I would (hazard) guess that the GP4ks (2) is the most widely used tire. It gets good reviews (on here among other places) as a fast and fairly durable tire. It doesn't hurt that you can buy them online for under $30 pretty regularly. Beyond that, the SuperSonic is pretty much THE race tire for those who want (one of) the fastest clinchers. Then I'd guess (in what I see locally at least) for the "sky is falling" folk, you see a lot more gatorskins than you do armadillo's /etc.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

For me Continental has a proven track record. I run elcheapo grand prix clinchers on my training wheels and tubular competitions on my race wheels. I realize it is a major crr faux pas but I like them, Im fast on them and they more than likely will get me to the finish line without flatting on the crappy roads I race on around here.
At some point you have to quit stressing ad nauseam about the minutiae and put your head down and ride.

I'm a middle of the pack guy and went with the Conti GP4k's based on reviews from ST. I've stuck with them b/c they are reasonably fast, affordable, and I have yet to flat.

attack/force and/or GP4KS 2 depending on the price/availability and because of the current data that they're decent in aero/rolling resistance.

+1

Because most people are on clinchers and Conti has the best range of low Crr low CdA out there.

Most of your tub users will likely be on Vittoria.

Dan,

Your survey's tend to be a bit skewed, based on the profile of a typical Slowtwitch forum user! :)

But that being said, I agree with the previous poster - Conti GP4000 2 S's rule because, they are readily available everywhere - EVERY bike shop I go into, they are there. The tire scores very highly (not the absolute best), but on all those key tire metrics. The price you can find them at online - is VERY good. It's now being sourced OEM on mid to high-end bikes. And so on.

Yes there are other great tires. I've read that the new Michelin Power Competition may be as good as the venerable Conti GP 40002 S's in all those key tire metrics. I have a pair (of the new Michelins) sitting here waiting to be put on for spring outdoor riding.

We've been riding the Conti GP 40002 S's for years now on all our wheel-sets. It feels great on the road. Goes on/off the wheel-sets we have reasonably easy. Despite many calling this a "race tire", we regularly pound out rides on gravel and shitty pavement, and we only get the occasional puncture - on average 1 - 3 on-the-road-mid-ride flats a year between two riders, putting in modest to big miles!

In short - its a great tire!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Yeah, I'd agree that it's a combo of cost, availability, and reputation. Zipp and Michelin tend to be higher priced than Conti, especially for the "good enough to race and train" crowd. If you are an LBS shopper, picking up tires and tubes added on to other bigger purchases, Specialized and Bontrager (in particular) are clearly biased to certain shops (typically non-tri-specific shops to boot). Schwalbe just isn't as prevalent. And Vittoria definitely suffers in reputation versus Conti, although (therefore?) you can always find them inexpensively somewhere. ETA: ...for clinchers. :)

650c wheels

---

No coasting in running and no crying in baseball

Yeah, I think this particular poll is a good illustration of the st "echo chamber". The 4000S II has received sustained high praise here over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the default tire for this particular community. It is the tire that I have settled on after being a long time Michelin fan. There are other tires I want to try but if I don't have the time/inclination to really think about my next tire choice, the 4000S II is a no-brainer.

From an LBS standpoint Conti's distribution channel is pretty easy to navigate and offers very competitive margins. As a consequence the tire wall is frequented by Conti.

I'm surprised it's quite that skewed, but then again I'm one of the 71% and to echo above, have found Conti to tick the right boxes.

At the risk of over-analyzing my purchasing decisions, I'd say they have a good clear line of products that perform well across the board. Personally I use GP 4 Seasons for winter riding, GP4000S IIs for summer riding and Grand Prix TTs for races and have been very happy with all three. I used Schwalbe for a couple of seasons prior and after having to bin three Ultremo ZXs well before they were worn out due to split sidewalls I'd had enough and jumped ship to Conti.

I'm intrigued by Specialized's offerings so I might give them a try soon.

I run the GP 4k2/Force, primarily because I have a Flo wheelset developed around that tire. Similarly, based on the Specialized white paper floating around these boards, I'd change to the Spesh Turbo Cotton if I happened to land a Roval wheel-set.

In both cases, the wheel manufacturer is telling us the tire with the best blend of Cda and Crr for their wheels.

Scott

For me Continental has a proven track record. I run elcheapo grand prix clinchers on my training wheels and tubular competitions on my race wheels. I realize it is a major crr faux pas but I like them, Im fast on them and they more than likely will get me to the finish line without flatting on the crappy roads I race on around here.
At some point you have to quit stressing ad nauseam about the minutiae and put your head down and ride.
-----------------------------
+1 on all counts

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

Ditto. My usual modus operandi is to put brand new GP4Ks on for an IM, and then ride them for training for the entire next year, until the next race...they are very durable and reasonably flat resistant. I can usually recycle the front tire into a trainer tire after all that as well.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

"I've read that the new Michelin Power Competition may be as good as the venerable Conti GP 40002 S's in all those key tire metrics."

no. the michelin is better. it's the same in weight and puncture resistance, and it rolls a few watts faster (2 to 4 per pair) depending on speed. and the turbo cotton is better yet. but then there's aerodynamics, and i don't have good data on all these tires. i hear the 4000II S makes up for some of its Crr deficit with its aerodynamics but i haven't seen aero data on all the tires that outroll the 4000II S. i was reading tom anhalt's blog posts last night on his time at the specialized tunnel and it seems the turbo cottons are pretty good aerodynamically as well.

which is why i'm asking, because i have nothing against conti, i just think the market share is quite imbalanced based on the actual demonstrated function of these tires.

i did already recognize the two nice things about the conti and the answers here are bearing out my preconceptions: price and the ability to easily obtain them. still, on balance, if i didn't mind spending a few extra dollars per tire, and if performance was my metric, i honestly don't know that i'd choose the 4000S II.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

GP4000S 2 user here: I'll echo what has been said above (relatively fast, not expensive, good longevity), and add an anecdote.

Three times in the last calendar year I've had a nail or tack get stuck in the tire. In all cases the object was large enough that I heard it hitting the ground each tire revolution. In all cases I was able to get off the bike, pull the object out, and the protection strip had stopped the object from piercing the tube.

I've ridden faster tires, but nothing with this level of puncture protection and still pretty fast. And apparently, getting a flat tire is a reasonably high risk proposition, at least in my risk assessment.

---

2015 USAT Long Course National Champion (M50-54)

"The 4000S II has received sustained high praise here over the years and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the default tire for this particular community."

i agree. at the risk of upsetting the apple cart, can i suggest that this sustained high praise has occurred because this tire is now well into its 4th year, and when it first arrived it was the top of the heap. in the 3+ years intervening specialized, hutchinson, vittoria, michelin, even schwalbe have come out with tires that equal or beat this tire and not many people have noticed.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

More of the what's already been said here. When it came time for me to buy new "race" tires, the GP 4000 S II was on sale for $30. Given the positive plugs in this forum, I bought a pair. I'll see how they compare to the Michelin Pro Race tires that I've used in the past.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Then I'd guess (in what I see locally at least) for the "sky is falling" folk, you see a lot more gatorskins than you do armadillo's /etc.

The popularity of these tires always amazes me. I don't doubt that they are more durable. However, as noted in a previous post we ride the heck out of Conti GP40002S's and get on average 1 - 3 on-the-road-during-a-ride flats a year.

For a WAAAY better ride than the gatorskins/armadillos that is a small price/inconvenience to pay.

I can change a clincher flat in 2 mins or less . . and we are on our way!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

As others have said, there are a couple of likely reasons:

1. Continental are available everywhere
2. Continental make lots of different tyres that appeal to different preferences, low RR, puncture resistance, all-rounder.
3. The GP4000S II is probably not the best for RR, puncture resistance or aero, but pretty good at everything. So it's where a lot of people settle.

Since such a large majority went for Continental in that poll, I'd say a second one is warranted to get a breakdown of which Continental tyres people are using.

GP 4's. Cheap and decently quick.

---

NCCP certified Comp coach

Same as what everyone else said, and with regards to the bolded section above, while those tires -may- be as good, they certainly don't have the same amount of real world data/reviews to back it up yet. So many of us on here have had years of good experiences with the Conti GP4000 that there is little reason to change and risk having an issue.
Knock on wood, 2 seasons of races on GP4000's w/latex and not a single flat, and I don't feel like they've slowed me down. :)

Speaking of tire performance, any idea why all the tests done at the below link showed lower rolling resistance at higher pressures, like 120 psi? I thought the new trend was that lower pressures like 90 psi were faster.

http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...d-prix-4000s-ii-2014

GP 4000S II for reasons stated above. Low rr, very well proven, available everywhere, very durable and i dont have the extra dollars to buy more expensive tires.

TG said something in another thread (i think the wetsuit one) about how people sometimes get caught uo in the "must have latest greatest" and abandon what works well for no good reason.

Show me a tire that is 5+w faster combined between aero and rr, and lasts two seasons of racing at the same price point, and I'll switch. Untill then? Why leave a good, proven thing?

It's because even after all of the new tires coming out, the Conti GP4000S is STILL a tough tire to beat when taking into account the total combination of aerodynamics (even if it was "accidental excellence"), rolling resistance, durability, availability AND price.

Yes, there are other tires that can give better performance in some of those categories, but they typically come with trade-offs in one or more of the others. It's up to the user to determine which of those categories mean the most to them and if they want to deal with, or mitigate the effects of the drawbacks. It's my experience though, that the VAST majority of cyclists and triathletes really don't want to think too much about it, and really are looking for "the answer". When a person like that asks me "what should I use?", it typically comes down to "it's tough to go wrong with a GP4000S with a latex tube inside".

Personally, I TT on 23C Conti Supersonics, and road race on Turbo Cottons. My TT tire choice is mostly because I'm less "flat averse" than the typical triathlete, and I want the best combo of Crr and aerodynamics for my personal race wheels. The road race choice is because I've found that the TCs are actually more durable than they are given credit for...and, life is too short to ride crappy riding tires :-) If the 23C SuperSonics didn't exist, I'd most likely TT on Turbo Cottons as well...although, it appears the SS tires just recently went through a re-working of their construction, so I might have to re-evaluate the newer models.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

 I have used Conti clinchers and tubs for 20 years or so. Quality, durability, and price range make them a good choice. Not saying that other tires are bad. Just that I average a flat much less frequently with the Conti tires.

For me it's the Cont 4000s. I've used them both for my 700 wheels and my 650 wheels. Maybe it was marketing at first that got me started with them. After that I tend to not stray from what works for me for any of my equipment. I become loyal to whatever serves me well. And quite simply, the 4000s gets me tons of miles with very little trouble. I very well could be missing out on a better option. But why risk it?

