{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreifihtyqy4a5tc6oclrzonlkym3kzsx2fmbb3oyrhhytt6n4kcx2su",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:jcu7nrruxovhg3q5vlsnw3wt/app.bsky.feed.post/3m7nljfgzmhm2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigrbcouidascpwlye3pvljttudmvgvjeyxay2a4u3hcali7yobjia"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 174632
  },
  "description": "Our detailed real-world test protocol challenges rules of thumb about width and pressure and reveals a long-overlooked factor in rolling resistance.",
  "path": "/introducing-escape-tyre-testing-get-ready-to-rethink-accepted-wisdom/",
  "publishedAt": "2025-12-10T17:27:54.000Z",
  "site": "https://escapecollective.com",
  "tags": [
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "Ronan Mc Laughlin\n\nNew to Escape Collective?\n\n### Independent cycling journalism, funded by members.\n\nThis tyre test is part of a long-term independent project built to answer real performance questions with real-world testing.\n\nMost of our work is for paying members. We’ve opened part of this story so you can experience the depth of the reporting before the registration wall.\n\nKeep reading. You’ll be able to unlock the rest with a free email.\n\nOn day one with _Escape Collective_ , I promised an aero leaderboard ranking every new bike we reviewed. While I haven’t yet delivered on that (although, we might actually be getting close), in March this year it seemed a tyre leaderboard might be within reach.\n\nSo, nine months ago I set out to do some tyre testing. It was meant to be a straightforward comparison of six different tyre widths, but turned into something more akin to an experiment, or some cruel and unusual torture, that ultimately proved far larger and far more revealing than we expected.\n\nAcross nine months a few lessons stood out far more clearly than we expected:\n\n****Pressure matters much more than tyre width or tyre model****\n\n****28s and 30s are the norm, but wider yet could prove faster****\n\n****While these 35 and 40 mm tyres offer benefits, it’s not in performance****\n\n****We know hookless ain’t for me – and my optimal pressure is above the hookless limit****\n\n****The Rule of 105 might not hold with modern rims****\n\n****Tyre temperature might be the most critical variable nobody has been measuring****\n\nBelow is the full story and the data: It explains why we might have maxed out the gains from wider and lower, and offers glimpse of the future of performance road tyres. For this testing we used the Pirelli P Zero TLR Race in 26, 28, 30, 32, 35, and 40 mm widths, ridden across smooth, fair, and rough tarmac, at multiple pressures, using an instrumented test bike and tightly controlled procedures.\n\nPick your poison.\n\nThis tyre choice for the initial phase of testing was deliberate, and is not to cast a performance judgement on the Pirelli P-Zero range. It was about taking a single, (mostly) consistent tyre family and using it to stress-test our test protocol. If we could take what is essentially the same tyre across six widths, on three surfaces, at multiple pressures, and still produce stable, repeatable results, then we’d be in strong shape for future comparative testing. In other words: Can we do the most difficult of tests? If yes, then we should be fine for future, relatively easier tyre A versus tyre B testing.\n\nBut in the process of refining that protocol, we learned far more than we expected. Some of that could be specific to this tyre range, but the physics don’t belong or apply to Pirelli’s tyres alone. The absolute wattage numbers will certainly change with different tyres, but we expect many of the lessons will hold up. Either way, that’s exactly what we’ll be answering now that we can expand to other brands with confidence in our testing and results.\n\nEverything was kept constant: same bike, same wheelsets, same setup, same test roads, and the same carefully repeated baselines. Things like wind and ambient conditions can’t be controlled, but were measured and factored into our calculations. We thought the only variables were the tyres and the pressure, but as we came to learn ambient temperature is an even bigger tyre performance variable than any of us had ever thought.\n\nWhat I didn’t appreciate at the start was the scale of the challenge we’d taken on. The project stretched far beyond the original timeline, not because the test matrix was unusually complex – although it was – but because we set a high bar for what we were willing to publish, long before the results became as confusing as the questions themselves.\n\nWith a mere week of testing, we could have produced something that looked credible, but the last thing the tyre discussion needs is more noise. We needed confidence in our findings, which meant checking and re-checking the data until it held up from every angle. That commitment ended up revealing that the effect of cold temperature on the tyre rubber can be much larger than previously estimated, which are arguably the most interesting finding of the entire project so far.