| |
Main
Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:33:47
From:
Subject: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
Hello,
I want to buy some new tyres based on weight, and rolling resitance.
Is there a web site that has this information, reviwing all major
brands?
Michelin, and Continental??
I am currently running cheap continentals, but want to change based on
resitance, i have not been able to find a chart on this??
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 09:53:49
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 6, 2:38 am, s...@whiskey.enposte.net (sl) wrote:
> In article <qdicb3lueu8mj46ie04hpaihg1msn08...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:11:35 -0000, "Qui si parla
> >Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
> >>> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
> >>> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>
> >>yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
>
> >Dear Peter,
>
> >It should be explained that you are presumably referring to this
> >rolling resistance test:
>
> >http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
>
> >Some readers will skip the details of the testing at the top and
> >imagine that they will lose 8 watts per wheel. Soon, they may begin to
> >notice huge speed differences in their memories.
>
> >But the RR power figures are for pedalling a 54x13 at 98 rpm and ~51
> >km/h on the flat, about 31.6 mph. (See the top of that pdf.)
>
> >Those bored by calculations can simply remember that these RR
> >differences produce predicted speed changes of less than 0.5 mph for
> >both grandmothers at 100 watts on the hoods and Tour de France winners
> >at over 500 watts on the drops.
>
> If you are out for social rides the difference is who cares what...
>
> But if you are doing (e.g.) time trials the difference is huge...
>
> I lost three TT's early this year, all in the 10-20 km range by times of
> between 1 and 2 minutes over people I should have been beating. Then
> swapped to a less aero wheelset (Bontrager Aero from Zipp 404) but with
> a faster tire (Bontrager X-Lite Pro from Tufo S3 Pro). The difference
> was amazing.
>
> In two TT's on the same course one week apart, I went from 1:20 behind
> a friend of mine, to 20 seconds ahead. Only difference was the wheelset.
> (I'm those times as an example, overall I went from back of pack to
> 2nd overall etc...)
>
> So IFF you are racing, then yes the numbers make a difference.
I had a somewhat similar experience at a time trial race three weeks
ago. I say somewhat similar because I drew very different conclusions
as to the slow time trial times than you. My 20 km time was 30
seconds to 1 minute slower than many of the people I ride with
regularly. Yet I know I am faster than these other people. I ride
with most of them during the week and I can outride them.
About 40 hours after the time trial we had a road race. 26 miles with
two one mile long 11% hills. According to the Garmin 305 a friend
used in the race. Last hill was one mile before the finish line. The
people who beat me by 30 seconds to 1 minute or more in the time trail
were in the road race with me. Very few of the people who bested me
in the time trial were in the lead group when it cleared the final
hill. And of the few who were, none crossed the finish line before
me.
You blame your equipment for your poor time trial results. I take
responsibility for my own slow time trial results. I prefer road
races. I know how fast I have to go in a road race, "faster than the
person beside me".
>
> One thing to remember though, sometimes the faster tires are usually not
> as robust or puncture proof... so don't plan on doing too much training
> on them. Save them for race day.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:37:00
From: sl
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
In article <1186419229.628588.264920@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
russellseaton1@yahoo.com <russellseaton1@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Aug 6, 2:38 am, s...@whiskey.enposte.net (sl) wrote:
>> In article <qdicb3lueu8mj46ie04hpaihg1msn08...@4ax.com>,
>> In two TT's on the same course one week apart, I went from 1:20 behind
>> a friend of mine, to 20 seconds ahead. Only difference was the wheelset.
>> (I'm those times as an example, overall I went from back of pack to
>> 2nd overall etc...)
>>
>> So IFF you are racing, then yes the numbers make a difference.
>You blame your equipment for your poor time trial results. I take
>responsibility for my own slow time trial results. I prefer road
>races. I know how fast I have to go in a road race, "faster than the
>person beside me".