Because that test setup doesn't include the "suspension losses", or what Josh Poertner termed "impedance" losses of an entire bike + rider system. It's ONLY measuring the effects of tire pressure on the tire alone, not the rest of the system. Josh explains that here:

https://silca.cc/...y-and-previous-works

https://silca.cc/...stance-and-impedance

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Also...don't forget that he tests clinchers with butyl tubes. Just keep that in mind when comparing to his tubeless results ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"Personally, I TT on 23C Conti Supersonics, and road race on Turbo Cottons."

i don't want anybody to misunderstand my question or point here. i agree with you that the 4000S II is a great value all things considered. i just question whether it's worth a 71 percent market share.

especially because the most knowledgeable tire person on the forum is not using that tire.

again, nothing against that tire. just, it's my guess that the issue is that the 4000S II came out in 2013, and at that time the tire was a world beater, and it gained a reputation during 2013, 2014, and that reputation has endured. but it's 2017 and the turbo cotton (as just one example) wasn't around or well known at that time, and the michelin power competition (as another example) didn't come out until 2016.

i don't think anybody who bought a 4000S II today could be faulted for doing so. but i don't think the facts support a 70 percent market share. (btw, i also much admire the turbo cotton, tho i find it quite a wide tire, and even the 24mm barely fits inside the chain stays of my c'dale supersix evo.)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

 
GP4K's for me.

1. They get consistent good reviews for durability, rolling resistance, aero, etc.

2. They have served me very well. Went to a week long training camp in Cali with some friends, two worked at the LBS. They got all crazy on the newest, fastest, lightest, tires. Both of them went through 3 tires a piece and ended up on the equivalent of an armadillo tire for the last two days of the camp. I went with my old Conti's with 1,500 miles already on them and never had a single problem. I get 1-3 flats per year and it usually only happens when I wait too long to replace a tire.

Had some Zipp tires, they failed to impress. Didn't last long at all, weren't any faster, didn't ride any better and were much more expensive.

I keep an eye out and when I see the Conti's for $30 I buy a pair and hold on to them. I'm not going to pay double for a tire that might be 2-4 watts faster and isn't as proven.

Several models of Contis have proven through controlled third-party testing to be at or near the top of the clincher list in terms of rolling resistance and aerodynamics. The GP4ks is a great compromise between high performance and reliability with it's very good crr, very good aero properties, and Vectran puncture belt. You sacrifice a bit of crr for the puncture protection and slightly thicker tread. The Super Sonic is a slightly riskier option, although it's likely mostly theoretical - thinner tread and no puncture belt. Significantly better crr if you are willing to accept the additional risk. There is also the GP TT and Force/Attack in the mix and both use the fast rolling Black Chili compound. Pretty much something for everyone in the racing range from Conti.

Is it fair to compare a "relatively" everyman (hell they are *just* my training tires) gp4ksII to the Turbo Cotton, which is pretty much *just* a race tire? (I admit to not knowing much about the Michelin)

Personally, I'd say no

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

So many choices out there. I would love to try a set of Turbo Cottons as everything I've read about them has been glowing. I'm just a bit concerned about their durability. Almost all of my rides take me onto a gravel section of road, and sometimes they're the focus of my ride. These are rides on my roadie (I know the survey was about try racing but now we're just talking tires...) and I have no interest swapping tires/wheels for a garden variety ride. I've had very good luck with my 4000S tires on unpaved roads, so again, still a no brainer. I'm lazy/apprehensive about giving a reasonably expensive tire a trial by fire like this and I suspect I'm not alone.

Inertia is powerful, I am not.

But, does your forum consist primarily of bike racers or of triathletes? What Tom wants from his tires is different (for 90% of my racing) than what I want from my tires.


I have ridden the SW TC for a bit on my regular road riding and like it quite a bit although it sustains cuts pretty easily. I don't really like Michelin although I couldn't tell you why; maybe it's because all of their tires seem difficult to install and LBS' margin on them (usually ordered through QBP/Hawley) isn't very good but I almost never used those. The Specialized lineup is really really good but sometimes the supply line spigot runs out; there have been long, long periods where the TC was essentially unavailable.

Oh, and screw the notion of race vs training tires... I want the fastest/most comfortable tires that I can live with (cost and flats) on all my bikes at all times.

I thought the poll showed 71% used Conti, not necessarily the GP4ks specifically. Tom still TTs on Conti tires and I know there are a handful of others here that are partial to the SS as well - still Conti.

Ran GP4000s from 2011-2015. Switched to turbo cottons (for racing) in 2016. At $80 a tire, it was hard to swallow. I plan to run Conti SS 23mm in 2017.

My training tires though since 2011..... GP4000s. Fast yet durable.

---

blog

I think you should do a follow-up poll. "Ok Conti Users - which front tire are you using to race on" - GP4000SII, GP4000S, Supersonic, GP TT, Attack, Force. I say front because it could get to mismatched with front / rear. Maybe you could do two pools and do rear as well.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I spent a lot of time researching tires about 4 years ago, and I think back then the Contis were up near the top of most lists, so I bought them. I haven't switched yet because I haven't kept up with the latest and greatest, so I didn't realise they have been outpaced by other tires.

On that note, where do I find the latest rankings - aero and Crr? Is there a thread or doc floating around on this lately?

Attack/Force, because of what I'd read on this forum about rolling resistance, overall performance etc.

I bet a big part of it is availability. The 4000SII can be had in any LBS or mail order bike shop in the US. Michelin's, Turbo Cotton's, even Vittoria's, and especially Supersonics, you have to do a little looking around. So serious bike nerds like TG, TomA, jeffp etc (and myself) go with Supersonics or Turbo Cottons, but most people end up with GP4000s.

As an aside, I've tried the Michelin's and they roll great and last a long time. I also love Vittoria's, but haven't tried the graphene ones yet. I would road race on either of those, as well as Turbo Cottons. I use a GPSS front and Turbo Cotton rear for TT racing (including the odd Tri). These are all great options. I personally don't like GP4000s.

Well...as I pointed out, I personally don't TT on the GP4K, but I'm still racing on Contis. So, as has been pointed out, the "depth of range" of the Conti line grouped near the top of the performance aspects probably contributes a great deal to that large percentage you see.


You need to either run a slightly narrower internal-width rim, or get a new frame :-) Seriously though, I find they run pretty true to size, when mounted on a "normal" width rim (i.e. Mavic Open Pro).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I would argue the TC isn't *just* a race tire...they're actually quite durable. I typically get >3K miles on the rear before it needs to be replaced, and I actually ran TCs in the Belgian Waffle Ride last spring with no issues from them.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ted%20tough#p5927348

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

See post 47 above :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I won't argue with you on their durability (my own TC's are pretty durable I thought, although my own use is pretty much crits and a couple of TT's.) but despite that, I'd guess that your average person buying Turbo Cotton's isn't using them for Sunday coffee shop rides, at least nowhere near the same extent that the Conti's are used.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

I had a sneaking suspicion that we'd be seeing those pics again...

I'm another Attack/Force and/or GP4000S II, most GP4000S II on my TT bike.


I run the Continental Grand Prix tires on my road bike where I log most of my bike miles... Black Chili compound tire.


Why do I use them, readily available, great specs and IMO the industry leader for real reasons.


I've used Vittoria and Michelins, wasn't a fan due to quality, wear characteristics and a few other things.

If you don't want to see them, don't set me up like that then ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"You need to either run a slightly narrower internal-width rim, or get a new frame :-)"

that bike is a campy bike. i had 2 wheelsets, i gave 1 to paul thomas, so i have 1 wheelset. it's a great set of american classics, 25mm rim. i am fain to get another set built because that's about a $1000 spend.

i guess i need to get a new bike ;-)

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I use 4000's for my road bike and Supersonic's for my TT bike.

I tried Michelin Pro 4's a few years back on my road bike and they were terribly slow feeling. Haven't went back even though their new Power tires are supposed to be better. It's funny, because I think 10 years ago Michelin Pro 2's were what everyone was riding.

It's funny, because I think 10 years ago Michelin Pro 2's were what everyone was riding.

My cycle has been for the last 10+ years - Michelin Pro2's then, Vittoria EVO CX's and now for the last probably 4 - 5 years Conti GP 40002 S's

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Another option for 650's are the Schwalbe one.

I used it last year for training and felt it was a fast durable tire like the GP4000SII

"I actually ran TCs in the Belgian Waffle Ride last spring with no issues from them."

i would absolutely ride those in the belgian waffle ride. you might say this would be my first choice for that ride, unless i was going to ride tubies and then it would be FMBs or dugasts or something. the TC reminds me of the old clement del mundo tubies (most won't remember those).

i find that this tire behaves exactly like the cotton tubies of old, so much so that this tire, for me, actually fails first at the sidewall (but only after a lot of miles). the fabric starts to fray at the sidewall and that's when i have to finally take them off the bike. i never got a flat with this tire and wore 2 sets to the nub.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

^^^^^^THIS - especially the parts in red. My LBS mechanic, who services the bikes of a lot of pro triathletes, considers the Conti GP4000 the best all-around tire, FWIW. He's not trying to sell me the most expensive tire in the shop, but the one that he sees perform the best in a variety of conditions, including on our crappy Central Texas chipseal.

-Doug

---

It is the mind itself which builds the body.
-Joseph Pilates

"where do I find the latest rankings - aero and Crr? Is there a thread or doc floating around on this lately?"

aero i can't tell you. but here is a very good resource for tire testing. plus whatever tom a. shares.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Because FLO told me too...

Conti GP4000S II because it's available in 650c. Would love to have a set of Conti Supersonic in 650c also (hint, hint) ;)

I think this is part of the reason the Conti 4k's are popular.

Picking tires for the upcoming season I'd like whatever is fastest on my wheels+bike with a puncture risk equal to or less than the other participants.

But I've got no way to determine (without testing), which that is, the interaction of tyre type, size & pressure with wheel / frame aerodynamics vs rolling resistance makes for a non-obvious 'best'.

It's possible to make a decision based on test results that turns out to be worse when the whole system is considered.

So with limited data defaulting to 4k's (or a slightly racier Conti) doesn't seem to be a bad plan.

I'm happy to be of assistance in your N+1 rationalization :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'm actually going to be most likely running THESE in this year's BWR edition:


https://www.compasscycle.com/...x-2-3-rat-trap-pass/

Needless to say, I'll be using my all-road "Frankenbike" this year instead of a pure road bike :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The Contis have the best grip to stay on the road being fast ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

race bike: tubulars, run Bontrager R4 Aero in front since it seems to be slightly better than Continental Competition in terms of aero, Competition in rear for better puncture resistance than the R4.

For the road bike I had whatever was on sale at Nashbar, but now use that bike sometimes to race, so got GP4000s two years ago. Looked at Michelin Pros but the Conti tires were cheaper, plus there was more and better performance data available.

There isn't any consistent third-party testing on tires for performance data - crr, aero, etc. In the absence of new data it's impossible to make an informed decision. So I (we ? the neurotics who think about tire performance) tend to buy what has been tested.

