Re: Tour Magazine tests... Aero wheels, clincher tires

Were there any numbers given for rolling resistance?

thanks, Jens

Ivar Hesselager said:

Highest score overall (21 out of 25) was obtained by three tires:Conti
Ultra Gator Skin,
Michelin Carbon
Panaracer Stradius Pro.

The Ultra Gator has its only weak point on RR, Micheli n Carbon is a bit
heavy and very difficult to mount, while the Panaracer has no weak point,
but tops the score only in the tracking discipine.

I note that of the three best-scoring tires, the first two are
high-carbon rubber tread, while the third is a blend of silica and
carbon filler. (Tour lists it as "silika" but in fact the ZSG compound
has both carbon and silica filler.) The Michelin Carbon would have been
top overall if only they had made the dimensions so that it was easier
to mount.
3

Jens Kheycke said:

Were there any numbers given for rolling resistance?

I read the item and found it much like reports in Buycycling Magazine.
It's a thinly disguised promotional item that is so vague that you
can't deduce anything. It alludes to things that aren't said, as in
lies of the second kind. The cite all sorts of co-conspirators to
bolster credibility but I'm not convinced by any of it. This is a
commercial magazine.

I hope you read that one... He said "Not all members were here yet."
when in fact no one had arrived. The room was empty. The statement
is true although any reasonable person would be led to believe
otherwise.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

It's a thinly disguised promotional item that is so vague that you
can't deduce anything. It alludes to things that aren't said, as in
lies of the second kind. The cite all sorts of co-conspirators to
bolster credibility but I'm not convinced by any of it. This is a
commercial magazine.

Well, maybe it was dumbed down a bit for a wider audiance... or maybe
not. Buycycling doesn't even pretend to quantify anything anymore...
it's all gee whiz subjective "expert" opinions.

What are the chances of you cranking out another round of RR tests?
Sounds to me like a good yearly ritual... gotta keep those tire
manufacturers honest. Heck, you could even let them glue their own
tubulars if they want...

Ron Ruff said:

What are the chances of you cranking out another round of RR tests?
Sounds to me like a good yearly ritual... gotta keep those tire
manufacturers honest. Heck, you could even let them glue their own
tubulars if they want...

Actually, I did do some more. Some of the results were posted in
the biketechreview.com forum. I decided to keep a lot of them
to myself, because a number of my competitors read that forum
(and this ng too probably). I can't risk giving even 5 or 10
seconds to some of these guys.

Here's one interesting followup... I couldn't figure out why
the original wattage numbers for the Vittorias on the Hed alps
were higher than they were on the cheap supergo wheel.

Well I did a road test with the Alps and one other tire up a
local hill (old la honda). It duplicated the roller results.
However, when I rode back down, the rear tube exploded. Looking
at the marks on the tube, it looks like I had about 6-8
inches of the tube in between the rim and the bead. Amazingly,
a latex tube can be ridden this way for a while before it
blows.

-- jens

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

It's a thinly disguised promotional item that is so vague that you
can't deduce anything. It alludes to things that aren't said, as
in lies of the second kind. The cite all sorts of co-conspirators
to bolster credibility but I'm not convinced by any of it. This is
a commercial magazine.

Quoted message said:

Well, maybe it was dumbed down a bit for a wider audience... or
maybe not. Buycycling doesn't even pretend to quantify anything
anymore... it's all gee whiz subjective "expert" opinions.

Quoted message said:

What are the chances of you cranking out another round of RR tests?
Sounds to me like a good yearly ritual... gotta keep those tire
manufacturers honest. Heck, you could even let them glue their own
tubulars if they want...

Not much of a chance, I not being a customer of IRC and Avocet not
getting tires from them since they got out of the bicycle tire
business and passed it on to subcontractors. I didn't do the tests.
I only evaluated them and put them in graphic format so others could
see the effects.

You don't need no steenkin tire tests anyway. If you are interested
in low RR, you can do that practically by hand by flexing the tire
casing of interest in comparison to competitors. Thin sidewalls, no
sidewall rubber, and thin smooth tread is as good as you can get. For
a good example, take a tire like a Clement Criterium Seta and feel it.
For a road tire, you can't get much better RR.

Jobst Brandt

Hello Jobst
Where could I find these graphic format results?
Thank You

John Drew said:

Where could I find these graphic format results?

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/imgs/rolres.gif

Jobst Brandt

19 Oct 2005 16:53:59 -0700, Jens <[email hidden]> skrev:

Quoted message said:

Were there any numbers given for rolling resistance?

thanks, Jens

Yes, but dont ask me to explain what the numbers stand for.

1 and best. Deda Tre Giro D'Italia 26.4 watt (last in puncture resistance)
2. Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX 27.1 watt (three from buttom i p.r.)
3. Michelin Pro Race 29.2 watt (second from buttom i p.r.)
17. Continental GP3000 46.6 watt. (Third place in p.r.)
18 and worst. Hutchington Top Speed 47,9 (No. 17 in p.r.)

Personally I dont consider the test a final proof, but it does explain why
Hutchinton Top Speed is so cheap. And it made me want to try out the
Panaracer Stradius Pro next time i buy.

Ivar of Denmark

41 said:

Ivar Hesselager said:

Highest score overall (21 out of 25) was obtained by three tires:Conti
Ultra Gator Skin,
Michelin Carbon
Panaracer Stradius Pro.

The Ultra Gator has its only weak point on RR, Micheli n Carbon is a bit
heavy and very difficult to mount, while the Panaracer has no weak point,
but tops the score only in the tracking discipine.

I note that of the three best-scoring tires, the first two are
high-carbon rubber tread, while the third is a blend of silica and
carbon filler. (Tour lists it as "silika" but in fact the ZSG compound
has both carbon and silica filler.) The Michelin Carbon would have been
top overall if only they had made the dimensions so that it was easier
to mount.

The Michelin web page for the Carbon tire lists its tread compound as "100%
Silica Energy rubber mix". Is that really a high-carbon rubber tread?

I thought the Carbon in Michelin Carbon tires (which I use and like) was
in fact purely marketing carbon, not the real thing. I could be wrong,
however.

Dennis Ferguson

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Dennis Ferguson said:

41 said:

Ivar Hesselager said:

Highest score overall (21 out of 25) was obtained by three tires:Conti
Ultra Gator Skin,
Michelin Carbon
Panaracer Stradius Pro.

The Ultra Gator has its only weak point on RR, Micheli n Carbon is a bit
heavy and very difficult to mount, while the Panaracer has no weak point,
but tops the score only in the tracking discipine.

I note that of the three best-scoring tires, the first two are
high-carbon rubber tread, while the third is a blend of silica and
carbon filler. (Tour lists it as "silika" but in fact the ZSG compound
has both carbon and silica filler.) The Michelin Carbon would have been
top overall if only they had made the dimensions so that it was easier
to mount.

The Michelin web page for the Carbon tire lists its tread compound as "100%
Silica Energy rubber mix". Is that really a high-carbon rubber tread?

I thought the Carbon in Michelin Carbon tires (which I use and like) was
in fact purely marketing carbon, not the real thing. I could be wrong,
however.

Do not know about those tires. I prefer the Avocet
Fasgrip. Same threads per inch, slick all around,
excellent wet and dry traction, fine ride, less money.

--
Michael Press

Dennis Ferguson said:

41 said:

Ivar Hesselager said:

Highest score overall (21 out of 25) was obtained by three tires:Conti
Ultra Gator Skin,
Michelin Carbon
Panaracer Stradius Pro.

The Ultra Gator has its only weak point on RR, Micheli n Carbon is a bit
heavy and very difficult to mount, while the Panaracer has no weak point,
but tops the score only in the tracking discipine.

I note that of the three best-scoring tires, the first two are
high-carbon rubber tread, while the third is a blend of silica and
carbon filler. (Tour lists it as "silika" but in fact the ZSG compound
has both carbon and silica filler.) The Michelin Carbon would have been
top overall if only they had made the dimensions so that it was easier
to mount.

The Michelin web page for the Carbon tire lists its tread compound as "100%
Silica Energy rubber mix". Is that really a high-carbon rubber tread?

The "Silica blah blah" refers to a different tire or tires, as I
remember from also seeing that on the web page. Those tires are
high-carbon rubber, as you can tell from both printed Michelin
brochures and feeling the tire.

Quoted message said:

Jens Kheycke said:

Were there any numbers given for rolling resistance?

I read the item and found it much like reports in Buycycling Magazine.
It's a thinly disguised promotional item that is so vague that you
can't deduce anything. It alludes to things that aren't said, as in
lies of the second kind. The cite all sorts of co-conspirators to
bolster credibility but I'm not convinced by any of it. This is a
commercial magazine.

I hope you read that one... He said "Not all members were here yet."
when in fact no one had arrived. The room was empty. The statement
is true although any reasonable person would be led to believe
otherwise.

Jobst Brandt

Hmm. I just read the printed copy of the article. Did we read the
same article? They were actually quite explicit: they used the
the roller fixture at the Continental factory in Korbach (amusing
since the Conti tires tested terribly). They gave wattage
numbers for 30, 40, 50 kmh, as well as Crr coefficients for each tire.
They also did traction tests with some sort of car-mounted fixture.
This is a whole world different from Bicycling mag.

-jens

Jens said:

Quoted message said:

Jens Kheycke said:

Were there any numbers given for rolling resistance?

I read the item and found it much like reports in Buycycling Magazine.
It's a thinly disguised promot ional item that is so vague that you
can't deduce anything. It alludes to things that aren't said, as in
lies of the second kind. The cite all sorts of co-conspirators to
bolster credibility but I'm not convinced by any of it. This is a
commercial magazine.

I hope you read that one... He said "Not all members were here yet."
when in fact no one had arrived. The room was empty. The statement
is true although any reasonable person would be led to believe
otherwise.

Jobst Brandt

Hmm. I just read the printed copy of the article. Did we read the
same article? They were actually quite explicit: they used the
the roller fixture at the Continental factory in Korbach (amusing
since the Conti tires tes ted terribly). They gave wattage
numbers for 30, 40, 50 kmh, as well as Crr coefficients for each tire.
They also did traction tests with some sort of car-mounted fixture.
This is a whole world different from Bicycling mag.

It certainly is a different article from the one I read- the PDF
version linked in this thread has no such details.

Jens said:

Hmm. I just read the printed copy of the article. Did we read the
same article? They were actually quite explicit: they used the
the roller fixture at the Continental factory in Korbach (amusing
since the Conti tires tested terribly). They gave wattage
numbers for 30, 40, 50 kmh, as well as Crr coefficients for each tire.
They also did traction tests with some sort of car-mounted fixture.
This is a whole world different from Bicycling mag.

The article I linked to in my original post doesn't seem to have that.
I'm interested in what those numbers turned out to be. If you could
list the results (and how they were obtained) I'd sure appreciate it.