Can these tires really be that good?

They get cut more easily than soggy paper, are now (at the newest)
several years old, and if I recall correctly, get decidedly sketchy in
damp corners. In other words, great if you're going straight on a
clean swept road, riding a pair that have been hermetically sealed

Stacey J

They are Michelins and my experience is that Michelins cut easily.

Quoted message said:

From the roadbikereview reviews, it seems like there was a bad batch

with some casing defects. The 23s I have are fine.

I've had some flats with them, but nothing unusual.

They are some of the nicest riding tires I've used.

Orin.

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

The Michelin Axial Supercomp gets abysmal reviews on
roadbikereview.com. However, two separate sources give
it very low rolling resistance numbers -- lower than the
Pro Race:

http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm
http://www.airfreetires.com/TireData/

With a Crr of .0046 you save about 7 watts over the Pro Race
and a whopping 20 watts over Tufo tubulars. That ain't
peanuts. I've seen these tires go for under $10. What gives?

-- j

With this post and the other about rim strip. perhaps a step back and
understanding that no piece of equipment or group of equipment makes
that much difference. PERHAPS small things 'may' help, may not as
easily. There is no such thing as a free lunch and as long as the
bicycle is human powered, with all the inconsistemcies and lack of
performance reliability, day to day, no tire or frame or anything else
will 'make the difference'. You may ride better, may ride worse.

I bought some from Performance a while back. On rollers they were
absolutely amazing! But. On the road, the tread cut like
butter--these are the only tires I've ever had to boot with a dollar
bill. I usually get two flats (or so) in a 3-month period. While
trying these, I had 7 or 8. On close examination, they were a bit
lumpy--not quite round.

I returned them.

I miss how fast they felt, but I had no sense of security, and since I
ride to commute as well as for fun...they had to go.

I bought some from Performance a while back. On rollers they were
absolutely amazing! But. On the road, the tread cut like
butter--these are the only tires I've ever had to boot with a dollar
bill. I usually get two flats (or so) in a 3-month period. While
trying these, I had 7 or 8. On close examination, they were a bit
lumpy--not quite round.

I returned them.

I miss how fast they felt, but I had no sense of security, and since I
ride to commute as well as for fun...they had to go.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1112190503.176e3c3f4b3c89354d090623801d327f@teranews...

Quoted message said:

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

The Michelin Axial Supercomp gets abysmal reviews on
roadbikereview.com. However, two separate sources give
it very low rolling resistance numbers -- lower than the
Pro Race:

http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm
http://www.airfreetires.com/TireData/

With a Crr of .0046 you save about 7 watts over the Pro Race
and a whopping 20 watts over Tufo tubulars. That ain't
peanuts. I've seen these tires go for under $10. What gives?

-- j

With this post and the other about rim strip. perhaps a step back and
understanding that no piece of equipment or group of equipment makes
that much difference. PERHAPS small things 'may' help, may not as
easily. There is no such thing as a free lunch and as long as the
bicycle is human powered, with all the inconsistemcies and lack of
performance reliability, day to day, no tire or frame or anything else
will 'make the difference'. You may ride better, may ride worse.

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1112190503.176e3c3f4b3c89354d090623801d327f@teranews...

Quoted message said:

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

The Michelin Axial Supercomp gets abysmal reviews on
roadbikereview.com. However, two separate sources give
it very low rolling resistance numbers -- lower than the
Pro Race:

http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm
http://www.airfreetires.com/TireData/

With a Crr of .0046 you save about 7 watts over the Pro Race
and a whopping 20 watts over Tufo tubulars. That ain't
peanuts. I've seen these tires go for under $10. What gives?

-- j

With this post and the other about rim strip. perhaps a step back and
understanding that no piece of equipment or group of equipment makes
that much difference. PERHAPS small things 'may' help, may not as
easily. There is no such thing as a free lunch and as long as the
bicycle is human powered, with all the inconsistemcies and lack of
performance reliability, day to day, no tire or frame or anything else
will 'make the difference'. You may ride better, may ride worse.

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

OKAY, now what does that have to do with my post? That you are already
such a great rider only equipment will make you better?

Congratulations on being first in the race but like I said, whether or
not your tires or rim strip has less rolling resistence will not mean
you will win or lose.

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

OKAY, now what does that have to do with my post? That you are already
such a great rider only equipment will make you better?