Tom A's spreadsheet is very helpful but it's not his job, so that will of course be missing some tires. This thread is the first time I've heard that the new Michelin Power Competition tests better than the GP4000s. The three Michelins in the spreadsheet were tested in 2012 and 13.

I went looking for data on the Power Competition. TIL there is a site for rolling resistance,
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...wer-competition-2016
But there is no aero data on that site.
Other reviews of the tire say the same old things, "light, fast, supple" which isn't very helpful.

Road bike:
-hand-me-downs from my tri bike which I proceed to use until the tread wear indicators are gone.

Tri bike:
-Continental GP4000S II 23mm front, Continental Force rear. A-races get fresh tires. May use Force both front and rear this year or give Turbo Cottons a try. I don't use Vittoria because their fast tires seem overly fragile to me from everything and don't have much to show for it on the aero/crr front (clinchers), Michelin's new tires seem to test on par with the GP4000 for rolling resistance but their aero properties are unknown (I'd just assume worse), Schwalbe doesn't make anything fast for racing purposes, Zipp I have no opinion about, Bongrater doesn't have a readily available "fast" tire.

Mountain bike:
-Continental Race King, I'll admit I'm far from an expert on tires in this realm but it is a "fast" tire from a crr perspective, durable, and the tread pattern is solid for dry conditions (I won't ride in the mud, lol).

I see you added a poll to determine the particular Conti model spread for the 71%ers...any reason you left the SuperSonic off of that listing? I had to answer "other".

edit: Also, wasn't the previous poll termed to ask what you'd RACE on? The new one implies race/train/whatever...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

This. I don't rerun all of my research every year - once I find something that works, I'll stick with that until something makes me sit up and take notice...like perhaps this thread.

I train and race with Conti 4000S II. Why? Because it's the iphone / Cervelo P2 of the tire world. If you want a safe bet and something that just works, that's what you get.

I only recently read about turbon cotton (from Tom A I believe) and never heard of michelin's power competition. There's not enough media exposure for them. If you ask me to name tires. I can only name conti grand prix, Michelin pro, and vittoria open corsa.

As others have mentioned, I don't think your tire poll, as presented, can accurately capture which Conti tires are capturing that 71% share. The forum does a great job of getting out the latest information on tire performance. Originally Crr through sources like BikeTechReview and Tom A's testing. Bicycle Rolling Resistance is a newer resource and I hasn't been established as a "go to" resource for forum users yet. The best resources are now including Crr and Aero properties combined. Tom A's work at the Spec Win Tunnel and Flo's development of their new carbon clinchers with tires mounted up and tested in the wind tunnel. This combined data is likely not going to be as readily available because testing tires on wheels in the tunnel is a much higher hurdle - cost, complexity, variability between tires and various rim shapes, widths, depths, etc!

Currently it has been shown that that Conti GP4000SII rolls close to as well as the best performers, offers an aero advantage and has a flat protection belt. Testing has also shown that the Attack, Force, GP TT and Supersonics typically roll even better. The Supersonics don't have a protection belt, but seem to consistently top the list for Crr. Up until the 2017 SS version was released, the SS casing also tested out very well aerodynamically. For 2017 the SS casing has changed and I haven't seen any Crr or aero testing for the new tire. It appears that the new SS could be constructed on a SP TT casing with the protection belt removed. This could mean Crr is as good as before, but the GP TT mounts up very wide on most rims and aero likely suffers:(

Personally I now run the GP 4000SII (in 25mm where my bikes allow it) for training. For racing I run the 20 and 23c SS for TT's. Depending on the TT length and course turns I swap the 20 for a 23 in front. For triathlon I started running the 23c SS for Oly's while using a Force in the rear for HIM races. As my confidence in the race day durability of the SS increased I started running them F/R for HIM too. With the possibility that the 2017 SS is not the tire that the previous generation SS developed into I may have to ration the SS use to limited races until my stock is depleted. My wife runs Reynolds Aero 58's and the rims are so wide that the Conti GP TT 23c tires seem to be the best fit. So for my answer to the poll question - Conti - my household runs 5 different models of Conti tires! We used to run Gatorskins for training, but the GP 4000s2 is available at lower cost so we don't even bother running slow rubber anymore.

A Slowtwitch led or sponsored tire rolling resistance and aeroness shootout would be great!


I addressed the market share assumption above, but because you mentioned the release date several times I wanted to mention something else that seems to be a Conti trait. Conti seems to make ongoing, unannounced production tweaks to their tires w/o changing model names. Both the GP4000s and the Supersonic were tested previously by Al Morrison/BTR and they rolled significantly slower than those same model of tires produced in later years. Some have said this was the addition of Black Chili, but those early tests included Black Chili production models. So there seems to have been a continuous effort at improving their tires from year to year. Maybe nothing has changed with the GP4000sII since 2013 or maybe their have been minor improvements made between production runs. AFAIK Conti hasn't made a lot of effort communicating updates. Maybe they're reluctant because it can lead to problems selling old stock? Conti and their tire products would be another great opportunity for a ST article:)

I haven't seen any testing that compels me to consider the Michelin tire offerings ahead of Contis. The Spec Turbo Cotton OTOH appears to be a great tire. The reason I haven't run it is that Spec products are only offered through Spec dealers and maybe only larger Spec dealers as they seem to be like latex tubes at most LBS and aren't typically stocked on the shelf. Spec products also are typically only found at retail prices. So at about $80 per tire I can basically buy any two (sometimes close to 3) Conti tires for the price of one Turbo Cotton. Since the GP SS is more aero, and rolls as well as the Turbo Cotton, I don't even have the justification of rolling the TC as a race day only tire.

In the poll you just posted, you asked which model we use for training and racing but I'm sure many STers use different models for training and racing. It leaves it up in the air to which model to tell you we use.

I looked on Conti website and they list 13 clinchers and 7 tubular road tires. In the past I have gone with one their lower end clinchers. A wide choice I think helps explain some of their appeal.

I'm more of a road rider than tri guy, what's the tri cognoscenti's view of the current Jan Heine/big fat tubeless tire theory that's starting to gain traction among roadies? I'm digging 36mm tubeless tires at 50 psi a great deal. Perhaps a bit extreme for tri/tt, but perhaps 28mm tubeless at 80 psi?

I lose one watt using a GP4000S2 over a Turbo Cotton or Vittoria clincher. The tyre is absolutely bombproof - I use if for commuting and get about one flat per year. It's also reasonably priced and available everywhere.

Any loss of time from that singular watt is outweighed by the flat protection, which would take several minutes out of my Olympic distance race, and really disrupt my intellectual and physical rhythm.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

As fat as you can go is GREAT for mixed surface type riding, even with no knobbies. I was enlightened to that fact after taking a 3T Exploro shod with the WTB "road plus" slick tires for a jaunt on the MTB single-track at the Interbike Outdoor Demo this year (thanks SuperDave!). It's what inspired me to ditch using the 700C rims with 32C Gravel King tires on my "all-road" bike for some 26" wheels with the Rat Trap Pass tires I showed above. With the much lower pressures allowed, and the flexibility of the casing, the control and traction off-road are actually quite mind-boggling.

That said, I'm talking about what one wants to use on something that will most likely be taken off-pavement, including relatively rough single-track...something you're not going to do for tri (except Exterra, of course ;-)

Jan would disagree (based on his somewhat crude tunnel testing), but there IS an aero hit to going too wide for that application. I would defer to Josh's "105% width" rule of thumb that he developed when he was at Zipp (where for best aerodynamics, the widest part of the rim shouldn't be less than 105% of the mounted tire width - or, in other words, the tire shouldn't be greater than 95% of the widest part of the rim). There just isn't enough Crr to be gained from running wider tires for the typical smooth (relatively speaking) surfaces of tri courses.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"I lose one watt using a GP4000S2"

well, this is where i need tom anhalt's help. if we take a turbo cotton as an example, it's 2 watts. and if that's per tire, then it's 4 watts. and if it's at 18mph, is that your average? your average is 24mph, does the power numbers scale? do they scale in a linear fashion? i don't know.

i'm not trying to talk you out of your tires. just, since you brought up the turbo cotton, is it 1 watt or 5 watts? i think that's to be determined, and then we ask ourselves how many watts it needs to be before we start to rethink our equipment choices.

i have no skin in the game. my deal with specialized is... nothing. my deal with schwalbe, michelin, hutchinson, vittoria is... nothing. i have nothing to gain by your changing to another tire. bless your heart, ride that tire.

i'm just questioning the absolute hegemony conti has over this market. whether it's warranted i'm not questioning conti, or the tire. great company! great tires!

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Also keep in mind that when the GP4000 II came out, ST held their collective breath about the beloved original being ruined. Once it was confirmed there was no apparent differences, "we" all let out a sign of relief and kept on buying them.

I personally prefer the feel of the Specialized compound and ride the S-Works Turbo (not cotton) on my road bike. The $80 price-point of the Turbo Cottons is just too high when you look at the other offerings that are out there.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

While I've got you here (and I may have mentioned this before) what do you think about using ballistics gel as the weight load to simulate the impedance losses? Heck, now I know I've asked you before. Maybe I just need to build my own setup :)

You're assuming 70% is high, based on how it stacks up from a variety of metrics it could easily be higher than 70%. The others tires you mentioned can't compare on price in combination with all the metrics discussed in this thread. You should be asking why it's not 100%.

Let's say it's the whole 4w.

Applying Flo's rule of thumb, I save 12 seconds or less over an Olympic with the better tyres. But I have spend more on consumables while I'm saving for a wedding, which I have to change on and off for race day (I tend to put new 4002s on and then leave them on for training), at the risk of increased punctures which would cost me several minutes and considerably decrease my enjoyment of the race.

I started tri two years ago knowing nothing. I did some research, Slowtwitch said they were the best allrounders, and I've seen nothing to convince me there's a better choice for me.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

"The others tires you mentioned can't compare on price in combination with all the metrics discussed in this thread."

if you're saying there's not a $35 tire that can compare to the 4000S II, you might be right (altho i found a michelin power competition online today for the mid-30s, but that's rare).

if i'm willing to spend a bit more on a tire i believe i can find tires that are certainly the equal, and perhaps the better, of that tire.

maybe i'm an elitist because i'm willing to spend an extra $15 or $20 per tire to get 4 or 5 watts (and with the same puncture resistance). but when i look at what many of the rest of us here are willing to spend to get 5 watts, it seems to me that is a pretty efficient spend.

again, nothing against that tire! but i don't think the landscape is the same today as it was when that tire first came out.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Train on the GP4000s II: Great mix of durability, grip, flat resistance, low Crr, and wide availability at reasonable prices. I run 23c, but 25 and 28 are readily available as well.

