie is my be all end all tire for toad and dry offroad. I really really love my Rene Herse tires. I have used Steilacooms which I also love. And I run a 650b wheelset with Juniper Ridge. I will never ride another brand (insert dramatic music here)!

        Thx for making them

  3. Matt Sallman September 16, 2019 at 8:27 am #

    Wouldn’t the Steilacoom have been a better match for the other tires in the Gran Fondo test?

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:26 am #

      Yes, absolutely! We had no influence on that test, as we found out about it only after it was published. I wish Gran Fondo would have tested our knobbies. That would have eliminated the one concern they had about our tires – that they don’t grip well in mud. On real gravel, the wider Hurricane Ridge and Juniper Ridge knobbies would roll even faster, since they absorb surface irregularities better.

  4. J Busche September 16, 2019 at 8:29 am #

    I love my BP ELs, but lets be fair, here…. In that Gran Fondo test, the Barlow Pass is the only slick. Every other tire is a semi-knob. That’s not really an apples-to-apples test for rolling resistance.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:27 am #

      See above – we agree. However, our internal testing shows our dual-purpose knobbies to be almost as fast as our ‘road’ treads.

  5. Dave Minden September 16, 2019 at 8:31 am #

    Jan, as an engineer you would surely not accept a chart that lists percentages without any reference as to what they refer to! It makes the stats appear uninformative at best and deceptive at worst!

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:30 am #

      It would have been nice if they had explained their methodology. That said, I do trust that Schwalbe’s engineers know what they are doing – within the limitations of their testing (drum without rider vs. real road with rider).

  6. weightshift September 16, 2019 at 8:46 am #

    I would have loved to have seen a Steilacoom tested as it has knobs, and could be a bit more comparable to some of the other tires tested by Gran Fondo (but also it’s the tire I’m most interested in trying next). How would you expect it to fare? I was pleasantly surprised to have seen the WTB Resolute score well, given it’s width and tread, and to me, most similarly or is the closest tread to a Steilacoom.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:34 am #

      I don’t really know how our Steilacoom dual-purpose knobby would fare on a steel drum, but on real roads, the speed difference to our ‘road’ tread patterns was not noticeable even in a fast group ride where we switched bikes to compare the two tread patterns back-to-back. On real roads, I would expect the Steilacooms to roll much faster than the WTB, given its further optimized knob pattern and (most importantly) much more supple casings.

  7. Larry Leveen September 16, 2019 at 8:46 am #

    You wrote, “Wide tires vibrate less than narrow ones….” Is that because narrow tires which MUST be inflated to avoid pinch flats transmit more shock/vibration to the rider? Please expand on the connection between tire width and suspension losses. Thanks.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 9:35 am #

      Yes, the lower vibrations are mostly because you can run them at lower pressures, yet they hold their shape and don’t collapse in fast cornering. It’s amazing to ride a 48 mm tire at 25 psi and have it feel like a 25 mm tire at 85 psi, only with the vibrations removed and traction added.

  8. Ernesto September 16, 2019 at 9:22 am #

    Hi Jan, I’m amazed by the last of the key findings of the Gran Fondo test:
    «Tan-wall tires definitely go faster. Same as cool socks and beards!»
    I’m sure it’s ironic, but I wonder if there’s a truth in it, maybe not in the color itself, but something about the compound. For example, I read somewhere that carbon black in the tread compound improves grip and wear resistance, maybe in sidewalls it reduces suppleness?
    On the other hand I know that your fastest extra-light tires also have black sidewalls, so I doubt that it’s really meaningful. What do you think about it?
    I already have a beard and cool socks, maybe the next time I have to change the tires, I’ll also think about the color of the side walls 🙂

  9. Jacob Musha September 16, 2019 at 9:59 am #

    Jan, didn’t you specifically discredit steel-drum testing to be meaningless? TOUR’s test is a little better since it has a textured surface, but still no rider. Why post this information you don’t support the methodology? I really like Bicycle Quarterly’s tire tests, both the hill roll-down and power meter around a flat track. I’d like to see results of Rene Herse tires versus others on those tests.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 10:21 am #

      Steel drum tests only look at the hysteretic losses of the casing. That means they measure only half of what is important – like taking a car and measuring horsepower without looking at the weight. However, the casing’s hysteresis is a good measure of how supple a tire is, so it is a useful measurement when comparing similar tires at similar pressures. In that case, it simply underestimates the performance advantage of supple casings, since it doesn’t measure the suspension losses (which also are lower with supple casings).