Congratulations on being first in the race but like I said, whether or
not your tires or rim strip has less rolling resistence will not mean
you will win or lose.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1112194041.3d40f66406633d0fb162ac682413a33d@teranews...

Quoted message said:

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

OKAY, now what does that have to do with my post? That you are already
such a great rider only equipment will make you better?

The point is, the margin was 19/100ths of a second in a 30min event.
I had a whole slew of similar results last year, e.g. 3 seconds in a
90 minute event. In fact it's the rule, not the exception.

Quoted message said:

Congratulations on being first in the race but like I said, whether or
not your tires or rim strip has less rolling resistence will not mean
you will win or lose.

It absolutely does.

That's why I posted this result (well that, and unabashed self-promotion).
If I had still been running Tufos with gluing tape, I would have been
in 4th place, not 1st. 20 watts is 20 watts. At the amateur
level (say Cat 3) -- 20 watts is a huge. How many Cat 3s can
increase their threshhold power 20 watts in a year?

--Jens

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1112194041.3d40f66406633d0fb162ac682413a33d@teranews...

Quoted message said:

Jens Kurt HEYCKE said:

http://www.obra.org/results/2005/road/so_oregon_tt_3.html#combined

OKAY, now what does that have to do with my post? That you are already
such a great rider only equipment will make you better?

The point is, the margin was 19/100ths of a second in a 30min event.
I had a whole slew of similar results last year, e.g. 3 seconds in a
90 minute event. In fact it's the rule, not the exception.

Quoted message said:

Congratulations on being first in the race but like I said, whether or
not your tires or rim strip has less rolling resistence will not mean
you will win or lose.

It absolutely does.

That's why I posted this result (well that, and unabashed self-promotion).
If I had still been running Tufos with gluing tape, I would have been
in 4th place, not 1st. 20 watts is 20 watts. At the amateur
level (say Cat 3) -- 20 watts is a huge. How many Cat 3s can
increase their threshhold power 20 watts in a year?

--Jens

Quoted message said:

It absolutely does.

That's why I posted this result (well that, and unabashed self-promotion).
If I had still been running Tufos with gluing tape, I would have been
in 4th place, not 1st. 20 watts is 20 watts. At the amateur
level (say Cat 3) -- 20 watts is a huge. How many Cat 3s can
increase their threshhold power 20 watts in a year?

--Jens

Sorry, don't agree that in that race, with Tufo tires and rim tape, you
would have been 4th, not first. Maybe, maybe not. NO one piece of
equipment will make a difference. Otherwise the gent that is close and
he spends lots of $ on a bici, it will make him first.

Like a team-mate of Merckx once said, "Eddy can win on my bike, I can't
win on his'...

Rolling resistance wont matter that much when you are going up a steep
hill. For an 8% hill, the power requirement attributable to rolling
resistance is only of the order of 4 to 5 % of totall power output.

I'm reluctant to disagree with you, since I know you've given
a lot of good expert advice in this forum. However, the
evidence is just too clear.

Independent rolling resistance tests say the tubulars take
an extra 20 watts. Riding the same windless climbs
over and over, my SRM says the tubulars take an extra 20
watts to maintain the same speed. What evidence would it
take to convince you?

Not only did 20watts make the difference in the race I
mentioned, I don't think I've been in many races where the
difference between 1st and 4th place was _more_ than 20 watts.
That equates to more than 1.5 minutes in a 40K.

--jens

No Jens, you've got it "[censored]-ways" as they say. It's velocity that is
the
primary determinant of power required to overcome rolling resistance.

If LA rides Alp D'Huez @ 450 W at an average speed of 22 km//h
the rolling resistance he experiences is the exactly the same as Jens
Heycke
(who just happens to have the exact same body mass as LA and has
borrowed/stolen LA's Trek) riding @ 70 W at an average speed of 22
km//h on a flat windless road.

My original point being that its only as cycling velocity increases
that Crr differences
become apparent and that it is unlikely that you were riding fast
enough up a hill to
experience a 20W difference in power that can be attributable to
rolling resistance.

Quoted message said:

Yes, I agree with the the first part. Maybe my feeble humanities
brain is missing something here....

What I'm saying is that at 40kmh, the rolling resistance force isn't
200% what it is at 20kmh -- it's maybe 105% (or something like that).

Yes, the rolling resistance force is almost constant with respect to
velocity. But you were talking about the required power (Watts) and
since power is force times velocity that will be about twice as great at
40 km/h compared to 20 km/h.