Race on Supersonics: Super-fast tire that corners well from a brand I've had good experience with.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

His testing has been invaluable but it's a lot to ask of one person to keep up with that year after year. And companies have little incentive to do an unbiased comparison. So I don't really know what the solution is.

Conti can continue being a great tire, but if other brands catch up or surpass them, it should be pointed out. Watts saved is a relative scale in this discussion. (Not saying it happened) but if everyone else improves and you stay the same, well now that's watts-lost.

In Flo's wind tunnel study of their new wheels the 4000sII was faster than the Turbo Cotton and Schwalbe One at 21 mph, a pretty attainable speed. That advantage will only grow as the speed increases. I stocked up on the 4000sII when Ribble had them for $25 each which is pretty unbeatable from a price/performance viewpoint. If Specialized would add the Turbo Cotton to their two for one sale they have occasionally I would love to try it but at $80 it's just too much of a price difference.

Unfortunately there is no aero data on the Michelin Power Competition which is available for reasonable prices around $35 as you have noted but I will be trying that tire when I run out of my current stock of GP4000.

I have the GP4K2 because they are consistently one of the top options. My perception is that the top few my be pretty close, and the social marketing of the GP4K2 is very strong. If I had high confidence that another tire was materially better, I would switch in a minute. Tires are so cheap, relatively, that I do not consider it a cost issue.

How are there something like 100 posts and not one that specifically calls out the Vittoria Corsa Speed (Open TLR).

I live in Los Angeles with a massive crit racing community, that I personally feel never research their products, they simply buy based on friendly reviews and whats in stock. With that said and them not knowing the data behind the tire, this is by far and away the one product that everyone LOVES. I mean, just gaga over. Take that into consideration... You have data that says this is the fastest tire available and then a massive group of road racers that say this is the best tire they've ever used.

And FWIW... I really pushed them to give me stats on how long they've ridden the tires. Not one said anything bad about cuts/wear. Most were getting upwards of 1,000 miles and they were still happy.

"His testing has been invaluable but it's a lot to ask of one person to keep up with that year after year."

that's not what i mean. the testing is routinely done, and it's current. i just don't know all the answers to the questions i have the way tom would. tom, josh poertner, some of these folks are just way ahead of me, and i'd rely on them for guidance. but the data is there.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"How are there something like 100 posts and not one that specifically calls out the Vittoria Corsa Speed"

yup. slays everything. the only knock on that tire (notwithstanding the experience of your cohort) is tread punctures. it's got a nice sturdy sidewall, which i think is pretty amazing considering the rolling resistance (or lack of it). but it does test a little thin on tread punctures.

i think your point demonstrates my point in starting this thread.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Yeah...according to my data, which is adjusted to reflect the expected on road Crr (and at an 85kg total load) it's a 4-5W difference for 2 tires between 30-40km/hr.

Power scales linearly with bike speed (for a given mass and road condition - also assuming below the "breakpoint" pressure).
The rolling resistance force, by definition (Froll = Crr *m) is only proportional to mass.
The power to work against that force (i.e. rate of doing work) is P = Froll *V

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I think the fact that it is a "tubeless ready" tire makes people think I has to be run tubeless and scares them away.

The thing keeping me from giving it a shot (with a latex tube) is how notoriously difficult road tubeless tires are to install/change.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

Yes, you've mentioned that. You need to load a mass on a test rig anyway, so I think it probably could be better served with a damper between that mass and the test article.

Or, you just make sure you never inflate your tires too high, and go with the regular roller tests to sort out what to use (since that's an effective way to measure casing/tread losses) ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Well, to be fair, what you mention above pretty much ONLY applies to the new Flo wheels, since they happened to optimize their design around that tire's specific, somewhat parabolic, shape.

Data on other rims might not match that.

I think I've said this before, but if I personally had the opportunity to do that sort of shape optimization, I probably would have started with a more round cross-section tire, if only because the lowest rolling resistance tires tend to be of that x-section.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

   
Way back in ancient Slowtwitch history, long before Al Morrison started his roller tests, I did a bunch of my own roller tests. There were two big revelations:

* Tufos suck
* Continentals suck

And I mean they really sucked -- like 10-15 watts sucked. Not just the GP3000s, but also the GP4000s, "Attack/Force" and the Supersonics. There were PerformanceBike brand $10 tires that rolled faster than the Supersonics.

I got a huge amount of flack for that at the time, because they were probably Slowtwitcher's two favorite tires. But the data is the frickin data. The absolute suckitude of the GPs was confirmed by a Tour magazine study (on Continental's own equipment!!).

Since then, Continental switched to their "black chili" compound and apparently their tires have gotten a lot faster. But I will never trust them and never buy them -- because they were clearly selling really crappy tires that they knew were slow for years. Seriously, their own test rig showed their tires were crap. So I don't care if they are making better tires. I still don't trust them.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

I'm not so sure it's necessarily fastest.

The bicyclerollingresistance site shows it at a less than 2.5W difference (in his testing) as compared to the 24C Turbo Cotton. However, considering that he tested the TC with a butyl tube inside...which I've found to add ~3-4W per tire...and I've also found that a latex tube doesn't add anything vs. running a tire tubeless, I can't really say if it's actually lower Crr or not. At least not until I test one myself.

It would be interesting to know how many of the folks you've asked had previous experience with tires like the TC, and with using latex tubes. It may be that they're raving about it because they're finally experiencing a quality setup ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I have a Corsa Speed in my sweaty palms as we speak. The Cottons are on the way and the rollers stand ready. I'll let you all know.....

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

Let me talk to you about my learning of the possibility of effectively plugging a large puncture in a road tubeless tire from the outside, and without breaking a bead...makes the prospect of dealing with a puncture that sealant can't handle on the road decidedly less sucky...

Genuine Innovations makes a kit with the insertion tool and some rubber coated cords. I've experimented with a small piece of cloth (pinkie nail-sized, cut out of a t-shirt) that plugged an ~2mm cut in a road tubeless tire just this past weekend. Since the cotton seems to work well with the sealant to form a good plug, I'm thinking some small lengths cut from a roll of cotton butcher's twine, along with the GI tool, just might be the solution for an inexpensive repair ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Well...it IS still fairly new...and as I pointed out above, the jury might still be out on how fast it actually is in comparison to the competition. So it doesn't surprise me at all it's not mentioned more.

edit: Oh...and it's also only available in 23C, which sort of goes against the current trends...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I recall all of that...and if you remember, I was quite shocked that my first test of the GP4KS model rolled as well as it did...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yesssss....he's baaaaackkkk! :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I bought Conti GP4000S II last year because they came highly recommended. I used them exclusively for training and racing and absolutely loved them. I was interested in checking out faster options for this season but the only data I have seen combining rolling resistance with aero data shows me that they are still among the fastest tires. I sure don't see anything in Tom A's study suggesting that a Specialized Turbo Cotton is faster. Also, somewhat irrationally, my former experience riding Michelin is that they are a pain to mount and high end Vittorias puncture if you look at them funny.

Perhaps you could link to some data showing the TC or the Michelin being 4w-5w faster in rolling resistance and aerodynamics before claiming that they outperform the GP4000S II? Without that, it seems like the simple answer to your question is "because they are the fastest all around tire and cost 1/3 of the other options".

I own 2 LBS's. I hate GP4000's cuz they are online for 35 bucks and because they are the best tire in the world. Turbo Cottons are marginally faster, and I dare say they ride better, but the GP 4000 lasts WAY longer.

Well, if you go to the Flo interactive page, and look at the 23C GP4KS vs. 24C Turbo cotton, in the combined aero+rolling resistance chart, the TC beats the GP4KS out to 7.5deg of yaw. It's only at 10deg of yaw and above that the GP4KS wins out on that particular rim (because the rim was designed around that particular tire).


http://flocycling.com/aero_tire_power.php

On another rim, that most likely won't be the case...AND, as I've said many times, low Crr makes up for a LOT of "aero sins".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

the Michelin Pro2Race was the best _feeling_, fastest rolling tire at the time with marginally ok durability. when they moved manufacturing to the far east(thailand?) for the pro3, quality dropped through the floor - they'd cut/flat/tear if you looked at them sideways. the EVO cx's never felt fast, like the tread was too sticky/thick and durability was also not great. i had used the attack/force combo, but the front was too fragile for me, despite being measurably faster.

the gp4k-S2 was not great on durability when it came out, but the quality has returned.

here and there i've tried schwalbe, Kenda, IRC, CST, maxxis, panaracer, and some crazy budget stuff, but always come back to the gp4k.

for me, flat-resistance is paramount, with cornering grip and durability coming in next. that they feel fast is a nice bonus.
gatorskins(pre hardshell which i have not tried yet) are slow and feel slow compared to the gp4k.

---

---

"...I try not to ever ride as slow as 20mph. ;) ... And even more than that, I don't race with a speedometer. My computer is set up to show Power // Cadence // Time. I don't actually ever know how fast I'm going. I only know that if I'm in 53/11, and it takes more than 100rpm to hit my target watts, it's time to coast." - Jordan Rapp on '09 IMC

None of these guys even know latex tubes still exist. They are all on butyl, they're not even tubeless.

Fwiw regarding the 23c... one guy brags about how he can hit a 90 degree bend at 30mph. But that's n=1

<shakes head>

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

What's the flat resistance of the Supersonic?

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

Relative to a GP SS or TT? And what about aerodynamics? Bicyclerollingresistance tested this tire tubeless with 20g of sealant. They said add 1.5-2w if you use a latex tube. That would put it almost dead even with the 25mm GP TT and in theory the SS should be slightly better.

Any rule of thumb/order of magnitude for this?

Ie. Could tyre size/shape & rim interaction aerodynamics be considered basically negligible (<1w), with Crr being the dominant driver of tyre choice?

He says that...but his own data on the subject shows no difference at road bike pressures, which matches my own experience. Multiple times I've run tubeless tires w/latex tube first and then tubeless, with no measurable difference in Crr.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Good enough for my purposes...I've never flatted one, in fact <knocks wood>

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Not that simple. It depends on a multitude of factors, such as the particular aerodynamics of the wheel tire combo, the expected speed, the expected wind angles, rider+bike weight, etc...

But, I guess I could boil it down to "run the lowest Crr tire you can that meets Josh's 105% width ROT, and that you are comfortable with the durability."

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Well, so far the follow-up "Which Conti Tyre" poll has the GP4000S II at 70%.
Combined with a 71% result for Conti in the original "Which Tyre Brand" poll, that means the Conti GP4000S II is the main tyre used by 50% of all Slowtwitch poll respondents.

Dan, your new poll doesn't let me answer! If it is my race setup you are interested in, I ride different Conti tyres front and back.

Whilst I am in that 2% for Zipp (I race on the SLSpeed tubs), my go-to for clinchers is also Continental. I have GP4Ks2 on my training wheels, and if and when I move to new carbon (clincher) race wheels, I would probably plump for the GP TT. For me they also tick that 'proven' box for clinchers, but for Tubs not so much.

---

29 years and counting

I want to buy Specialized Cotton turbos...but to do so, I'd have to go 15km out of my way.

Conti GP4000IIs...stocked in my LBS of choice, cheap(enough) good(enough). Lazy consumer. But...latex tubes really transform these tires into something very sweet indeed!

I see the new poll is following a similar trend with 71% choosing the GP4000S II.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Where are you located? I just bought a pair of TCs online directly through the Specialzed website. Arrived at my house 2 days later. I'm in the US though...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I will jump in on that.

I crit race and TT on the 23c Corsa Speed run tubeless on light-bicycle tubeless rims(45mm crit and 90mm with a whee cover for TT).

I have never flatted one of these tires and trust the data that shows them to be fast. Set up tubeless they are really hard to beat. Matched with a $600-$700 wheelset, they are even better!

I road race on the Victoria Corsa graphene tires in 25c on Enve 6.7s with latex tubes and orange seal. Our road race courses have plenty of gravel sections and they have never flagged. In fact, I train on these and get over 2000 miles before they need a replacement.

Also use schwalbe one 30c tires on my grave bike tubeless at low pressures. It's amazing how versatile his setup has shown to be.

"Dan, your new poll doesn't let me answer! If it is my race setup you are interested in, I ride different Conti tyres front and back."

the next poll will drill down on this. that's now i started this poll, but it quickly got out of hand. do you ride 4000S II in 23mm, 25mm, or 28mm? do you run 23mm in front and 25mm in back, or twin 25mm, or twin 23mm, or is there a 28mm in all of that? one poll just sucks up that tire. so i had to split these polls into smaller chunks.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

wait, what? :)

no supersonic and in 20? :)

Will these plugs survive road tyre pressures? These things are magic on the MTB (so much that on local rides I don't take a spare tube) but A) Can they survive road pressures, and B) Can they fix a tyre that's already mostly deflated? Part of why they work on the MTB is ease of insertion into a tyre that still very much has it's shape.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

I'll let you know...I first experimented with this technique just by poking a small piece of t-shirt into the the ~2mm wide hole I got on a road tubeless tire that the sealant was having a hard time keeping totally sealed. I was just using the end of a spoke at that time, not the dedicated tool, and it seems to have worked fine. The cotton soaked up the remaining sealant inside the tire and I trimmed off the cotton sticking out of the tire. So far that's held...oh, and then I had to go about the crappy job of removing dried up sealant that had spray-coated the entire rear triangle of my bike when the puncture happened :-/

I just received a package with a couple of the GI kits yesterday. I plan on playing with both the supplied cords and some butcher's twine to see how it goes. Based on how well the little swatch of T-shirt poked in the hole worked, I have high hopes for both the dedicated cords and/or the cotton twine. The key piece to have IMO is most likely the small tool ;-)

It seems to me that even with the tire fairly deflated, it should be possible to still plug it this way. If you're running sealant in it anyway, the beads will be fairly "locked in" by dried up sealant along the edges, so I don't think I'd worry about the having to reseat the bead.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Why no conti supersonic option in your current tire poll?

Lots of triathletes race on those ...
(including myself)

So I just had to pick 'other' ...

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I've been looking for a kit like this. I need it for my fatbike adventures. For my fatbike tire/rim combo, they snap on there so tight, I'm not sure if I'd be able to get the bead off trail side in the cold. Thanks for posting that!

---

_______________________________________________

Except that this is Genuine Innovations, my first reaction is that this was a joke. This looks exactly like a shrunken version of tire patch kits I have used on car tires for years. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would treat it like a last resort on a bike. The problem is that it will leave a lump of material on the outside of the tire that will need to wear off. No problem on a car. But, on a bike it will take forever to wear off and you will get a pronounced bump on the tire that would drive you nuts. And, the tire itself is so thin, that as soon as the plug wears off from riding, it will likely fail, because there is so little tire material to hold it in place.

On the other hand, if you have a major hole during a long ride, this would probably get you home.

It's exactly a shrunken version of car tyre plugs. MTBers have been using these for years and they work a treat - it's the first resort, rather than the last resort (GI is also just one of many brands that makes them). If you cut the end off very close to the tyre, it's barely noticeable.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Also, for larger holes, apparently it's possible to insert more than one in a given hole to "staunch the bleeding" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The small tool (my MTB version has two - a reamer and the open-ended needle head) is definitely the key. Ream, stuff the plug in, and pull out with a twisting motion. Storage-wise, have a look at Sahmurai Swords, I think the MTB bar-end plug can just as well fit on a road bike or an aerobar extension.

Keep me updated because road tubeless repair has been the one thing keeping me from converting, at least for training. My rims are ready, my LBS carries TLR tyres...

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

Nice. I imagine a kit like this would likely have the most success with a 5inch tires at 3 or 4 psi, compared to the other extreme of the range - a 25mm tires at 80psi. Yeah, "staunch the bleeding" is a good way to look at it.

---

_______________________________________________

Correct, it was actually a mention of MTB use (and using the "t-shirt material patch" technique I first tried) that I first ran across. One of the main differences between this application and automotive/motorcycle use is the ubiquitous use of liquid sealant, which means the plug doesn't have to be "perfect", and any excess inside the tire is going to eventually form a "cap" inside that will make it less likely for the plug to come out, especially since air pressure is working against that.

I cut off the cotton patch I used flush with the tire surface...and after riding on it a few days, I can barely find it in the tire.

To be honest, I only bought the GI kits for the tool. It seemed like it would make the process quite a bit easier/faster. And yes, I would look at this being a FIRST option for a road tubeless puncture large enough that the sealant alone has a hard time plugging (IME, anything >1mm). Although putting in a tube is always an option, in practice breaking a road tubeless tire bead in the field is a royal PITA, so if this can avoid this, then it would be the preferred option.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

BrentwoodTriGuy wrote:

How are there something like 100 posts and not one that specifically calls out the Vittoria Corsa Speed (Open TLR).

I have been on road tubeless since 2012. Zero flats the last 3 seasons except for one random rim tape failure. Well into xx,000 mile range during those 3 years. Mounted the Corsa Speeds a couple weeks before Steelhead 70.3. Did leakdown tests to see how well they held air. Beat the heck out of latex tubes, but not quite as perfect as butyl. Did a 5-6 mile shake down ride on them to verify my pressures were right. Inflated and checked with digital gauge a couple minutes before transition closed at Steelhead.


I had used 90f/90r on a previous tubeless setup that measured 24mm f/27.5mm r. I went 90f/95r since these both measured 24.5mm on my wheels. According the athlete tracker later that day, I was well into the top 10 for bike splits at the 2nd checkpoint. Mile 42 my front tire blew. Not deflated, blew. There was a cut across a third of the tread and both sidewalls. I tried my tiny (I cut the Park tool ones in half) tire boot, tube, and the tube blew through the other sidewall the boot didn't reach. That was an awful experience changing that with super tight bead, sealant and glitter. I sat about 45 minutes waiting for support and didn't see another person blow a tube/tire on that same mystery item. There had to have been at least 1,000 people go by during that wait.


Since my LBS couldn't get them last summer, I went the Ebay route for the Corsa Speeds. The seller wasn't helpful. After multiple emails, Vittoria finally responded after four months. Their reply, "We are deeply sorry to read this but unfortunately we do not always produce perfect goods even if that's the actual goal; it could be an unfortunate batch or just bad luck."


They went on to explain why you should NEVER repair a tubeless tire and said have a nice day. They never responded to my follow up about a discounted replacement tire. Then again, it's only been a month since I responded.


They *seemed* fast and smooth. I was a bit ahead of my BBS estimate for the first 42 miles. But I also sat alongside the road pouting for a good chunk of my A race last year. Was it just bad luck after no flats in several years? Maybe. Will I give those fragile tires and their poor customer service another try? I'm not sure. Let's see the testing for the new Supersonics! I already picked up 3 latex inner tubes last weekend.


Another perk with Conti or Specialized is they are actually at the LBS and they can help you when there is an issue. The one time I had an issue with a Specialized product, the LBS handed me a replacement before I could even set the defective one on the counter. I don't know much about the LBS world or how easy it is to get Vittoria, but last July I was just told "I don't see them available to order." (and the Turbo Cottons and Supersonics were out of stock) so I Ebayed the Corsa Speeds.

So you had an unfortunate incident where you ran over something that cut the tire from sidewall to sidewall, blame it on the tire being "fragile", and expected the manufacturer to take responsibility? Sounds like anything short of a Gatorskin would have suffered the same fate considering the severity of the damage.

I've always been happy with the Continental Grand Prix, that is, the one with no other designation, just plain od Conti GP road tire.

Continental has been the standard for a long time. Specialized Turbos are a bit faster tire, but not as resilient to punctures as thee 4000s.

Calling the thinnest tire on the market "fragile" doesn't seem like a stretch.

I asked Vittoria if it was possible to repair the tire, not to take responsibility. No crying or whining to them. I have repaired plenty of mt bike tires, a couple cx tires, but never needed to repair a road tire so didn't want to take the same approach as it's a much higher pressure application. It should not have taken multiple emails and four months to get a reply. Then I asked to buy a replacement tire (albeit at a discount) as I still have not seen one at an actual shop yet. Maybe I could have been more clear that I didn't like their customer service, not because of their failure to change my diaper, clean off my tears then overnight me a pair of new tires. Go click around their website. No phone number and the same general email for all inquiries.

I'm sure there were plenty of other non-Gatorskins hitting that same object/hole in the tiny space we had on the side of the road at Steelhead. It's really hard to tell if it was a pinch flat or something with a horizontal edge to it. People with road tubeless experience know that you can usually hit something hard enough to rotate the handlebars before the tire would typically pinch flat. I would guesstimate a Gatorskin would pinch flat well before most road tubeless tires, but have never owned one.

As I said, I'm not sure if I'll give them another try. I have one perfectly functional one already and I was in love with them until that happened. Having to resort to Ebay and poor luck could send me back to a ~5 watt higher setup.

So related to the original question, that's my thought process for tire choice.

At the time I started this sport five years ago, the Conti 4000s seemed to be the highest rated tire at the time for combo of speed and durability....so I made the choice. Since then, other brand/models may now have slightly higher ratings but I guess I'm superstitious....have never had a flat and am usually satisfied with my bike split times. Use 23s front and back with Vredestein latex tubes on my P4 with Enve 8.9s or on a Zipp 900/404 combo. Don't use the bike for road training. Still plan to use the 4000s II again this season.....satisfied with the speed and durability.....and still somewhat superstitious.

I run Super Sonic versions on my tri bike and I run 4000s on all my other road bikes. All with Latex Tubes.

I have used Conti on all my bikes back as far as I can remember. I have tried others during that time but nothing is as good as the Conti's

Is this really the best we can do to answer his question -- raw inference and a Tom A. platitude?

