Thanks for the info. Definitely looks good. Do you think they will be harder to mount as they are intended for tubeless?

R is a programming language for statistics.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

I'd really like to see a better testing protocol than this. Rollers would be better.

Also, a little confused by the nomenclature.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I agree that rollers are vastly better than field testing for isolating rolling resistance. The only advantage I can see for field testing is that it could theoretically factor in the aerodynamics of the tire as well as RR. I'm not sure about his testing protocol, but if he's comparing wattage over a fixed course that's fraught with error. VE testing could be used for this but you'd need optimum conditions and protocol to get good results.

And there are gotchas to roller testing. One thing I've found in my testing is that for it to be valid you have to compare tires with comparable mileage. A mediocre tire that's very worn can roll way better than when new.

Looking forward to Tom A. testing a set of these as I trust his methodology. And I'll probably pick up one and test it myself.

Hello ! yes TLR version is difficult to mount with innertube...optimize for tubeless rim ...!

You raise an issue I have always wondered about. When Will a tire stop getting get faster with use and then does it reach an age when the Crr starts to increase? I have an old Bonty aero-wing that I have been riding forever on my backup TriSpoke.

Hello! first time i can compare Field and roller version in my experience....So next time i will only test on roller, it's easier ..no need to wait perfect weather condition...

what is the theoretical watts and how was that determined?

haven't seen the protocol, so not sure how these were run

Theoretical watts are with awsoft, my explain are here ( in french), i hope you will anderstand with a translater.. http://cyclesetforme.blogspot.fr/...t-du-salbert_22.html

eh, I see too many variables to use this data as anything but anecdotal at best. slightest variation in riding lines up a switchback climb yields different course lengths as well as different pavement bumps, not to mention we don't know how well you hold position, as it still matters even at slower speeds

yes i know, always same position, same riding, same distance...but i'm not a robot i agree ...to compare tire or equipment who are very close ( < 1 watt) , it's doesn't work but only 2 watts between tires can be detect, i'm sure...

looking at December 17, is shows the SS took 1.1 less watts to climb than the corsa speed, but was calculated to require 0.9w, therefore the SS was actually 0.2w faster, but if the tome of the thread is correct it is saying the corsa is faster, but that is not what your data is showing. you have some formula errors in your spreadsheet, not all the numbers add up

no test of SS the 17 th...1.1 watts for corsa TLR vs GPTT, bad r�sult due to the temperature drop during test at end ...i explain that in my test

I really have no idea in terms of Crr, but I would hazard a guess that there is never a point where Crr increases with a worn tire. Maybe if it got so worn that the cords were showing? On the other hand I have heard that as the tire flattens out with wear its aerodynamics deteriorate. And of course a tire stops getting fast pretty quickly when you get a flat due to excessive wear ;-)

Bump. Wondering if anyone has seen any more rolling resistance data for the new Vittoria Speed. I'm specifically interested in the tubular. Anyone have experience with the new tubie? I'm wondering about the puncture resistance for races.

Thanks,
Patrick

I wonder if flat spotting a tire might change things as well? Probably not, though, and most flat spots do result in cords showing.

---

My YouTubes

howlingmadbenji wrote:

I am eager to see independent tests and/or the actual data.

http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...ria-corsa-speed-2016

So ~25% less rolling resistance than Conti GP TT and Spe Turbo cotton. Impressive.

---

Blog | Twitter| Bike CdaCrr app

Actually, if you standardize to using a latex tube, it's 9.2W-9.7W for the Corsa Speed (he says add 1.5-2W for a latex tube vs tubeless), and 8.4W for the GP TT, so that makes the Corsa Speed look like a slow tyre, i.e. the data say something different to the words he has written to describe the data.

Well, that guy tests tires with a 100g butyl tube. Using latex tubes will knock off 1.5 watts from the Turbo Cotton. That puts them about 1 watt apart. The Corsa Speed also looks like the thinnest tread that he's ever tested too.

Indeed, I concluded too fast without reading enough, as I was hoping for this result :-)

---

Blog | Twitter| Bike CdaCrr app

Why would you add a latex tube to a tubeless tire? Even if somebody did find some weird reason to run an inner tube in it, 9~9.5 watts would not be a 'slow' tire.

Mine just arrived, man these things look and feel fragile!

I've ridden on them in torrential downpour, fine.
I've ridden on them on a road that would have been better suited for MTB tires, fine.

They are solid tires.

sweet, that's what I want to hear!