      The steel drum test is useless if you are trying to figure out whether higher pressures roll faster, or whether wider tires are slower. In that case, the suspension losses run in the opposite direction of the hysteretic losses. You see that in TOUR’s test, where our wide tires at lower pressures scored better on smooth roads than on rough pavement. That isn’t how it works in the real world, and it simply reflects that higher pressure deforms less on the rough pavement and thus absorbs less energy – as long as you aren’t counting the suspension losses.

      I guess we could complain about TOUR’s test, since it ran the Rene Herse tires at lower pressure than the narrow racing tires. But that wasn’t intentional: The chart isn’t based on a single test. It’s an aggregate of all their tire tests. Three of the five of the fastest tires were in similar tests of narrow racing tires (at 7 bar); one was a very narrow tire tested at 8 bar; and the Rene Herse tire – to everybody’s surprise – came out of a test of gravel tires. Everybody was surprised that our all-road tire scored as well as the best racing tires – but for us, it simply confirms that our casings are among the best in the cycling world.

  10. torstenfrank September 16, 2019 at 10:26 am #

    Not to detract from your tires which are very nice, rolling superbly and everything, I’m sure. Can’t say for certain since I never came around mounting a pair of Bon Jon Pass I even imported myself at the time (had switched to tubular wheels for my cross bike then and couldn’t fit them in my road bike).

    But – are you aware you are cherry picking test publications there? And not only the tests itself but also the results and the ranking itself?

    In other commentaries and/or blog posts you seem to dismiss non-Rider tested and rolling drum tests entirely. Stating that you can’t go with these results at all. And then again if a Rene Herse tire faires good in one, they are suddenly applicable. At least for the hysteretic loss part. Which by the way is the reading I go with. Meanig: a good tire should at least have a good rolling resistance test. Because that is already one major part of the complete resistance. Of course it goes on further then with the suspension losses etc. Not speaking of aerodynamics here – but this is of course also a factor (I know – not when you’re riding with a flappy T-Shirt and a big porteur rack in front. True. But it’s a factor when you want to go fast over the distance. Then you want comfort, lowest rolling resistance _and_ aerodynamics).

    But I digress. You also advocating (please correct me if I’m wrong) to use the correct tire pressure. And even link to ressources where you find the right pressure for different tire widths. And even have correction factors for more supple tires. So it’s just the sensible thing and one advocated by you that a 35 mm Bon Jon Pass Tire has to be inflated to less and tested with less pressure against all the other smaller tires in the Tour test. You can’t have it both ways and argue that the Bon Jon pass would be even faster with higher pressure! And what would you end up with, anyways? A more bouncy, harder and aerodynamically worse tire then the rest of the test field.

    And in regard to the GranFondo Magazine test I was a bit disappointed that all the three measurements (rolling resistance, puncture resistance against 1.5 and 5 mm targets) were relative to another and just given as a percentage. We know nothing about the spread. So we can’t really make our own judgment whether a 10 % difference between to tires is huge or not even worth thinking twice about. And then of course is the fact that anything other than the Bon Jon Pass coming out with the best rolling resistance would have been an utter disastrous result since it was the only Slick (with file thread) amongst 9 other sturdy tires with knobs.

    Again – that’s no shooting against your tires. I’m just weighing in on the relevance of said tests and the way you interpret them (as seems fit for any manufacturer but you set a higher precedent on really vote and argument for the case).

    cheers,
    Torsten

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 8:40 pm #

      Your points are well-taken. Regarding the tire pressure, it’s not that the Bon Jons roll faster in the real world at higher pressures, but they would perform better on the steel drum at higher pressures. That is an important distinction.