Slowman is making these assertions without clear and convincing evidence. And you know maybe he's right but this thread has been exceptionally heavy on claims not backed by demonstrated facts. And if I'm going to pay $50 per tire premium with puncture concessions, I better have more than stan's word for it that I'm going to get 4-5 watts out of that trade

To clarify my response:

I currently race on tubular ENVE 8.9s and they recommended Conti Competitions (or at least that is what they tested with). I've raced on Competitions before and had good results, so I have no problem racing on them now. I also used to race on Tufo tubulars on my 650c HEDs.

For clinchers, I train on Michelin Pro Race 4s, but I also have a pair of tubless Ultegra wheels that I run Hutchinson tubeless (25mm) tires on.

It seemed that the Michelins were the tires to have for a while, but have fallen out of favor, but you can get them anywhere, any time, and usually pretty inexpensively. The Hutchinsons were some of the only tubeless tires available when I got them, and I know Shimano first worked with them on the tubeless systems.

A big part of it is that - in my opinion - tires became the new race wheels, in the past ~5 years or so. By that I mean that they're seen as a way to buy speed. Add to that economic woes and the fact that tires (and tubes) are much cheaper than wheels. People see it as 'cheap speed insurance'. Conti has a good product at a good price, and was in the right place at the right time.

Take that, plus the fact that accurate Crr and aero testing for tires/tubes takes a lot of expertise/time/equipment. It's intimidating. People don't want to do their own testing, and most don't trust manufacturer-provided data. They don't want to think about it, and will never test on their own. Just tell me what's fast and reliable. I think people like Tom A and Al Morrison have had a bigger impact on tire sales than the tire manufacturers realize. Their info has filtered out via forums and word-of-mouth to the point that everyone just "knows" that the Conti stuff is fast. Or at a minimum, they're confident that they're not going to be at a disadvantage because of their tire choice.

I look at something like Vittoria, and they've got the Crr, but I've had awful luck with punctures, and the aero side seems unknown. I really like Michelin - generally great puncture protection, but Crr has been a little bit of an abyss, since they've changed their offerings quite a bit over the years... plus aero seems to be relatively unknown or low-ish on their priority list. Conti has it all going for them (with what seems to be good 3rd party data to back it up): Crr, flat resistance, and aero. It's really validated when you see *several* wheel manufacturers using Conti as their default tire choice for tunnel testing. More and more wheel manufacturers are promoting the idea of a wheel/tire system, and people are confident that Conti will work well in this respect. Other tire manufacturers make some really great stuff, but there always seems to be a compromise (perceived or real) in one of the performance areas.

I think a couple key things would change the poll results:

1. Tires that check all of the performance boxes better than Conti (Crr, flat resistance, aero) - and a good price won't hurt.
2. Father time. The information will just take time to get out there. Plus you have to hope that distribution woes don't hijack this process.

"Slowman is making these assertions without clear and convincing evidence. And you know maybe he's right but this thread has been exceptionally heavy on claims not backed by demonstrated facts."

are you serious? what evidence do you need beyond what has been either demonstrated or linked to? you sound like a climate change denier.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Not at all -- in fact, I'm stopping by my Specialized dealer later today to pick up a bunch of TCs, just based on the supposition that they are superior by that order of magnitude. However, what would really instill confidence is a combined crr and cda tire study, like the one Tom linked in response to chrisgrigsby, around wheels that most of us actually use (Zipp, Enve). If there are all these rim/tire interaction effects, plus pressure variance, et al, as has been stated, then I don't know how confident we can be drawing inferences from two separate studies that are combined and applied to a rim very few of us use.

If I'm missing something, help me out here. I don't care what the answer is, even as you seem confident in it. But you also mischaracterize the choice when you say "$15 more" -- a Turbo Cotton is $80 (plus 8% tax) and Specialized products are the only products in the industry I have to pay retail for. So we're talking about a financial difference of $60 per tire and hundreds of dollars per year, given the GP4ks2 is $30 shipped tax free.

I was a bit confused about where you think the landscape has changed in tires since 2013. The Spec Turbo Cottton has plenty of testing data to show it is at the top w/r to Crr. And Toms testing shows it rolls so well that it maintains this advantage over everything but the Conti SS.

But in another posts you seem to be claiming the new Vittoria Speed tubeless is the fastest tire. It has only been tested by Bicycle Rolling Resistance which is a site that uses butyl tubes for testing all tires. They tested the Vitorria tubeless and found it rolled 2.2 watts better than a Conti GP TT and 2.4 watts better than a Spec TC. So...change out the tests for the GP TT and TC to use latex tubes and most of us believe those tires will move well ahead of the Vittoria. Also known that the Conti SS is faster than the TC which makes it the fastest tire outright.

I might have misunderstood, but you might have hinted earlier that Michelin's new tires up the ante. I haven't seen any Crr or aero testing ranking the new Michelin tires.

For the past 3 years the only tire that has made a dent in the Conti dominance is the Spec TC. I think they would sell a lot more of them if they were more available and priced a bit lower. There are probably some that aren't fans of old school skinwall tires too.

Conti has changed the casing and treads on the Attack, Force and Supersonic for 2017. For better or worse hasn't been validated yet. I doubt they would ever made them roll worse. I could see the aero properties reduced unintentionally.

"in another posts you seem to be claiming the new Vittoria Speed tubeless is the fastest tire."

did i say that? i think others mentioned it. i think i've mentioned mostly the turbo cotton and the michelin power competition as examples of tires that deserve market share based simply on their performance and value proposition.

"you might have hinted earlier that Michelin's new tires up the ante. I haven't seen any Crr or aero testing ranking the new Michelin tires."

i didn't hint. i stated. it's on BRR. it's probably 3w better than the 4000S II for the pair, on a bike, at 23mph, and it has puncture resistance about equal to the conti.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

4000S II - durable, cheap, perform well. ...Those three combinations don't often come together. Usually, you pick two and forego the other.

Specialized tires - Only available at your LBS (or perhaps not readily available on-line). Tends to be more expensive.

Vittoria - usually miss my vote on pricing alone

Michelin - I really liked the cornering feel of the ProRace 2/3's, the price was good, but the durability sucked. The tires would be squaring off far too quickly. The PR4's seemed to not-be-so-good in the crr department. The newest tires might be better, but they haven't really been out long enough to gain much of a reputation (or I haven't noticed, at least).

Hutchinson / Schwable - went down the early tubeless path and found them to be a pain in the ass to work with. The crr data showed the earlier versions to be slower than tubed options. I gave up and never looked back. They're also more $.

History / experience predicts future behaviour. The 4000sII has been one 'constant' over the last 3 years and I'm not surprised that us average joes stick to what we know will work.

Do you have any idea how these or the other Compass tires roll? Thinking about some in 700x however big will fit on my CX bike.

---

/kj

http://kjmcawesome.tumblr.com/

"what would really instill confidence is a combined crr and cda tire study"

i'm sure you would. as would i. just, when you write "slowman is making these assertions without clear and convincing evidence," which assertions? i don't believe i made any assertions beyond those for which we have clear data.

i am talking right now to jarno bierman, josh poertner, and the folks at enve and hed, and damon rinard, about what makes a tire aero. not just the tire, but how the profile of the tire changes depending on the width of the rim on which it's mounted, and are there rules of thumb about the tire widths matched to specific wheels?

i think we have a long way to go before we have good aero data, because of the mountain of options that would need to be tested.

but what we DO have is SOME aero data from specialized, and we have the data from wheel makers in their private testing which they may be willing to share. and we have Crr testing.

and we know that the 4000S II is a pretty aero tire. i think we also can assume that tire makers knew that when working on some of the newer tires (the 4000S II came out in 2013) and took this into account.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Regarding the Corsa Speed I was going by your response in Post 90 of this thread:

[BrentwoodTriGuy] "How are there something like 100 posts and not one that specifically calls out the Vittoria Corsa Speed"

[Slowman] yup. slays everything. the only knock on that tire (notwithstanding the experience of your cohort) is tread punctures. it's got a nice sturdy sidewall, which i think is pretty amazing considering the rolling resistance (or lack of it). but it does test a little thin on tread punctures.

i think your point demonstrates my point in starting this thread.


Ok. Fair enough. I've previously missed where you are clearly stating which new tires you believe are faster than what Continental offers. You are wondering why no more love for three candidates - Spec TC, Michelin Power Competition and Vittoria Corsa Speed Open TLR, over the Conti offerings? For the Michelin and Vittoria offerings I would say lack of data and lack of users. As I mentioned much earlier in this thread BRR hasn't been around as long as other testers and uses only butyl or no tubes for testing these tires. When these tires start showing up on other Crr test lists, and even better, aero tested, they may get more play. Even if we follow the BRR testing rankings, there are two Conti offerings on the list that are equally fast or faster than the Michelin. Plus the Supersonic.

If I road raced or raced crits regularly the Spec TC would be in my inventory, but because I ride, race TT's and race Tris, Conti has me covered.

I still believe it would be very informative to ST users and cyclists interested in performance to have a ST tire shootout. I can't see where it would benefit most manufacturers to do this on their own, so we probably won't see it anywhere else. That Flo shared there carbon clincher development testing results with tires is unprecedented!

I haven't roller tested them, but I picked up the 26"X1.8" versions of that tire I showed last fall, and even though they aren't the "lightweight" versions, they seem to roll really well according to the semi-calibrated "butt-o-meter" ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I've been riding Compass tires for years - I currently have the 700 32s, 35s, 38s, and the 650b 42s, and 48s. My poorly calibrated feeling meter also says they roll fast. All the versions I have are the 'Extra Lite' casing. I know Jan has done some testing, but it would be interesting to see someone who is independent get some data. Tom, I'd be really interested in your results.

It's amazing the kind of terrain I've taken the 650b 48s on - I've bombed down some crazy stuff. A major weakness is mud though - no tread is lethal.

---

_______________________________________________

"Regarding the Corsa Speed I was going by your response in Post 90 of this thread:"

forgot about that. but if you add the 2w you get by putting a latex tube in standard tires, it still slays everything. doesn't it?

"You are wondering why no more love for three candidates - Spec TC, Michelin Power Competition and Vittoria Corsa Speed Open TLR, over the Conti offerings?"

i simply don't think there is a category in cycling where one model of one brand has this kind of stranglehold on the market without having a product that is so much better than the rest of the market. giro i would say except it only has half the market share (of slowtwitchers) that conti has.

"Even if we follow the BRR testing rankings, there are two Conti offerings on the list that are equally fast or faster than the Michelin. Plus the Supersonic."

fine. why aren't these selling? in the case of the best roller among them i think it's a puncture resistance issue. but i agree with you. do you think the 4000S II should be outselling the attack, the supersonic, the force by as much as it is? does it deserve that kind of market share just out of the models conti sells?

