I agree that if you have to walk significant distances, you'd lose more than you gain on the parts. However, even Ira on his 38 mm tires didn't walk, except one steep climb to preserve his legs. I walked a few more of the really steep rollers toward the end, but it was a concern for my knees, not tire width, that forced me off the bike. Wider tires would have been a little faster on the really sandy parts, but probably not much...
Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly On Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:56:31 PM UTC-7, Anne Paulson wrote: > > It depends on how bad the performance is on the remaining 10%. I've seen > the pictures of the Oregon Outback route, and I understand why a lot of the > riders wanted something wider than 42 mm tires. If I were riding that route > on 42 mm tires, I'd end up walking a lot. I'd give up a lot of speed in a > bike tire in order not to have to walk 35 miles. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
