I love em. Used them in IMNZ and about 20 other events. No complaints. I hear banter about rolling resistance. I don't give much credence to this until proven otherwise. I like them.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

cos tufo is not made by cervelo. duh.

Huge. Haruum. Jihad against them.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I was going to ask the same thing.

I run S3 Lites for two IM's with no problems and plenty fast.

When I asked for a tire recomondation from biketiresdirect.com they said they have had very good luck with Tufo's and recommended them to me..

I like them and mine are nice and round,, had some problems in the past with humpy continental sprinters.

Good round and not lumpey. I use them for training to. Oh and a good price to. Are they fast tires ? Not when I am riding them ;-)

Thom

"I don't give much credence to this until proven otherwise"

Define proof. There have been numerous experiments that indicate Tufo's have high rolling resistance and no experiments that indicate they might have even normal rolling resistance. Why take a chance when there is no evidence to suggest they might be "normal", but plenty to suggest otherwise. That is proof enough for me.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

I find the rolling resistance argument sort of amusing. If rolling resistance was such a major concern for everyone then Cervelo, QR, Litespeed etc. would be on nobody's short list of bikes since a Softride or Titanflex with the suspension will lessen the rolling resistance of any type of tire. In a perfectly controlled situation clinchers outperform tubulars for rolling resistance and Tufos don't seem to behave as well as Vittorias,etc. but not everyone is dumping their tubular race wheels either. There is something to be said about the trade-off for some minor additional rolling resistance for the tire vs. the fact that Tufos are so durable that you're not as likely to be at the side of the road throwing your Kuota as you may be with some of the "superior" rolling resistance models. That said, I typically ride contis because they are easier for me to get locally, not due to any rolling resistance data.

"No complaints. I hear banter about rolling resistance. I don't give much credence to this until proven otherwise. I like them. "

That's classic.

There are at least a dozen fairly good to really good Crr tests of the Tufos floating around, and - without exception - they indicate greater rolling resistance for the Tufo's than for anything else out there. Dramatically.

This stuff is *way* better than your crank stiffness test, Tom...

What kind of proof do you need - a signed letter from the flying spaghetti monster? ( http://www.venganza.org/)

I think you can still make an argument for the utility of the Tufo product based on it's flat resistance, but if you really don't give any credence to the rolling resistance claims, you need to run for the Dover school board.


(as an aside, I had a conversation this past weekend with a trackie friend of mine. He switched his Tufos out for Sonderclasse Contis at worlds - between runs - and the Conti's made enough difference to get him on the pursuit podium (according to him.) Completely unscientific, subjective, and scientifically useless observation of a correlation, rather than a causal relationship... but he sure believes the hype now.)


.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I use Tufo Tubular clinchers for both racing and training cause I hate getting flats.

Hmm... so does that mean it is better to train on Tufos and race on something else? Just like filling my frame full of lead buckshot for training? I'd like to know what the most unaerodynamic equipment there is out there for maximal training benefits.

I'm never one to buy into the hype, but they honestly feel like riding in mud. I thought it was in my head, and then many others state the same thing. The German mag "Tour" also just gave this evidence by placing tufo and Schwalbe, same tires, at the bottom. They sound hollow (which they are) but sound like they are ripping at the pavement when climbing. I wore them out as they were bullet proof. Perhaps having a tube glued inside to the sidewall just gives an odd sensation, I can't image they would really slow you down.

I use Tufo's too. Never had a flat and they seem to perform great. I've talked to several who know a lot more about tires than me who all liked them.

Everybody sure does seem to hate them here though.

"There have been numerous experiments that indicate Tufo's have high rolling resistance and no experiments that indicate they might have even normal rolling resistance"

Do you remember what this was about? Seems to me I read somewhere that the tubie tires that don't use glue but tape actually slip thus causing a higher rolling resistance?

Anybody got the info.

The higher RR is actually an inherent problem in the construction of Tufo's. The same reason they are bulletproof is the same reason the RR is so high.

Think about it. Instead of deforming a casing made of cottong (or silk in the case of Dugast) threads. Now imagine you case these threads in heavy rubber (which is what Tufo's do -- the casing is vulcanized, which is how they are "tubeless," yet still hold air). To deform the rubber casing is going to be much more difficult. Hence the higher RR.

Tufo doesn't even deny it. I remember one of their brilliant quotes that a test on a drum will show that Tufo's have higher RR, but that is not applicable in the treal world... Just like all the windtunnel naysayers.

The Tufo gluing tape also makes things worse. But Tufos are definitely slow, even if they are glued. Bulletproof yes, but slow.