"I still believe it would be very informative to ST users and cyclists interested in performance to have a ST tire shootout."

well, i'm kind of circling that idea right now. i don't know for sure yet what it would look like. i don't care what tires you buy. i just want you to think about it before you make your decision. as with wetsuits, bikes, the races you decide to enter.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

No. I don't think we have the data to confirm that yet. Just going with the tube change I would say the GP SS, GP TT and TC all are the equivalent or possibly even faster. I'm not ready to commit to tubeless road yet and wouldn't want to deal with mounting a tubeless tire with a latex tube. So if I can get equivalent of better performance from proven tires I'm not changing.

I also have a storied history with Vittoria tires (and their Zipp derivatives), but I've avoided presenting this as an issue because I don't have lots of data. My experiences have found them fragile. Someone else mentioned cutting down one of their Corsa Speeds sidewall to sidewall. I have this happen with two of their older Open Corsas myself. Sure it is on me, as always, for hitting something. But when you experience a tire failure that isn't just a flat, but an outright ride-ender then one (at least me) are less inclined to make this their go-to tire product.

This is coming from someone that regularly flats on the GP4000S/SII. I'm not going to give fanboi testimonials about never getting flats. My experience is the opposite. I ride the majority of my miles in two states, and in both of them there is a lot of debris on the shoulders and a lot of rumble strips along the highways. This expands the potential for running over debris. Most of my flats come from hitting rocks of some type. I'm pinched on the shoulder by cars, going fast, and there you go. I can count on one hand the recent flats I remember on my GP4000S/SII that aren't nicks or cuts to the sidewall from rocks on the shoulder or sharp debris in a rumble strip or pavement gouge. My routine now is to superglue a strip of gorilla tape over the nick later and keep running the tire as long as the tread is good. The only tread puncture flats I see are kiawe thorns in Hawaii and those little pieces of steel belt wire that come from truck tire explosions.

These flat experiences are mainly why I've become more comfortable with using the GP SS as a race tire. Race courses generally allow me to ride in the road lane and I almost completely control my flat situation by not running over debris:)


I generally agree here. At least with respect to the GP4000SII. I think the tire's following has grown over the last several years in large part to word of mouth through forums such as ST. Since it took some time for this to occur, I would assume it will take quite a while for any other tire to make a dent (there might be parallels here to Cervelo Tri/TT bicycles). The Spec TC could be that tire, but for some of the things I mention earlier. The price probably most of the issue. I can't believe what I see done in the tri and cycling world to save a buck when bikes cost 4 and 5 figures. Human nature to save a buck I guess.


No I don't think it should outsell the other Conti offerings. Given some time I think these other Conti offerings will become more popular and could even expand Conti's market share. They are much less used than the 4000SII because they aren't as well known or as available. The Attack/Force III have just been released and are labeled 23/25 instead of 22/24. I haven't seen them measured for actual width changes or tested for Crr. They might become the new go-to combo of Crr/Aero. The GP TT is a strange one. Not a lot of testing. It sure seems to roll well, but it "looks" wide. Maybe it will become the Conti version of the Spec TC - Crr so low that it overcomes aero sins? I agree with you that the GP SS will probably never get a huge following because of the puncture resistance worry.

When you move on to the next poll it would be informative to report the combined results of the tire polls in a post in this thread tallying the Conti offerings by model against the counts from the brand count of other tire brands in the original poll. How many Conti offerings besides the GP4000SII outsell the other brands outright?


That would be great. I think the interest here and elsewhere would be huge.

This is ST. We can go on and on thinking about tires:)

"I don't think we have the data to confirm that yet."

what is it you're looking for? i think i know what's missing from bicyclerollingresistance but it's not much (the force of the weight of the rider not entirely congruent with the imperfections in the road). still, that protocol is pretty close to as good as you can get in the industry.

"Just going with the tube change I would say the GP SS, GP TT and TC all are the equivalent or possibly even faster."

i'm willing to accept your opinion, but i think it's also fair to acknowledge that any assertion i make is just a dispassionate reporting of the data. i don't know that any data exists to support your position.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

From BRR I would be looking for:

1) test these tires in their fastest configuration - using latex tubes;
2) test a GP SS in 23c. Probably too much to hope for, but test both the pre-2017 GP SS and the 2017 GP SS:) My bet is no one is giving up one of their older GP SS's before there is testing info for the new version.

If Tom A had an opportunity (access to tires and the time available) to the test the GP TT, it would provide two common, top ranked, data points between his ongoing list of results and the BRR data (Spec TC and GPTT).


That's fair. I gave you my logic for not considering a tubeless tire outside of the Crr data results. There was also a time when I found the fastest clincher below the top performing tubulars on Al Morrison's Crr list and called it good enough!

"1) test these tires in their fastest configuration - using latex tubes"

fine. but you're asking those guys to double the testing they do for the 1 percent of users who'll use a latex tube. the alternative is you can take BRR's word for what the delta is, on average, between butyl and latex (i have a question into jarno on tubes, waiting for an answer, how does he choose the butyl tube for each test and what is the delta between various butyl tubes; i'll report back when i get the answer).

one thing of interest: they did test 4000S II with and without latex tube, and in the fastest config the difference was 1.6w. now, i'll agree that's 2w at the speed you'll race at. and that's 4w for the pair. but that 1.6w doesn't overcome the difference between a tubeless that is 2w or 3w or 4w faster than a standard tire, at least in THIS testing.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'll chime in.
I use Conti GP4000 2 with latex tubes on both my road going bikes.
If I were to setup a TT bike tomorrow, I would use them and recommend to others that I set up to also use them.

Reasons:
They are as close to the fastests to not give a dam.
I haven't had a single flat that wasn't a small rock tearing the sidewall open and bad enough that any tire would have failed in the same situation.
They are cheap online and shops around here simply match the online price.
All non 'one brand' shops stock them in whatever size you like.
They corner well in both wet and dry and give good tactile feel as to how much grip is left, the 25mm versions especially so.
They have decent tread life.
They mount up without levers on every rim I have tried.

My only complaint is that the single direction arrow is bloody hard to find.

Until I find a tyre that matches that, I'll keep using them.

Interested to try the new Michelin, but they cost more and I still have a few conti's kicking around. Mainly want to try them as they look like they may be as good as the conti but run a little narrower so I have better rear stay clearance.

Vittoria tyres have proven too delicate for myself and many others so waiting for others to get burned before I waste money on them.

My trick for these is to always mount them so that viewing the tread at the top of the wheel has the "shark fin" shape pointing the proper direction. Not sure how to put the visual description in a clean sentence so hopefully that makes sense. I don't think my eyes are good enough anymore to find the arrows:(

Almost everyone, including myself, is highlighting flat protection. Once you discount that then floating around among other manufacturers for 1-4w of saving (3-12 seconds over 40km) makes a little sense.

Most of us would rather not fluff about on the side of the road going absolutely nowhere during a race - it's like going 1x before narrow-wide was introduced.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

Another interesting point is that almost half the UCI WorldTour peloton ride Continental - I count 8/18 teams here. About half of the remainder sport Corsas, and the rest are on their sponsored rubber (Specialized riding Specialized, etc).

https://cyclingtips.com/...-the-2017-worldtour/

Obviously these Contis are not 4000s2's, but we don't have team cars, neutral support, and a team to pull us back to the bunch. Our list of priorities has to be slightly different.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

yeah, for most people that sort of time saving is insignificant, whereas even with a quick change a puncture is a significant time loss, not to mention it can mentally destroy you.

so something like a supersonic is not really a good trade-off for most of us. a GP TT or turbo cotton maybe as they have reasonable puncture protection still (8/9 vs 11 for GP4K according to BBR, contrast to 18 for a gatorskin). its not really clear how much is enough under "normal" circumstances so whether those extra 2 puncture protection points are meaningful. i certainly believe that there comes a point at which anything that will go through a good puncture protection will go through virtually any tire, a lot of us have found from experience that the GP4K is about that level

the GP4K is known to save you some time thanks to its aero shape so it has that upside to counter its modest CRR. for the not so fast, that high-yaw performance is significant

I didn't think it would happen this quickly, but I had a chance to put the GI kit I pictured above through its paces this morning. We've been having a bunch of rain lately, and today was the one day this weekend were a relatively dry ride was possible...roads were wet though. On the ride, I got a puncture in the rear Compass 26"X1.8" tire I'm running tubeless. It wasn't a big hole, only ~1mm, but the wetness was preventing the sealant from "coagulating". So, I stopped and pulled out the kit, prepared a cord in the tool, stuck it into the hole (sort of hard since it was a small hole) until a small amount of the ends stuck out, gave the tool a small twist and pulled it out. I had packed a small knife, and cut the exposed ends flush at the tread. The leaking stopped immediately. I gave the wheel a spin to get some sealant there, topped off the tire, and was on my way in ~5 minutes. Rode another ~40 miles on it after that and by the time I got home, the repair is barely noticeable.

I'm flabbergasted this puncture repair isn't mentioned more when discussing road tubeless. It's a game-changer for me...if and when we finally get TLR tires that roll as fast as the best clincher/latex setups. This was easier than changing a tube in a clincher.

Granted, I was only running ~50 psi in those tires since they're so wide, but between this and my DIY plug in the 26C S-Works Turbo Tubeless I did, I'm basically sold on the technique.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I want to point out that across multiple road tires I've roller tested first with a latex tube and then set up tubeless, there is NO difference in the power it takes (i.e. much less than 1W difference for a pair, if any) at road pressures

I'm actually not sure where the guy who runs BRR gets that number from...he has a test up there on MTB setups that shows a difference between a tire with a latex tube and set up tubeless at very LOW pressures, but that difference lessens as pressure rises, and is completely gone at 50-55psi.
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...ss-latex-butyl-tubes

In other words, his own data doesn't match that statement.

He also has a road tire test comparing a clincher Schwalbe tire with butyl, light butyl, and latex tubes, but then compares those to the tubeless version of that same tire. The tubeless doesn't fair well comparatively. But, that's not really the comparison we're talking about...
http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...ne-tubeless-clincher

Anyway...like I said, I wouldn't take that "latex tube hit" as reality.

Lastly, I have a pair of Corsa Speed TLRs on the way to me right now. I'll definitely be roller testing it soon (both with a latex tube and tubeless) and well soon see how it ranks on my chart :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Run tubeless or with latex?

Edit: just saw you said butyl later on. yikes.

Is it fair to say that Flo is ahead of the game in their testing?

As a Flo user, I have access to good information that gives me confidence in my tire choice (GP4k2/Force):
http://flocycling.com/aero_tire_power.php

I found the recent white paper from Specialiized just as compelling for Roval users. Perhaps other manufacturers will follow suit as we pursue integration for the next phase of aero gains?

Scott

Well, 26x1.8 is MTB-sized and not far from MTB pressure - not surprising that it worked. I've plugged quite a few tyres this way (not my own, thankfully). I just never thought it's viable for a road setup, which I guess from your DIY repair sounds like it is an option.