      Agreed that the percentages of Gran Fondo’s test are of limited use. The slowest tire is 62% as fast as the Barlow Pass – but I doubt it means that with those tires, you’ll go almost half as fast… But even if they reported Watts, like TOUR, it would be of limited use, since the drum tests leave out suspension losses. TOUR’s numbers suggest that rough pavement requires only 16-25 Watts (for 2 tires) than smooth roads, but we all know that in the real world, you slow down way more than that when the road turns really rough – especially on skinny racing tires inflated to 7 or even 8 bars!

      As you suggest, we’d do those tests differently – in fact, we have done tire testing differently. But once we started making tires based on those tests, we became reluctant to share the results of our internal testing – it looks too much like we’re just trying to promote our own tires.

      So I’ve been looking for tests that are credible from other sources. There isn’t much testing done by professionals with a science or engineering background. I did leave out the testing by a well-known amateur whose methodologies aren’t quite clear – it seems there is no time in his test runs to equalize the tire temperature, and I haven’t seen any data on how repeatable his results are. Beyond that, I don’t think we’ve been cherry-picking our data – TOUR and Gran Fondo are the only ones who’ve tested our tires. If you know of others, I’d love to see the results.

      • marmotte27 September 17, 2019 at 8:58 am #

        “we became reluctant to share the results of our internal testing – it looks too much like we’re just trying to promote our own tires.”
        Nice one! But now you’ve either said too much or too little.You know your tire tests are the only ones that make real sense and everyone wants to see them.
        I can understand your conundrum, but you are already promoting your own products like the Herse Cranks through your testing, so why stop there?

        • Jan Heine September 17, 2019 at 12:09 pm #

          All our tire tests were intended as basic research into what makes tires fast, not a ranking of individual tires from different makers. That is why our original tests included the same Michelin tires in three different widths, and even obsolete tire models that weren’t available any longer, like the fat Clement Campionato del Mondos tubulars.

          Once we complete our current testing, I’d like to publish the results with respect to how much different casings affect speed (with our different models, we have the same tread rubber, etc., so we really can isolate the casings), as well as tread pattern and other factors.

  11. Morten Reippuert Kundsen September 16, 2019 at 12:25 pm #

    6 bars on Bon Jon Pass’s that is way too high. But unsurprisingly for Tour Magazine.

    however neither Conti’s nor Schwalbe’s are supple, a Panaracer made Rivendel Poly-Rolly / Jack Brown green label are more subtle than the german boat anchors. A better comparison for Extraights would be Corsa Graphene’s in 28-30mm or Challenge Paris-Roubaix/Strade Bianchi in 29-34mm (all +300 true TPI open-tubular).

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 8:45 pm #

      Just two comments: Rivendell’s tires use an extra-tough casing. Grant Petersen is a friend, but he prefers his tires strong rather than supple.

      And regarding the TPI, 120 is actually the maximum you’ll find on any bicycle tire. Beyond that, the casing threads get too fragile. When some makers list 300+ TPI, they are taking the three casing layers that make up a tire, so a 120 TPI casing becomes 360 TPI… I wrote more about that in this blog post.

  12. Derek September 16, 2019 at 12:51 pm #

    In my experience, suspension losses are so important that riderless tests really should not even be done. RH tires are great on my solo bike but too fragile for where I ride my tandem, so I tried something else. This might be surprising, but Bontrager H2 tires (the basic version, NOT hard-case) worked just as well as RH on my tandem. They probably would be slower in controlled tests but our ride times have been just as good, and sometimes better, so it doesn’t matter. Having tires big enough to run low pressure and glide over rough surfaces is even more significant than having the most supple casing possible (although it can’t be very stiff). Since they don’t measure in real life conditions, I don’t really value drum testing at all. If the people at Schwalbe and Tour are so smart and respectable, then they should stop doing “scientific” testing that is useless.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 8:02 pm #

      The problem with real-road testing is that you need perfect conditions – no wind, constant temperatures and a rider who can replicate the same position and power output lap after lap. All that makes real-road testing very difficult and time-consuming. It’s not feasible for the engineers of a company who need to produce test results by a deadline, not “when the forecast is good.”

