I think the test is a little misleading in that:

• thick butyl tubes are used, whereas latex would make the tube-type tyres look a lot more impressive
• the harmful effect of the butyl tubes is exaggerated by the heavy load, modest pressures, and small roller diameter
• the spread is narrow, i.e. all the tyres are pretty fast. From 2nd to 10th on the list is a spread of just a couple of watts, so inner tubes really matter to the ranking and the ranking itself is not as important as it might appear to some readers
  
• considering the narrow spread, the mounted tyre width significantly affects the results. This is ignored except for a cursory mention of mounted width in the tyre-by-tyre notes at the bottom
  
• for marketing reasons (I presume), Specialized labels the Turbo Cotton tyres as 24 mm and 26 mm when they’re more like typical 23 mm and 25 mm tyres. Since BikeRadar was testing nominally 25 mm tyres, they averaged the 24 mm and 26 mm Turbo Cotton results, which puts these tyres at another unfair disadvantage
• the Vittoria Corsa G+ is the wrong size but ranked anyway. Half the readers are probably too casual to pick up on this
• to the extent that road tests are useful, they’d be more useful at higher speed
• aerodynamics are ignored.

Many tests these days seem to have a sub-plot of pushing tubeless tyres, fat tyres, fat rims, and disc brakes by innocuously measuring the wrong thing. I don’t go in for conspiracy theories, but I’m amazed at the influence of trends on everyone including journalists.


Which other places, if you don’t mind sharing?