Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

rolling resistance vs. weight
Quote | Reply
I need to get some new tubulars and I've always used TUFO S3 Lites (19mm, 195g front and 21mm, 215g rear). I've heard that the Continental Comps have lower rolling resistance(not sure if that's true), but the front is 240g and the rear 275g. 45 and 60 grams heavier. People are always talking about rotational weight being important, so it seems like this would be significant. So what do you guys think is most important? Unless I hear compelling testimony otherwise, I'll probably stick with the TUFO's.
Quote Reply
Re: rolling resistance vs. weight [jaylew] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hi,

I tried TUFOs last year and hated them. I'm 6'2"/180 and tried 21 mm S3 Lites on Zipp 440 rims. (Pre 404s). The best way that I can describe the feeling those tires gave me is that "the brakes were starting to rub at ~23 mph". There was definitely more effort in trying to push those wheels at my favorite gear/rpm (53/17, 95) than even my training wheels (clincher Velocity Deep V with 25 mm Conti GP 3k).

I was all ready to blame it on the "lousy Zipp hubs" until I decided to try out my 8 year old Conti GP tubs the TUFOs replaced. All of a sudden, the Zipp wheels "were alive" again. I didn't have the $$ to buy a new set of tubs last year, but I did buy a Conti Podium/Sprinter combo this year and have been quite happy with them. The Zipps feel "normal". The tires are 19mm front/23 back. Didn't think the Comps were worth the extra $$ for me. I race only Olys and shorter tris.

I'm sure TUFOs are great tires and some people will swear by them, but my subjective evaluation of them says that the Contis are better.

Good luck with your decision. (for me it was an expensive one...)

horia
Quote Reply