      • Derek September 17, 2019 at 2:00 pm #

        Yeah, I know. Good work is always challenging. I appreciate that you go the extra mile(s!) in an effort to get results that actually mean something, not just generate a bunch of precise but misleading data. I have little sympathy for the idea that doing something the right way is too hard.

  13. cbratina September 16, 2019 at 5:12 pm #

    I found nothing in the Gran Fondo test report to verify their claims that: “Tubes are a thing of the past and have no business on a gravel bike. Compared to a setup with a tube, a tubeless system saves an average of 10 % rolling resistance – there is no easier and cheaper way of saving that amount of wattage.” There was no description of the “test bench” they used to determine the rolling resistance. Two of their tires placed near the top. The whole test sounds bogus.

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 8:00 pm #

      I have little doubt about the integrity of Schwalbe’s engineers, but, of course, they design their tires based on their tests – which means that their tires also should score well in those same tests.

      I have more doubts about the puncture resistance with 5 mm-diameter objects perforating the tread. I don’t think I’ve ever had such a large object go through the tread (not the sidewall)!

      • Adamar September 17, 2019 at 5:37 am #

        I had a big stick go through my rear babyshoe once, probably about that size. It was embedded so firmly it couldn’t be pulled out, had to break the bead off the rim and pull it through.

        The tyre held up with a tube just fine, which was a pleasant surprise.

        • Jan Heine September 17, 2019 at 8:44 am #

          The casing threads move out of the way to let the stick through, then close up again after you remove it. Way back, I drilled a hole for a taillight with the fender on the bike and the tire installed. The 5 mm drill went into the tire… After installing a new tube, the tire was just fine – no bulge at all where the hole had been.

          That said, we don’t really design our tires for those incidents!

  14. Reuben September 16, 2019 at 7:50 pm #

    So for road racing, how do your 26, 28 and 32mm tires stack up against the Conti GP 5k?
    Are they better? or ‘equivalent’?

    • Jan Heine September 16, 2019 at 7:58 pm #

      If you believe TOUR magazine, our tires are faster than the Conti GP 4000 on smooth asphalt. (Our own testing shows that the 35s roll as fast as the narrower ones on smooth asphalt.) Of course, the difference might not be statistically significant… That addresses only the hysteretic losses in the casings.

      Regarding the suspension losses not shown in the TOUR testing, I haven’t ridden the latest Contis, but the older ones were noticeably harsher-riding, so I’d expect the suspension losses to be higher on the Contis.

      • Gert September 17, 2019 at 1:31 am #

        I use have used five different tires on the same bike and my comparison is only, what I notice. Punctures are on Danish roads and bicycle paths, No punctures on these tires outside Denmark SV18 tubes for all tires
        Schwalbe Kojaks 35mm but really only 31-32mm at 4.2 bar (averagely less than1 punture in 2000km)
        Continental Grand Prix 4 seasons 32mm at 4 bar (0 punctures in 2000 km) do not appear faster than the Kojaks
        Continental 5000 32mm at 4 bar (1 puncture in 1500km, but caused by displaced old rim tape) appear a little faster than Kojaks and a little more comfortable
        Rene Herse Stampede Pass 32mm at 4 bar (averagely 2-3 punctures in 1000 km) Significantly faster than Kojaks, assessed to be more than 1km/t increased average speed and much more comfortable ride. Especially on descents they really feel like flying
        Rene Herse Bon Jon Pass 35mm at 3.6bar (averagely 2-3 punctures in 1000km) No apparent differences from riding Stampede Pass

        I am aware that my experience is not exact science, but I assess it to be very likely that a scientific test would produce results close to my experience.

        As the Kojaks are by far the cheapest tire and puncture less I use them most of the time, and only use the others from June until September (or outside Denmark) when punctures are less frequent and it is not so cold, as I hate being cold, wet and punctured.

  15. Eric September 19, 2019 at 11:20 am #

    I was thinking about Tour’s methodology, and wonder if they could simply add a 40kg blob of ballistic gel to the arm that holds the wheel, to simulate a body dissipating vibrations. Thoughts?

    • Jan Heine September 20, 2019 at 10:42 pm #

      Been thinking along similar lines – next time I talk to the TOUR guys, I’ll suggest it.