Well that's why they call Time Trials the race of truth.. There simply
isn't anyone else to pace you. It's up to you to do your best. You don't
get a carrot.
Part of doing your best is understanding what your equipment choices
are. I take complete responsibility for my poor choice of equipment and
the fact that I didn't test it before using it in competition.
I should have mentioned that all my TT's are done with a power meter. So
I can fairly conclusively tell what if any the differences in my
performance was.
For the three TT's I did with the bad wheelset (Zipp 404s with Tufo S3
Pro) my power output was fine. But my times where far too low. I first
blamed the weather and the course for the first two TT's (they had a bit
of climbing...)
But for the third, it was dead flat, with only a very small amount of
wind on a beautiful day. So then I started looking for something else..
Swapped the zipps for another wheelset and started testing. And the
results immediately showed a large difference (est 30 watts) to maintain
42kmh. Which over 16km amounts to between 1-2 minutes extra time.
Raced the alternate set the next and subsequent TT's and times are now
back to where they should be.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 05:41:33
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 5, 3:53 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1186330295.783350.164...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
> >>> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
> >>> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>
> >> yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
>
> > What power does a below average bicyclist put out?
> > Sounds like 8 watts is a fraction worth preserving. I
> > average 20 km/hr on hill rides, 25 km/hr on `flat'
> > rides. That is my category. I use slick tires and know
> > the difference.
>
> For an untrained cyclist pootling along, or someone who has "bonked", 8
> watts would be about 10% of their power output.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
10% sounds like a lot. I tend to buy pretty cheap tires. Never more
than $20.00 bucks if I splurge, but usually around 10.00 to 15.00
bucks. I usually try to get something good for my needs. By that I
mean a tire that of 23-25C width, between 250 and 300 grams weight and
Kevlar beads.
My riding buddies usually buy 40 to 50 dollar tires. they have lighter
bikes and fancier wheels. I doubt that the tires give them a 10%
advantage over my tires. otherwise, they could kick my butt. Or, If I
got fancier tires, I would kick their butts, but I doubt it too. Also,
the expensive tires seem wya to light for my weight. 200 to 220 grams
seem too light to get any longevity.
I ride cheap tires cause I have a hard time spending 40.00 bucks on a
piece of rubber for my bike. Also, and most importantly, because i
realize that it doesn't really make that much difference in
performance.
Recently I bought some cheap wheels on ebay. They have Alex rims, XX
hubs, 36 14g spokes, tubes and Michelin dynamic tires. I paid 90 bucks
for this deal. I bought them cause my mavic reflex rim cracked at the
eyelets and when I looked for a rim, most of them were $69.99. So, I
bought a wheelset instead. I ended up buying a dt rim for 70 bucks too
and replaced the old rim. I was sure that when I put those alex wheels
on my bike, I would become anchored to the ground. So far, I've only
put the front wheel on my bike and it is a pig to the hand. Yet, I
haven't noticed much difference while riding and I am not getting
dropped on the weekend hammer sessions. My conclusion is that for
purposes other than serious racing I will not feel much difference.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:14:30
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 5, 5:15 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:32:35 -0000, landotter wrote:
> > Yeah yeah, you're one of those wise guys that does it with Pantone
> > swatches. To each his own. I prefer to flavor match, but it's hard to
> > get a lick in at some shops.
>
> Given what shops charge for decent tyres, I'm surprised they don't
> charge us to merely touch them :-)
Unless you are going to carry a spare tire, most riders can get by
with lots less expensive tires. GP3000/4000 were designed as sticky
racing type tires. A wire Ultra Sport works just fine for the vast
majority of riders but alas, many lose way too many coffee shop points
on their Sunday ride to use them.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:12:03
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 5, 5:13 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:11:35 -0000, "Qui si parla
>
> Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
> >> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
> >> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>
> >yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> It should be explained that you are presumably referring to this
> rolling resistance test:
>
> http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
>
> Some readers will skip the details of the testing at the top and
> imagine that they will lose 8 watts per wheel. Soon, they may begin to
> notice huge speed differences in their memories.