\n\nThis is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive publicly available real-world tyre dataset yet produced, and it’s actually just the beginning. Yes, it challenges much of the accepted wisdom, but it isn’t intended to replace or debunk any of the previous work done by experts in this field; rather, our hope is we can build on that work, stand on those shoulders.\n\nThere is more work to do, and more testing already planned, but this marks an important step in understanding the opportunities and challenges of wider, lower, real world performance and field testing.\n\n## Methodology\n\nThe initial goal was simple and a stepping stone to that leaderboard … or so I thought. For years, we’ve all heard the same message: wider tyres and lower pressures are faster. It’s a mindshift that has opened the door for a transformation of modern bikes. But for all the talk, how much real-world, independent data have we seen, and more importantly, where does that trend break down?\n\nHow wide is too wide and how low is too low has never been fully answered in publicly available, controlled, real-world data. Personally, I also wanted to know what my optimal tyre width and pressure were for the roads I ride and I wanted to know how accurate tyre pressure calculators were at predicting this.\n\nAs it turned out, this initial stepping stone became more like an entire island in scale as we realised the complexity of the task at hand. In hindsight, there’s no better test or proof of concept of our forthcoming real-world tested tyre leaderboard than testing the various widths of the Pirelli P-Zero range across various surfaces and pressures over multiple days, weeks, and months. With this successfully completed, a tyre leaderboard should prove comparatively easier.\n\nThis testing stemmed from a conversation with John Buckley of Streamlines at Eurobike 2024. A previous guest on the Performance Process podcast, Buckley developed the Streamlines Cirrus drag measurement system consisting of a four-port so-called “wind sensor” named the Altostratos, a body position sensor it calls the Forma, a high-resolution speed sensor named the Tempo, and Nimbus, a dedicated data logger Android app.\n\nThis network of sensors captures wind speed, direction, ambient conditions, body position, and elevation with exceptional accuracy, while the separate Cirrus web portal handles all the complex calibrations and calculations automatically. It enables measuring aerodynamic drag (CdA) and rolling resistance (Crr) with high precision in the real world.\n\n-\n\nWhile we were well aware of the Streamlines system’s aero testing capabilities, Buckley explained its possibilities for tyre testing in that Eurobike meeting. Not long after Pirelli unveiled a 40 mm version of its P-Zero Race TLR, the new width range this tyre offered suddenly became the closest thing we’ve ever had to study the true effects of tyre width and pressure on performance. Not realising the magnitude of the undertaking, I formulated a plan to test the P-Zero in each of its six sizes (26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 40 mm).\n\nIt’s all this combined – including the opportunity _Escape Collective_ ’s member-focused business model afforded me – that let me drill down as far as necessary in search of accurate and useful information, rather than just try to publish a number or result as quickly as possible. Where cycling has often relied on rough estimates or random-number-generator test procedures, I have the freedom to tackle the process as a science experiment.\n\nMember preview\n\n###  This investigation is normally available only to paying members.\n\nEscape Collective is funded directly by subscribers. We’ve opened this section so you can experience the depth of our reporting before the registration wall.\n\n**Share your email to unlock the rest of this story.**\nYou’ll also gain access to racing coverage, in-depth tech features, and newsletters.\n\nWant full access to everything we publish, including member-exclusive investigations like this one?\nYou can join any time using the **Join Today** button at the top of the page.\n\nComing next in this investigation:\n\n  * The performance trade-offs behind modern tyre width trends\n  * What it really takes to produce testing you can trust outside a lab\n  * How aerodynamic penalties compare with rolling resistance gains\n  * The first steps toward building a meaningful tyre leaderboard\n\n\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Introducing Escape tyre testing: Get ready to rethink accepted wisdom",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-18T00:37:28.550Z"
}