For my training tyre, if something like the Bontrager AW3 comes out in a TLR version I'm probably sold. My race wheels aren't tubeless-ready rims, though.

---

ZONE3 - We Last Longer

"Is it fair to say that Flo is ahead of the game in their testing?"

i don't know. but i'd say that wheel makers who don't give tire advice, with data to support it, are missing a pretty inexpensive opportunity to do some real good for their customers.

while the internet has turned a bunch of average people into self-proclaimed experts, when it really comes down to it people don't want freedom and choice about things they know, in their hearts, they know nothing about. they want to be told what to do.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

So, with all the information we now have which tyre is now the fastest choice?

Is it the 'new' supersonic?
are we still sticking with the gp4000?

What about the new Michelin and Vittoria tyres that have emerged in the past year?

Or are we going with the low rolling resistance of the turbo cotton, although overall when aero and RR are considered the supersonic still wins.

I have a set of 23mm supersonics on my firecrest that are currently still keeping their place.

You also have the original work I published at A&M regarding tire aerodynamics. I then followed up on the topic more in depth in 2010:


http://biketechreview.com/...trispoke-tire-choice


http://biketechreview.com/...458-1080-tire-choice

I think there is opportunity for someone to make a well-shaped, narrow, low rolling resistance tire.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

The fastest tire is also the one that doesn't flat. Otherwise, I'm investigating this right now. There is a lack of ready answers when I ask companies that make tires and wheels. That's unfortunate. So I think we need to make a cheat sheet.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Not always. Depending on the distance, especially long course Tri, "flat aversion" can easily result in one choosing a tire to race on that is slower than a much faster option, even after accounting for the time needed to repair a flat (if it happens).

You might recall us doing that calculus for Tom Demerly a bunch of years ago...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I get your point but I think you're wrong.

The fastest tyre is the fastest tyre, aero plus Carr on the appropriate wheel.

Obviously puncture resistance is a factor, but it does not make a tyre faster or slower.

Case -
I have ridden to work on my supersonic and GP4000, the gp has punctured twice, the supersonic never. The key is the puncture that took down the gp would have done the same in the supersonic, neither is faster or slower on thus basis.

Personally I don't believe that the extra protection does very much.

I have recorded the last 10 punctures I had, and they were all caused by the same 2 stage event.

Small cut in tyre, small needle of glass eventuallg gets in, puncture.

This may be more likely with an SS as it's thinner, but ANY well worn tyre with little cuts in will do the same.

So IF you use a newish tyre, without cuts you dramatically reduce puncture risk, also filling the little ones with superglue helps.

Using this methodology I have yet to puncture an SS, this will of course now happen

Good to hear from Kraig. The problem with these older tests, is they deal with the old, narrow rims. I think we all agree that narrow tires are going to work on narrow rims. What works on the newer, wider rims is a different question.

As others have mentioned above, we have really different requirements here. I, for example, do fairly short TTs, where I expect to average nearly 30mph. 10+ yaw is generally not something I expect. An AG Ironman competitor is fairly likely to go 20 mph through the lava fields with a 20mph crosswind. He needs to plan for yaw. So our tire choice good be very different.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

Obviously there is no choice that will always in retrospect be right. I doubt there's much space between us. I never rode track tubulars in long distance triathlons in the 80s. But I did ride 240g cotton and silk tubies. A happy medium.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

the fastest tire is the one closest to the best CRR/CDA combo (on your wheels) that doesn't flat. the question is what is sufficient to not flat. maybe a supersonic will get you round safely, maybe a TT with vectran will be required, maybe the thicker tread of the GP4K, maybe a gatorskin (though probably not).

obviously it depends on road surface, debris, luck and attention to dodging debris. however i think we are missing anything better than anecdotal evidence as to what is "sufficient for typical circumstances". BRR gives us a puncture protection score, but there is nothing to say what those scores mean in the real world. this is what i would really like to see to add to the CRR and CDA tests

So don't race worn tyres.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

Jens!

I agree, there are some things folks could say are problematic with the data sets I've produced/published on this topic dating back to 2003. The a&m data has more "problems" than the 2010 san diego based data.

Yes, the 2010 lswt.com report is dated when it comes to tires/wheels - this is part of the reason why I have some discussion in the reports about things to look for when choosing aerodynamic tires.

Furthermore, I've tested plenty of the "fat" wheels with various tires (tubular and clincher)...all else equal, it's been my experience that narrow is aero.

---

=================
Kraig Willett
http://www.biketechreview.com - check out our reduced report pricing
=================

It's intriguing to hear you say this. Coming back to the sport after a hiatus, it does strike me that this wider-is-better trend has a faddish aspect. I'm hoping to do some roller tests on :

* My trusty Vittoria Crono (20c)
* Specialized turbo cottons (23c)
* Corsa Speed opens
* GP TTs

Next month I'm also aiming for a wind tunnel test of the Jet 9 Plus/Disc (with 23c Cottons or maybe GP TTs) vs. old 808/bump disc with 20c Crono tubulars.

If I had to bet, the old configuration (20c cronos) will lose by a watt or two on CRR, but win by about 5 on aerodynamics, at 0 to 5 yaw.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

- I respectfully disagree with tour statement that the Michelin Power Competition is a "better" tire than the Conti 4000 Sll. In areas of key difference, the Michelin is better in rolling resistance at tire pressures of 100 + ( about 1 watt per tire at 100 psi) but not as good at 80 or less ( 1 watt per tire worse at 60 psi). Certainly most people would not choose to ride at 60 psi, but if you are filling a flat with CO2 during a race that could certainly happen.
The bigger issue is puncture resistance. While both tires tested the same on tread, the Michelin is much thinner and weaker on sidewall durability and puncture resistance. So, for this metric, the Conti is clearly better.
Overall? I would rather ride a tire with great crr and above average durability than a tire with marginally better crr and below average durability.
It is really cool that we have such great choices 😀

Great timing getting your flat :)

So, did you use the 'cord' that came with the kit, or did you use your own version. I'm definitely getting one of these kit - I'm a little surprised/embarrassed I haven't thought of this method myself!

---

_______________________________________________

I know, right? Of course, my riding partners were giving me shit for having gotten flats in 2 consecutive rides with them...although, they were quite impressed at the speed of the repair!

I used the rubber coated cord that came in the kit. I hadn't gotten any butcher's cord yet. I plan on trying that this week on the road tire I punctured last week and plugged with the T-shirt swatch. I'll push the current plug through first and then try with the butcher's cord. I'll take pics and see how it goes. At least I know I have the kit rubber cord as a backup.

To be honest, I'm not sure if in those we conditions the cotton cord would have worked as well as the rubber coated cord. The water was definitely keeping the sealant "liquid".


Same here...as I think I said above, I'm shocked it's not mentioned more in articles about tubeless setups. They pretty much all say that if you get a puncture the liquid can't seal, then you can just swap in a tube...which is typically much easier said than done :-/

I have a wheelbuilder friend who's a big proponent of road tubeless tires...I'm going to tell him about this and I also have an idea for a small repair kit he could supply with every wheelset he sets up that way which would be a nice little piece of advertising as well for him ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I've been thinking about this for a while now. A while as in a few years. I'd say at this point in time a consumer is better of selecting the tyre that best suits their needs and then trying to find the wheel that best optimises the performance of that tyre. But then hardly any wheel makers provide the data needed to reach an informed decision.
I'm not sure it's an inexpensive option for wheel makers to obtain this data though. To make even a half decent job of it that is going to mean testing s lot of tyres. Something like ~7 options minimum for the fastest possible combined crr/CdA, more than that for mid level performers with greater puncture protection like the Conti gp4000s. If they have Tubular wheels in their line up then that's another set of testing again. Each time a new wheel was released the same testing would need to be undertaken again.

On top of this I think it would only make sense for those wheel makers who don't also sell tyres under their name. Specialised can get away with it to a point because they have a fast tyre in the Turbo Cotton but even then I'd wager the roval would be faster with other tyres.
In fact the main reason I can see for wheel makers providing some data is as a marketing tool making it harder for other wheel makers to do their own comparison tests.

For instance if Zipp had released just a small amount of data showing how the Conti TT or SS tested on their NSW range then would Specialised still have chosen Zipp wheels as a comparison to the Roval!!! Specialised would have to have tested the Roval/TC combo against the 808/supersonic combo for instance.

I noticed these a while back and meant to post a link when I saw the Genuine Innovations kit go up the other day. Similar to the rubberized cords, these kits seem to have come from motorcycle or vehicle tires originally. The rubber plugging portion seems like it would easily fill a good size puncture, but the pointed brass ends look kind of scary. The bullet shaped versions might be a good option, but may be difficult to insert in smaller punctures:

http://www.wheelbuilder.com/dynaplug-micro-pro.html

http://www.dynaplug.com/

Yeah, I've seen those just recently as well...but ~$60 vs. ~$7 is quite a price difference! Seems like overkill, especially if the cotton cord approach with the GI tool works out (which I'm happy to report it has so far. I need to put some miles on it to be sure :-)

Plus, it too seems to be marketed more towards MTB usage...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Wanted to bump this back up. Just saw this on instagram, dynaplug now has a version that plugs the hole and re-pressurizes the tire at the same time. This combined with the corsa speeds makes what might be not only the fastest tire, but also the fastest flat repair.

I don't know what you mean by re-pressurize at the same time. I didn't see that in either link you posted. And wouldn't make much sense given that there's already a compact, reliable, and fast way to reinflate with CO2. Are you confusing the fact that the cylindrical toolkit case *looks* like a CO2 cartridge with it actually being CO2?

That said, I got the Dynaplug kit a few months ago for my road tubeless, and it seems to work well on my Schwalbe Pro One tubeless, though only a sample size of two flats. Both flats were sealed by sealant, but I plugged for a more permanent fix. It seems pretty legit.

I haven't tried it on Corsa Speed yet (no flats), but I'd be a *little* worried. The plug seems to get purchase in the casing/tread, and I worry about how thin the CS casing is, e.g. whether the plug has enough material to bond with. I may never try it on my CS tires, though, since as a pure TTer I don't carry any flat kits while racing (my race is done if I flat), and I'd fix it with a proper internal patch after the race just to be really sure. There is some risk of the metal tip of the plug ripping the rim tape, etc, and I just don't want those metal tips in my race tires.

So far I think they're a great training ride tool, though.

Sorry, links were in what I quoted and I forgot to add mine.

https://instagram.com/p/BQW753xALg3/

The Dynaplug sounds like a bit of overkill then when compared to the ~$6 Genuine Innovations kit mentioned earlier...especially since I've found that cotton butcher's cord works pretty well in combination with sealant (as an alternative to the unvulcanized rubber coated cords supplied with the GI kit).

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/