I will put it you simply -- how many TdF teams ride Tufo's? ZERO. If they were really as good, don't you think you might see them under at least some riders, especially since they are so tough. Paris-Roubaix would be ideal, but again ZERO users. Just something to consider...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I have been doing a little google-ing and cannot find these reports and tests that show TUFO's as such hate-able tires. I have googled upon quite a few favourable reviews on how durable they are and see they are readily available at many reputable shops, but not alot of horrible reviews or bad test comparisons\results on them, I'll admit I only spend about 5 minutes looking but still, there wasn't any thing out there glaring at me saying how slow these tires are.

c'mon slowtwitch haters of TUFO tires, we know there are a ton of you here.. show us the reports and tests.. really I want to see them (it won't hurt my feelings... promise).. SHOW ME THE MONEYYYYY, I mean TEST RESULTS haha..

Thanks in advance = )

Good expanation. Glad to have mechanical engineers aboard. Thanks.

Search the forum for posts containing "tufo" made by "Ashburn"

That will link you to all tests.

Google and try to find RR data on ANY tire. You won't find it easily. It is something that is very much overlooked. You also won't find any world records on tufo tires. That ought to tell you something as well... ;)

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Many of the different experiements have been done by Slowtwitchers. One was done my a German magazine. I can think of 4 different experiments using different methods done by Slowtwitchers and all contained the same simplistic results. 1) Most tires are roughly the same. 2) Tufo's are distinctly different from all the rest.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

I must have missed the whole Tufo bashing thing.

I have used S3 Lites for two seasons on my HED's & really liked them. No flats & the seem every bit as fast as anything else I've ridden (Conti, VeloFlex, etc). I have no data either way, just my impression.

I really like the lack of rear seam so the tire back seats/more surface area on the rim. I also like the removable valve core & the extansions that allow you to mount the valve at the end of the extension.

I've been very happy with Tufo's.

When I get my new CX 6.5 I want to put a pair of the Tufo blue cross tires on, just because I think they'll look cool.

---

Paul "Speedy" Gonsalves
http://www.rollingthundercanada.com
RollingThunderCanada

Canadian distributor for HED Cycling, Blue Competition, Akona Biospeed & Aerus Composites

Choosing the right tire is the single most important equipment choice once can make in terms of performance. And unlike every other choice, there is no additional cost associated with choosing the faster option. Really fast tires (well, within reason, assuming you exclude Dugast tires) cost no more than really slow ones. Even the fastest tire choices, while less puncture resistant than the slowest ones, are still very unlikely to flat in a race. And even if they do, in an Ironman, if you use fast tubulars, you could flat a couple times, make the changes, and still finish faster than if you used really slow ones (like Tufo's)...the difference is that big.

There is more potential time savings (and more data to back it up) in making the correct tire choice than choosing between frames, wheels, helmets, clothing, cranks, etc.

I understand why people don't all use Zipp 999's (the fastest wheel combo). They're very expensive and for some they have handling issues. I understand why everyone doesn't use an aero helmet (limited use item, overheating issues). I understand why people don't all ride aerodynamic frames (high cost/benefit ratio). I simply cannot understand why anyone would not put serious thought into their choice of tires. Everyone has to buy tires.

All this being said, I'm glad most people don't put any thought into their tire choice though, genes and training can only get you so far, and I like to win.

Scott

Although a little old and little OT here is an article I found on slow TUFO tires.. (nothing scientific)

http://www.recumbent-bikes-truth-for-you.com/...er-october-2003.html The TUFO part is near the end of the article..

Are my S3 Lites really slow tires..??? : (

What are fast durable round (hate humps in my tires) tubulars?

If I can average 21.1 MPH @ IM FL what is my potential on "fast tubulars" so many questions Uuug.

   

Tufos are nice and round. Easy to mount. Rolling resistance -- schmolling resistance! Tom D. owns a bike shop and knows his stuff. Use them and enjoy!





-- jens

Quote: "If rolling resistance was such a major concern for everyone then Cervelo, QR, Litespeed etc. would be on nobody's short list of bikes since a Softride or Titanflex with the suspension will lessen the rolling resistance of any type of tire."

RU sure about that? Seems to me the normal force on the rear wheel is the same whether it is suspended or not (eg, 100lbs for a 200lb bike+rider), so the energy to lift it over a bump is the same. In one case the energy is stored in the suspension, in the other it is stored in lifting the rider, but in either case when the energy is returned it results in equal deflection of the tire... the wheel moves the same. I can't see why RR would be any lower. I could be wrong...can you explain it?

I think everyone in the 35-39 age group at IMAZ this year should ride Tufo's...there are a lot of cactus thorns out there! Eh, who am I kidding, it would take a lot more than that to put me in contention.

What smartin said...

Well, we have some people that subjectively love Tufos and don't have data. And we have some folks that do have data saying that Tufos are slow.

Sorry, I don't have data to contribute. I can pass along my subjective opinion, which is that Tufos seemed very slow, my times were always slower then expected when racing with them, and were a big waste of my money and time. But really, that subjective opinion is worth about as much as the folks that subjectively love them; i.e. not a whole hell of a lot.

What is worth something is the data, and it's all saying the same thing...