I'm surprised both that they released them with rolling resistance that slow, and also that they designed them around aerodynamics (apparently) and didn't include any graph of aero testing with their own wheels.

If you pick Tufo as your manufacturer, you'd better make them aero AF.

They did: https://www.bikeradar.com/...-ses-tubeless-tyres/

Tire design goal wasn't to make the lowest Crr but a tire that balances rolling resistance, aerodynamics, puncture resistance and ride quality: Enve says the new collection of tires — which was developed in partnership with and are manufactured by Czech Republic brand Tufo — doesn’t top the field in any one performance parameter, but rather “strikes a unique balance between all these elements to achieve an everyday rideable, racing performance proposition.”

VN also sheds light on that: https://www.velonews.com/...road-tubeless-tires/

Ah, thanks. Those graphs are really hard to read on bikeradar, though.

Still, gaining a Watt or so of aero and giving up 3-4W of rolling resistance (vs. GP5000TL) isn't a world-beating combo.

Historically Tufo made some of the slowest tires that ever existed. I'm surprised ENVE didn't pair up with Vittoria, Michelin, or Conti.

Their graphs show that the GP5000 is both more aero and lower rolling resistance.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Enve's website and marketing materials seem designed to sell GP5000TLs rather than their own SES tires, as Enve's own published data show the GP5000TL beats the SES tires on both aero and rolling resistance.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

It's a good thing then (for them) that the GP5K TL isn't on their "approved" list :-)

Of course, all of the above is making a good case for looking at options besides Enve's wheel offerings...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Graphs are slightly easier to read here: https://road.cc/...sed-ses-tyres-276185

Again, their goal wasn't to beat the GP5000TL (ironically, a tire that says "mount only on hooked rims" on sidewall, and won't work with Zipp's two newest wheels either) in crr. In RollingResistance.com tests ENVE was basically on par with the Pro One TT in crr but 2nd in puncture resistance, while the Pro One was last, and 5000 in the middle (a Pirelli was first but gave up watts). Even when I was racing I'd trade off a watt or two for puncture resistance. In everyday riding, even more so.

I ride 5000's every day and have had 2 flats in a year.... And one of them was my fault because I let the new tube get caught between the rim and tire.

Enve chose to go hookless to increase their profit margin, but in doing so they made it impossible for their wheels to be the fastest. Maybe that works out for them, I don't know.

They also run the risk of someone not knowing about which tires are approved and not and injuring themselves.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Also, in regards to that bikeradar article linked, they say this:


Everything quoted above is demonstrably false in regards to tires ridden on pavement. When tested at pressures one would reasonably run on pavement (i.e. below the pressure "breakpoint") the roller testing correctly ranks the tire performance. Take it from someone who has actually done the testing and the correlations ;-)

They are repeating supposition and conjecture not based on any actual data.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Shocking!

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Are Zipp and Giant off the back too? Hookless is little more than being easier to manufacture https://www.bikeradar.com/...-rims-road-tubeless/

Yeah, the only point of hookless is to eliminate a step in manufacturing and make them cheaper.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

We just released our own take, moments ago: https://www.slowtwitch.com/...Road_Tires_7729.html

Enve may not have had a choice. If I was the CEO of Conti, I'd give a hard "no" on Enve slapping their brand on my tires.

...and by doing so, they push the requirement for higher tolerances onto a component made of fabric and rubber, hence their whole project looking at bead diameters and bead stiffness, 2 things that only matter to that degree when you eliminate the hooks. Seems to me it should be easier for a rim manufacturer to make consistent (and not sharp edged!) bead seat diameters and hooks than to try to get an entire industry of products that are basically textiles to tighten down.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Yeah this quote by Enve blaming blow-off problems on tire manufacturers is a bit obnoxious.

Jesus. I had not seen that. Now I hate Enve even more than I did.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Yeah...I read that...and aside from the questionable claim of a "better" transition aero-wise between the tire and rim, everything in that article quoted as an advantage is in manufacturing improvements (i.e. easier/cheaper to make). What am I missing?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Truth be told Mavic's wheel/tire system worked *really* well it just didn't sell well. I have a set of their UST road wheels and Mavic's tires install and set up tubeless really easily. The tires themselves are great training tires. For races I would run the Hutchinson Fusion 5 Galaktik TLR tires which were the Mavic twins sans the butyl liner and puncture strip.

There are ETRTO standards for rims but not tires. So it's an issue, unfortunately, as Dan saw first-hand: They shared the results with us, and we were shocked to see a huge variability in both tire bead diameter and stiffness. We’ll share data as we get it, but take our word for now that tires are far from created equal. https://www.slowtwitch.com/...e_Test_Lab_7532.html

Why wouldn't a company make note for the safety of their customers? Zipp also encourages confirming compatibility: https://sram.zendesk.com/...t-disc-brake-wheels-

When Dan and I sat down in an ENVE conference room last year, I asked several specific questions about hookless and aero. Where we landed - what they said - was that hookless was not done for aero reasons. Manufacturing ease / BSD precision was a big driver, and their tests showed improved rolling resistance compared to hooked (due to the increase in tire volume) - which they decided internally to be a (more than) worthwhile trade.

There seemed to be a few lingering question marks around their rim design with wide tires - and potential aero performance at high yaw... but this was outside of the realm of tri, and more of the Gran Fondo / dirt scene (and I don't really have any concrete take-homes to share from it anyhow). If I recall correctly, they planned to do a lot more aero testing with wide rims/tires.

The tread pattern is ace - and aero too!!!

This is all a giant red herring. As Tom A. already said, trying to set similar demands on dimensional tolerances for tires as for wheels is absurd. Tight tolerances on rubber & fabric tires are much much more difficult to attain than for carbon rims. And there is a lot of reason for the materials of different tires to have different stiffnesses and it is the job of the wheel to accommodate this.

Wheel makers have caused this to be an issue because they wanted to make cheaper wheels and increase their margins. That is it. This is not an issue for hooked rims.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook