>>2075039it would be more useful to describe the tire as having (fewer/less in) losses, not "being faster", and some of those losses are Good, Actually because they're associated with actually having grip. if you were to listen to bike nerds about what makes a good tire, you'd end up with 0.2mm of silicone sheeting around a three inch wide carbon fibre coil and it would be absolute dogshit
saying the tire is "faster" is pure marketing copy slop to appeal to retarded dentists who think the same pedaling speed will magically get them better times down the MUP because they got 120$ tires instead of 9$ ones. it is 100% a trick to fool (You) into thinking you will get a higher top speed despite ghost pedaling at a blistering 15kmh due to modern retardo gearing setups
you'll notice that this sort of language almost never appears in marketing for tires for any other sort of vehicle and as you get to the "fastest" variant of a whole wheel with tire for any other sort of vehicle, you either see comparatively thin tires on fuckhuge rims for tarmac with the only limit being the wheel's structural integrity (and the driver's unwillingness to crush his spine whenever he hits a pebble), or "fuck it we ball" huge tires on tiny rims for offroad because the losses from a "slow" tire are outpaced by not having traction at all
also a big lol on
>>2075035 because i am fond of calling out cyclists and bike "engineers" for trying to re-invent shit that the automotive world has called old hat for decades if not almost a century:
>Why hasn’t anybody else tested tires on real roads under carefully controlled conditions until now?picrel has existed for 99 fucking years. literally. it was completed in 1927
and even then there are LITERALLY specialized machines specifically for testing tires. wild how none of these ad rag magazines think to call up a company that has one
