Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [NordicSkier] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
NordicSkier wrote:

Vittorias have always ridden well, but durability and puncture resistance?

I found the Terreno CX tires with Graphene good, but not great.

I absolutely loved the Torreno dry tires. They are like velcro in the grass, but their durability SSSSSSUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKSSSSS. That said, it's a race oriented tire, so I wasn't expecting them to last that long, but I only got about half a season out of them. To be fair though, I ride a cross bike as my main bike, so I'm probably putting a lot more miles on those tires in a short period of time than most people do.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
lanierb wrote:
Yeah, I finally tested the 2.0 tires last night and they were *identical* in CRR to the 1.0 tires, so no changes there.


Thanks for the info, but damn.. was hoping for an improvement. I heard 3rd hand of someone else getting the same result. Have you ever tested the Pista? Thinking that might be the best choice if you aren't doing tubeless anyway.

When you say 3W at 40kph vs GP5000, what is the weight?
A few answers for you and others:
-- I've never tested the Pista but heard it's a bit faster than the CS. I can't really imagine using one myself given the roads I race on so never bothered to get hold of one.
-- The watts saved is calculated at my weight, so 85kg for total system weight (on both wheels together)
-- On the TL version of the 5000, yes the main difference seems to be a thicker sidewall and bead, but that's simply eyeing it. I'm thinking of using them for races on bad roads and that have some dirt road sections.
-- On the regular Corsa (not Speed), I tested that too. The 2.0 is a bit better than the 1.0 but they're both dogs (IMO - sorry for people that like them). I actually kind of screwed that one up (the roller drum got dirty and I didn't notice at first) so would have to redo it to get it exactly right, but I'm confident in saying it costs another 5-7watts above the 5000TL (at 40kph for two tires and at 85kg).
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks for the info. I suppose i am happy to have opted for gp5000, even if it was done with no knowledge of the 2.0 options
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are these the regular corsa or the corsa speed that Joe Skipper appears to be planning to race on?


Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Regular..



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
rruff wrote:
lanierb wrote:
Yeah, I finally tested the 2.0 tires last night and they were *identical* in CRR to the 1.0 tires, so no changes there.


Thanks for the info, but damn.. was hoping for an improvement. I heard 3rd hand of someone else getting the same result. Have you ever tested the Pista? Thinking that might be the best choice if you aren't doing tubeless anyway.

When you say 3W at 40kph vs GP5000, what is the weight?

A few answers for you and others:
-- I've never tested the Pista but heard it's a bit faster than the CS. I can't really imagine using one myself given the roads I race on so never bothered to get hold of one.
-- The watts saved is calculated at my weight, so 85kg for total system weight (on both wheels together)
-- On the TL version of the 5000, yes the main difference seems to be a thicker sidewall and bead, but that's simply eyeing it. I'm thinking of using them for races on bad roads and that have some dirt road sections.
-- On the regular Corsa (not Speed), I tested that too. The 2.0 is a bit better than the 1.0 but they're both dogs (IMO - sorry for people that like them). I actually kind of screwed that one up (the roller drum got dirty and I didn't notice at first) so would have to redo it to get it exactly right, but I'm confident in saying it costs another 5-7watts above the 5000TL (at 40kph for two tires and at 85kg).

Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That’s what I thought 🤦🏼‍♂️
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Has anyone mounted the corsa speed tlr 2.0 onto enve 7.8 disc wheels? in either 23 or 25? how hard are the new ones to mount? also curious what their mounted width is.

I tried the original corsa speed tlr, and my 2 gripes were how hard they were to get on and how paper thin they were (my tire was ruined with the first flat I got). I could get over the poor flat resistance, but I was barely able to even get those tires on the wheels tubeless (hed jet+). Couldn't imagine trying to get a latex tube in there. I'm not interested in tubeless at this time, so need to be able to mount a tire with latex tube.

I currently have the conti 5000 25 (non-tubeless), and just eyeballing it they look a little larger than I'd like. I need to get the calipers on them though. Good news was I able to get them on easily with just my hands.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
They've had a running change with the Speed TLR's. The first ones are notoriously hard to get on, the newer ones aren't as bad. I mounted a 23 on Zipp super nine without tools.

The 23's are close to 25 on an 18.5 internal rim. I'd say the 25's will grow accordingly.



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Last edited by: Ex-cyclist: Apr 18, 19 8:07
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Sean H] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sean H wrote:
That’s what I thought 🤦🏼‍♂️

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks!
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ex-cyclist wrote:
Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.
Not sure what you're asking. I've tested the Corsa, Corsa Speed, and also 2.0 versions of both, all with latex. I feel like it's a pain to setup tubeless each time for testing and in the past I haven't found much difference between the two. I'll actually have another chance to test that theory out, though, because I just setup up the 5000TL tubeless so I can retest and see if I get any difference between that and the latex test.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ex-cyclist wrote:
e roller drum got dirty and I didn't notice at first) so would have to redo it to get it exactly right, but I'm confident in saying it costs another 5-7watts above the 5000TL (at 40kph for two tires and at 85kg).


Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.[/quote]
You mean "TL?" The Contis are supposed to be TL.

Just making sure you were referring to the GP5000TL vs. the CS TLR.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Ex-cyclist wrote:
e roller drum got dirty and I didn't notice at first) so would have to redo it to get it exactly right, but I'm confident in saying it costs another 5-7watts above the 5000TL (at 40kph for two tires and at 85kg).


Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.


You mean "TL?" The Contis are supposed to be TL.