>
> But the RR power figures are for pedalling a 54x13 at 98 rpm and ~51
> km/h on the flat, about 31.6 mph. (See the top of that pdf.)
>
> Those bored by calculations can simply remember that these RR
> differences produce predicted speed changes of less than 0.5 mph for
> both grandmothers at 100 watts on the hoods and Tour de France winners
> at over 500 watts on the drops.
>
> ***
>
> This calculator allows numeric entry:
>
> http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityN/velocity.html
>
> The RR values in the RR test were 0.00488 for the GP 3000 and 0.00330
> for the Bontrager.
>
> If you plug those values in, change to a frontal area of 0.300 (the
> generic on-the-drops value in the source code), and use 552.175 watts,
> the speed prediciton increases from 51.000 km/h to 51.694 km/h, about
> 0.7 km/h
>
> That's less than half a mile per hour at 31.6 mph, less than anyone is
> likely to notice while pedalling that hard. The difference exists, but
> it takes electronic measurements to notice while riding.
>
> Here's another calculator:
>
> http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html
>
> Put in the same 0.3 frontal area and raise the drag coefficient to 0.9
> to match the other calculator, set the slope to 0, put in the 0.00488
> RR, and use 521.5 watts. That produces a 14.17 m/s speed, which is
> about 51 km/h.
>
> (The two calculators differ in details that can't be adjusted
> directly, so you just live with the differences.)
>
> Change the RR from 0.00488 to 0.00330, and the speed rises to 14.33
> m/s, about 51.01 versus 51.59 km/h, again a difference too small to
> notice in real life without extraordinary measurements.
>
> Let's look at a more likely wattage. If we go back to the simple
> version of the first calculator, we can pick on-the-drops and
> "clincher" (0.0040) versus "tubular" (0.0050):
>
> http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityMetric/velocity.html
>
> The default 300 watts is more than most riders can pedal for long
> rides, so let's drop that to 200 watts.
>
> Clincher (0.0050 RR), on-the-drops, 200 watts --> 33.707 km/h.
>
> Tubular (0.0040 RR), on-the-drops, 200 watts --> 34.279 km/h.
>
> At the lower speed and power, a plausible RR change produces a
> slightly smaller small speed change, a little less than 0.6 km/h speed
> increase.
>
> Drop the watts to 100. A grandmother can do that, so put her
> on-the-hoods and drop her weight to 50 kg.
>
> Clincher (0.0050 RR), on-hoods, 50kg rider, 100 watts --> 25.021 km/h.
> Tubular (0.0040 RR), on-hoods, 50kg rider, 100 watts --> 24.615 km/h.
>
> At a very low speed and power, a plausible RR change produces only
> about 0.4 km/h speed increase.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Thanks Doc, my point..
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:44:29
From:
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 3, 2:44 pm, "Kurd" <n...@fing.way > wrote:
> Do you hate cycling that much to do this to be finished 2 minutes faster?
no. i just dont like loosing, i would rather be a winner. If no one
cared about tyres they wouldnt be $100 for 1 they would be $15. Its
just rubber, but tyres are imporant enough in Prand Prix races so they
must have an effect considering my little legs have to move my bike.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:11:35
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net > wrote:
> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>
yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:13:30
From:
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:11:35 -0000, "Qui si parla
Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
>> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
>> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>>
>
>yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
Dear Peter,
It should be explained that you are presumably referring to this
rolling resistance test:
http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
Some readers will skip the details of the testing at the top and
imagine that they will lose 8 watts per wheel. Soon, they may begin to
notice huge speed differences in their memories.
But the RR power figures are for pedalling a 54x13 at 98 rpm and ~51
km/h on the flat, about 31.6 mph. (See the top of that pdf.)
Those bored by calculations can simply remember that these RR
differences produce predicted speed changes of less than 0.5 mph for
both grandmothers at 100 watts on the hoods and Tour de France winners
at over 500 watts on the drops.
***
This calculator allows numeric entry:
http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityN/velocity.html
The RR values in the RR test were 0.00488 for the GP 3000 and 0.00330
for the Bontrager.
If you plug those values in, change to a frontal area of 0.300 (the
generic on-the-drops value in the source code), and use 552.175 watts,
the speed prediciton increases from 51.000 km/h to 51.694 km/h, about
0.7 km/h
That's less than half a mile per hour at 31.6 mph, less than anyone is
likely to notice while pedalling that hard. The difference exists, but
it takes electronic measurements to notice while riding.
Here's another calculator:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html
Put in the same 0.3 frontal area and raise the drag coefficient to 0.9
to match the other calculator, set the slope to 0, put in the 0.00488
RR, and use 521.5 watts. That produces a 14.17 m/s speed, which is
about 51 km/h.
(The two calculators differ in details that can't be adjusted
directly, so you just live with the differences.)
Change the RR from 0.00488 to 0.00330, and the speed rises to 14.33
m/s, about 51.01 versus 51.59 km/h, again a difference too small to
notice in real life without extraordinary measurements.
Let's look at a more likely wattage. If we go back to the simple
version of the first calculator, we can pick on-the-drops and
"clincher" (0.0040) versus "tubular" (0.0050):
http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityMetric/velocity.html
The default 300 watts is more than most riders can pedal for long
rides, so let's drop that to 200 watts.
Clincher (0.0050 RR), on-the-drops, 200 watts -- > 33.707 km/h.
Tubular (0.0040 RR), on-the-drops, 200 watts -- > 34.279 km/h.
At the lower speed and power, a plausible RR change produces a
slightly smaller small speed change, a little less than 0.6 km/h speed
increase.
Drop the watts to 100. A grandmother can do that, so put her
on-the-hoods and drop her weight to 50 kg.
Clincher (0.0050 RR), on-hoods, 50kg rider, 100 watts -- > 25.021 km/h.
Tubular (0.0040 RR), on-hoods, 50kg rider, 100 watts -- > 24.615 km/h.
At a very low speed and power, a plausible RR change produces only
about 0.4 km/h speed increase.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 07:38:21
From: sl
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
In article <qdicb3lueu8mj46ie04hpaihg1msn080do@4ax.com >,
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:11:35 -0000, "Qui si parla
>Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
>>> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
>>> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>>>
>>
>>yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
>
>Dear Peter,
>
>It should be explained that you are presumably referring to this
>rolling resistance test:
>
>http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
>
>Some readers will skip the details of the testing at the top and
>imagine that they will lose 8 watts per wheel. Soon, they may begin to
>notice huge speed differences in their memories.
>
>But the RR power figures are for pedalling a 54x13 at 98 rpm and ~51
>km/h on the flat, about 31.6 mph. (See the top of that pdf.)
>
>Those bored by calculations can simply remember that these RR
>differences produce predicted speed changes of less than 0.5 mph for
>both grandmothers at 100 watts on the hoods and Tour de France winners
>at over 500 watts on the drops.
If you are out for social rides the difference is who cares what...
But if you are doing (e.g.) time trials the difference is huge...
I lost three TT's early this year, all in the 10-20 km range by times of
between 1 and 2 minutes over people I should have been beating. Then
swapped to a less aero wheelset (Bontrager Aero from Zipp 404) but with
a faster tire (Bontrager X-Lite Pro from Tufo S3 Pro). The difference
was amazing.
In two TT's on the same course one week apart, I went from 1:20 behind
a friend of mine, to 20 seconds ahead. Only difference was the wheelset.
(I'm those times as an example, overall I went from back of pack to
2nd overall etc...)
So IFF you are racing, then yes the numbers make a difference.
One thing to remember though, sometimes the faster tires are usually not
as robust or puncture proof... so don't plan on doing too much training
on them. Save them for race day.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:21:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
In article
<1186330295.783350.164120@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
> > Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
> > slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
> >
>
> yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
What power does a below average bicyclist put out?
Sounds like 8 watts is a fraction worth preserving. I
average 20 km/hr on hill rides, 25 km/hr on `flat'
rides. That is my category. I use slick tires and know
the difference.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:53:10
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1186330295.783350.164120@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 7:10 pm, "Bob Palermo" <rj_pale...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
>>> Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
>>> slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
>>>
>> yep, 8 more watts per wheel to get the same speed......8 watts....
>
> What power does a below average bicyclist put out?
> Sounds like 8 watts is a fraction worth preserving. I
> average 20 km/hr on hill rides, 25 km/hr on `flat'
> rides. That is my category. I use slick tires and know
> the difference.
For an untrained cyclist pootling along, or someone who has "bonked", 8
watts would be about 10% of their power output.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 09:03:50
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 4, 5:04 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 10:59 pm, 531Aussie <531Aussie.2uq...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> >> here's a couple
>
> >>http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
>
> >>http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
> >> related article:http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> >> The only Continental I've had that felt vaguely fast was a Supersonic,
> >> but they wear so quickly they're not worth it. I hate the Attack/Force,
> >> and the GP3000 are just a rock hard training tyre. I haven't used a
> >> GP4000.
>
> >> I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed and
> >> reasonable wear
>
> > I agree (although I have not ridden every tire on the market). I got
> > them for $28 USD from ProBikeKit in England. No shipping.
> > Unbelievable deal. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Since there was no shipping, the tires are still in England, while you
> are tireless in Portland? ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
Ba-doom, boom...ching. It really was a great deal, and the shipping
time was about the same as Nashbar. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:35:59
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 2, 10:59 pm, 531Aussie <531Aussie.2uq...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> here's a couple
>
> http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
>
> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
> related article:http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> The only Continental I've had that felt vaguely fast was a Supersonic,
> but they wear so quickly they're not worth it. I hate the Attack/Force,
> and the GP3000 are just a rock hard training tyre. I haven't used a
> GP4000.
>
> I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed and
> reasonable wear
I agree (although I have not ridden every tire on the market). I got
them for $28 USD from ProBikeKit in England. No shipping.
Unbelievable deal. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 19:04:55
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Aug 2, 10:59 pm, 531Aussie <531Aussie.2uq...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> here's a couple
>>
>> http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
>>
>> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
>> related article:http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>>
>> The only Continental I've had that felt vaguely fast was a Supersonic,
>> but they wear so quickly they're not worth it. I hate the Attack/Force,
>> and the GP3000 are just a rock hard training tyre. I haven't used a
>> GP4000.
>>
>> I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed and
>> reasonable wear
>
> I agree (although I have not ridden every tire on the market). I got
> them for $28 USD from ProBikeKit in England. No shipping.
> Unbelievable deal. -- Jay Beattie.
Since there was no shipping, the tires are still in England, while you
are tireless in Portland? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 22:10:27
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 3, 4:24 pm, "bfd" <bfd...@comcast.net > wrote:
> This may be true in part. I really like the Avocet Fasgrip 700x25 *slick*
> tires. As stated, there is no tread on that tire. Avocet use to have a
> Fasgrip "City" tire in 26x1.25 (32mm wide). However, I've been told that
> Avocet has since discontinued all of its 26" tires. What to do?
>
> I found that Performance/Nashbar sells a house-brand tire, made in Taiwan in
> 26x1.25. Performance calls its the City slick tire (or something like it).
> Its a true slick tire that provides 80-90% of the performance of the Avocet
> at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. A real bargain!
That's a sweet tire for the price. Put some on a mtb I sold last year.
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=15304&subcategory_ID=5425
$7 and 355g!
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:37:03
From: bfd
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186179027.288079.213660@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 3, 4:24 pm, "bfd" <bfd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> This may be true in part. I really like the Avocet Fasgrip 700x25 *slick*
>> tires. As stated, there is no tread on that tire. Avocet use to have a
>> Fasgrip "City" tire in 26x1.25 (32mm wide). However, I've been told that
>> Avocet has since discontinued all of its 26" tires. What to do?
>>
>> I found that Performance/Nashbar sells a house-brand tire, made in Taiwan
>> in
>> 26x1.25. Performance calls its the City slick tire (or something like
>> it).
>> Its a true slick tire that provides 80-90% of the performance of the
>> Avocet
>> at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. A real bargain!
>
> That's a sweet tire for the price. Put some on a mtb I sold last year.
> http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=15304&subcategory_ID=5425
>
> $7 and 355g!
>
Yes, that's a bargain! The Nashbar version is currently $13:
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=6000121&subcategory=60001249&brand=&sku=7174&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%2026x1%2E0%20to%2026x1%2E75
However, you still need to compare as sometimes they sale price flips and
the Nashbar one is cheaper. Good Luck!
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:48:56
From:
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
You probably will not find current models tested in any meaningful
way. However, if you peruse the RR tests, you will notice some trends.
Bald tires generally have lower rolling resistance and for a similar
reason, so do used tires.
So if this is really important to you (you do long competitive time
trials), pick your tire based on these factors and you are more likely
to get low RR.
1. No tread
2. Thin rubber
3. Thin casing
4. High thread count casing
5. Tubeless system
6. Latex tubes
None of that except the first item is guaranteed, design and materials
is very important as well (such as the bias of the casing). You can
also try to see if there is a trend in the RR tests for a certain
manufacturer to do well - I haven't been able to see that. And
finally, you can pick a few likely candidates and perform your own
roll down tests (much more accurate in the real world than the typical
small diameter drum testing usual in most RR tests).
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:37:25
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:48:56 -0700, paypal@pantravelers.org wrote:
>So if this is really important to you (you do long competitive time
>trials), pick your tire based on these factors and you are more likely
>to get low RR.
>
>1. No tread
>2. Thin rubber
>3. Thin casing
>4. High thread count casing
>5. Tubeless system
>6. Latex tubes
Are you sure about tubeless system?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:24:41
From: bfd
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
<paypal@pantravelers.org > wrote in message
news:1186166936.241068.279680@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> You probably will not find current models tested in any meaningful
> way. However, if you peruse the RR tests, you will notice some trends.
> Bald tires generally have lower rolling resistance and for a similar
> reason, so do used tires.
>
> So if this is really important to you (you do long competitive time
> trials), pick your tire based on these factors and you are more likely
> to get low RR.
>
> 1. No tread
> 2. Thin rubber
> 3. Thin casing
> 4. High thread count casing
> 5. Tubeless system
> 6. Latex tubes
>
> None of that except the first item is guaranteed, design and materials
> is very important as well (such as the bias of the casing). You can
> also try to see if there is a trend in the RR tests for a certain
> manufacturer to do well - I haven't been able to see that. And
> finally, you can pick a few likely candidates and perform your own
> roll down tests (much more accurate in the real world than the typical
> small diameter drum testing usual in most RR tests).
>
This may be true in part. I really like the Avocet Fasgrip 700x25 *slick*
tires. As stated, there is no tread on that tire. Avocet use to have a
Fasgrip "City" tire in 26x1.25 (32mm wide). However, I've been told that
Avocet has since discontinued all of its 26" tires. What to do?
I found that Performance/Nashbar sells a house-brand tire, made in Taiwan in
26x1.25. Performance calls its the City slick tire (or something like it).
Its a true slick tire that provides 80-90% of the performance of the Avocet
at 1/3 to 1/4 the price. A real bargain!
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:32:35
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Aug 3, 5:04 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:33:47 -0700, vyaw2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> No, it's not. I've never seen one, and have no trouble buying tyres.
Yeah yeah, you're one of those wise guys that does it with Pantone
swatches. To each his own. I prefer to flavor match, but it's hard to
get a lick in at some shops.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:45:50
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:32:35 -0000, landotter wrote:
> Yeah yeah, you're one of those wise guys that does it with Pantone
> swatches. To each his own. I prefer to flavor match, but it's hard to
> get a lick in at some shops.
Given what shops charge for decent tyres, I'm surprised they don't
charge us to merely touch them :-)
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 19:34:42
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:33:47 -0700, vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's not. I've never seen one, and have no trouble buying tyres.
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 06:32:53
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
In article <1186112027.686792.89930@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com >,
vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I want to buy some new tyres based on weight, and rolling resitance.
> Is there a web site that has this information, reviwing all major
> brands?
> Michelin, and Continental??
>
> I am currently running cheap continentals, but want to change based on
> resitance, i have not been able to find a chart on this??
Bear in mind that Conti has come out with GP4000S as well as GP4000 with
chili compound. This new compound supposedly has fixed the rolling
resistance issue with the old GP4000.
--
|
| |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:44:12
From: Kurd
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
Do you hate cycling that much to do this to be finished 2 minutes faster?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 15:59:20
From: 531Aussie
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
here's a couple
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
related article: http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
The only Continental I've had that felt vaguely fast was a Supersonic
but they wear so quickly they're not worth it. I hate the Attack/Force
and the GP3000 are just a rock hard training tyre. I haven't used
GP4000.
I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed an
reasonable wea
--
531Aussie
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:50:47
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:59:20 +1000, 531Aussie wrote:
> I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed and
> reasonable wear
I've used them for a while and been happy, but now I've got a pair of
Rubino Pros on (the new "slick" variety). They're cheaper, don't feel any
slower, and so far appear tougher. Will have to wait and see about wear,
though.
My last batch of Pro Races were four yellow ones that a mate sold me
for AUD$35 all up because they didn't match his new bike's paint job! If
only more riders were so rich and fashion-conscious :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Aug 2007 20:10:43
From: Bob Palermo
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
I don't like the GP3000 either. I got one as a rear replacement to the
Bontrager race X-lites that came on my bike. From the first ride, they felt
slower. Later I learned that their rolling resistance was not well rated.
"531Aussie" <531Aussie.2uq71z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in
message news:531Aussie.2uq71z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> here's a couple
>
> http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf
>
> http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
> related article: http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
>
> The only Continental I've had that felt vaguely fast was a Supersonic,
> but they wear so quickly they're not worth it. I hate the Attack/Force,
> and the GP3000 are just a rock hard training tyre. I haven't used a
> GP4000.
>
> I reckon Michelin Pro Races are the best all round tyre for speed and
> reasonable wear
>
>
> --
> 531Aussie
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2007 21:46:14
From:
Subject: Re: Rolling Resitance chart needed to buy new tyres
|
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:33:47 -0700, vyaw2003@gmail.com wrote:
>Hello,
>I want to buy some new tyres based on weight, and rolling resitance.
>Is there a web site that has this information, reviwing all major
>brands?
>Michelin, and Continental??
>
>I am currently running cheap continentals, but want to change based on
>resitance, i have not been able to find a chart on this??
Dear V,
Lots of tires:
http://biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
***
This test:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
leads to tubular and clincher results:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/tubular-specs.html
and
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/02/72/10/clincher-specs.html
***
A page with Jobst's long-ago tests, plus some MTB results:
http://bike.terrymorse.com/rolres.html
A larger, clearer version of Jobst's graph:
http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTire_TireRollingResistance.html
***
Older but extensive recumbent-oriented tests:
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/tech/JL.htm
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
|