Just making sure you were referring to the GP5000TL vs. the CS TLR.[/quote]If that's what he's asking, the tests above of the 5000TL were with latex. I've now mounted it tubeless (for use in a race Saturday) so I can quickly retest it. But I don't expect to find any difference.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't tell if I'm getting confused because (i) I'm just old and generally confused, (ii) we have some challenged use of the quote function in this thread or (iii) we have inconsistent terminology, but to solve (iii), I propose the following nomenclature:

Vittoria tires being discussed:
Corsa G1.0 Clincher
Corsa G1.0 TLR
Corsa G2.0 Clincher
Corsa G2.0 TLR

CS G1.0 TLR
CS G2.0 TLR

Continental tires being discussed:
GP5000 Clincher
GP5000 TL

Notes: "CS" means Corsa Speed and for the tubeless variants, Vittoria is "TLR" and Continental is "TL"

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Last edited by: refthimos: Apr 18, 19 11:44
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Bummer about the regular Corsa. I was looking at it for my wife to replace the GP4000s tires she's been using for her 650C wheels, given that Conti is not making the GP5000 in that size. From Bicyclerollingresistance it's about the same Crr as the GP4000 but was hoping for some improvement.

Sure wish Conti hadn't dropped the 650C size!

For my own riding, I've got a couple of GP5000s and going to pick up a new Corsa speed and test and decide if the slight penalty of the Conti is worth the presumably better puncture resistance. I've had decent luck with the Speeds but did have to bail on a TT when I had a flat right before it. I'll probably pick up a regular Corsa 650C and compare it with the one new GP4000 we still have and decide if it's an adequate replacement or we need to stock up on the 4000 while we still can.

I'm confident enough in my own testing to tell which tire is faster but not enough to put any numbers out there.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Ex-cyclist wrote:
e roller drum got dirty and I didn't notice at first) so would have to redo it to get it exactly right, but I'm confident in saying it costs another 5-7watts above the 5000TL (at 40kph for two tires and at 85kg).


Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.


You mean "TL?" The Contis are supposed to be TL.

Just making sure you were referring to the GP5000TL vs. the CS TLR.[/quote]
Corsa 2.0 TLR, not the Speeds



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
Ex-cyclist wrote:

Did you test the TLR or just the regular with latex? If it is the regular one, that would likely confirm what I got with the TLR's given the thickness of the casing. My testing says the TLR's are dogs.

Not sure what you're asking. I've tested the Corsa, Corsa Speed, and also 2.0 versions of both, all with latex. I feel like it's a pain to setup tubeless each time for testing and in the past I haven't found much difference between the two. I'll actually have another chance to test that theory out, though, because I just setup up the 5000TL tubeless so I can retest and see if I get any difference between that and the latex test.

You answered my question. I was referring to the Corsa 2.0 TLR. The Corsa 2.0 and Corsa 2.0 TLR have different construction.



Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [Ex-cyclist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm confused. Do the regular (non-TLR, non-Speed) Corsas suck or just the TLR's?

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [gary p] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gary p wrote:
I'm confused. Do the regular (non-TLR, non-Speed) Corsas suck or just the TLR's?


I don't think anyone has said that the TLRs suck or are anything other than very fast tires.


I think what is being said is that the Corsa G1.0 Clincher rolls about the same as the Corsa G2.0 Clincher, and neither are particularly fast. Instead, the are both a good deal slower than (i) the CS G1.0 TLR and CS G2.0 TLR (which roll roughly the same, no improvement from G1.0 to G2.0 but still the fastest tire currently available) and (ii) the GP5000 Clincher and GP5000 TL (not quite as fast as the CS G1.0/G2.0 TLRs but much more robust).

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099
Last edited by: refthimos: Apr 18, 19 16:29
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
lanierb wrote:
I've now mounted it tubeless (for use in a race Saturday) so I can quickly retest it. But I don't expect to find any difference.

Did you end up testing it tubeless? I've got some tubeless ready wheels and trying to decide if I should get the TL's to run tubeless or just the normals with latex.

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [realbdeal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
realbdeal wrote:
lanierb wrote:
I've now mounted it tubeless (for use in a race Saturday) so I can quickly retest it. But I don't expect to find any difference.


Did you end up testing it tubeless? I've got some tubeless ready wheels and trying to decide if I should get the TL's to run tubeless or just the normals with latex.
Yes I did. Keep in mind that I think tubeless CRR depends a bit on mounting - amount of sealant, whether or not the rims or rim tape leak and cause it to harden, etc. That said, in my setup the CRR of the TLs tubeless was very slightly higher (0.2w) than the TLs with latex -- and recall that the TLs with latex were about 3w higher than the non-TLs with latex as above.

My opinion: for races on good roads (not gravel) I would go non-TL/latex. For gravel/dirt/bad roads I would go TL/tubeless.
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [lanierb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did you see that the French guy found the new version to be faster?

http://www.cyclesetforme.fr/...corsa-speed-tlr-2-0/
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [MTM] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
interesting... I can't read French, is that 6w per tire or per pair of tires?

MTM wrote:
Did you see that the French guy found the new version to be faster?

http://www.cyclesetforme.fr/...corsa-speed-tlr-2-0/

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.”
Quote Reply
Re: Graphene 2.0 Rolling Resistance Data [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My French is only spotty, but from what he has written he is talking about a pair of tires. Per his testing he is saying that a pair of CS 2.0 is 5 watts faster than the CS 1.0 and 11 watts faster than a pair of GP5000TL. All tires were set up tubeless.
Quote Reply

Prev Next