If so which ones are considered “fastest”?
Tubular or Clincher?
For which wheels?
Yes it makes a difference.
jaretj
Oh boy…
Well, if you are talking clinchers then the Michilen Pro Race 2 or 3 is considered one of the best for Crr and puncture resistence
If you are talking Tubie the you can’t go wrong with Veloflex Record, or Carbon
and yes, tires make a significant impact on speed.
It’s all about rolling resistance.
Do a google. Somebody posted a chart of the RR of different tires awhile ago.
Has anybody posted a chart of tires and mph at a certain wattage?
or rolling resistance and speed
I am not a pro at this analyticcycling.com but changing the tire choice from “premium clincher” to “utility clincher” requires 8 additional watts to sustain 8m/s ---- 288 compared to 280
.
If so which ones are considered “fastest”?
The ones that pop out at you when you do an archive search on this subject 
Start here:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/wheels_tires.html
.
Tires make a huge difference - both in aerodynamics and rolling resistance… take a look. There’s more than 10watts between the best and worst tires on the list.
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf
When you look at these charts, be sure to consider the trade-offs and what your application will be. No tire is fast when you’re changing it at the side of the road. There are tires you might select for a 10 mile time trial but that you’d be nuts to run for a long-course triathlon. I purchased a pair of Veloflex Record clinchers to use for time trialing. I haven’t mounted them up yet 'cuz I think I have inner tubes that would be more durable. The tread on those tires is wafer thin.
And the debate over which is better … tubular or clincher … will go on forever. Evidence suggests the better clinchers have matched and even surpassed performance of the best tubular tires.
Good luck.
.
Looks like the Tufo Race lites do very well with a higher pressure, that can’t be right! Can it?
Looks like the Tufo Race lites do very well with a higher pressure, that can’t be right! Can it?
On a **perfectly smooth surface **(like a roller drum), higher pressure results in lower rolling resistance for all tires.
On a typical road surface…only up to a certain point (which is typically a much lower pressure than most would think) due to increased losses from transmission of road vibrations into other parts of the bike+rider system.
So…if you race on indoor linoleum floors or on rollers…have at 'em 
You also need to look at the conditions you ride on. These tests are all set up for perfectly smooth surfaces, so it’s possible a tire that good there, might not be so good on rough uneven surfaces. Plus if it’s a course with a lot of cornering you might want a tire that handles better and has a higher Crr. you could lose more time having to get on the brakes more to corner than you make up by rolling faster.
When you look at these charts, be sure to consider the trade-offs and what your application will be. No tire is fast when you’re changing it at the side of the road. There are tires you might select for a 10 mile time trial but that you’d be nuts to run for a long-course triathlon. I purchased a pair of Veloflex Record clinchers to use for time trialing. I haven’t mounted them up yet 'cuz I think I have inner tubes that would be more durable. The tread on those tires is wafer thin.
And the debate over which is better … tubular or clincher … will go on forever. Evidence suggests the better clinchers have matched and even surpassed performance of the best tubular tires.
Good luck.
.
Oh…don’t be such a wimp Bob I’ve ridden VF Records in multiple 20K and 40K TTs with no issues whatsoever. If you’re worried about a puncture slowing you down, use a tube with a removable valve core and throw in the liquid sealant of your choice as a prophylactic measure. Al’s testing above shows that it doesn’t measurably affect the Crr.
They aren’t training tires. That’s why the tread is so thin…it’s also why they are so fast. Save 'em for racing.
You also need to look at the conditions you ride on. These tests are all set up for perfectly smooth surfaces, so it’s possible a tire that good there, might not be so good on rough uneven surfaces. Plus if it’s a course with a lot of cornering you might want a tire that handles better and has a higher Crr. you could lose more time having to get on the brakes more to corner than you make up by rolling faster.
Since the mechanism that “ranks” the tires on a smooth surface (i.e. internal hysteresis losses from deflection in the contact patch) is also the same mechanism affecting losses on a rough surface, one would expect the losses for individual tires to go up on the rougher surface, but not for the “rank order” of the tires to change.
Of course, this is all assuming that the tires in question aren’t overinflated.
That said, yes…I agree that one needs to look at more than just rolling resistance when deciding what is best for a particular application.
Tires make a huge difference - both in aerodynamics and rolling resistance… take a look. There’s more than 10watts between the best and worst tires on the list.
http://www.biketechreview.com/...ire_testing_rev6.pdf
I tought the most interesting thing about this data was most of the tires are within 3-4 Watts of each other, stay away from the dead wood and the tires look like they make little difference.
Tires make a huge difference - both in aerodynamics and rolling resistance… take a look. There’s more than 10watts between the best and worst tires on the list.
http://www.biketechreview.com/...ire_testing_rev6.pdf
I tought the most interesting thing about this data was most of the tires are within 3-4 Watts of each other, stay away from the dead wood and the tires look like they make little difference.
Make sure you read the “fine print” at the top.
First, that’s on a “per tire” basis. Second, the typical “fudge factor” for translating the differences from Al’s setup to actual road performance is 1.5-2X.
IMHO, they make much more than “little difference”.
You also need to look at the conditions you ride on. These tests are all set up for perfectly smooth surfaces, so it’s possible a tire that good there, might not be so good on rough uneven surfaces. Plus if it’s a course with a lot of cornering you might want a tire that handles better and has a higher Crr. you could lose more time having to get on the brakes more to corner than you make up by rolling faster.
Since the mechanism that “ranks” the tires on a smooth surface (i.e. internal hysteresis losses from deflection in the contact patch) is also the same mechanism affecting losses on a rough surface, one would expect the losses for individual tires to go up on the rougher surface, but not for the “rank order” of the tires to change.
Of course, this is all assuming that the tires in question aren’t overinflated.
That said, yes…I agree that one needs to look at more than just rolling resistance when deciding what is best for a particular application.
Not my area of expertise, but my understanding from talking to tire guys, is it’s not a constant relationship. Different casing designs and materials can behave differently to different angle and level of deflection. The general Crr test are a lot like trying to judge the real world performance for aerodynamics, off of only 0 yaw.
Or at least that’s the way it was explained to me.
You also need to look at the conditions you ride on. These tests are all set up for perfectly smooth surfaces, so it’s possible a tire that good there, might not be so good on rough uneven surfaces. Plus if it’s a course with a lot of cornering you might want a tire that handles better and has a higher Crr. you could lose more time having to get on the brakes more to corner than you make up by rolling faster.
Since the mechanism that “ranks” the tires on a smooth surface (i.e. internal hysteresis losses from deflection in the contact patch) is also the same mechanism affecting losses on a rough surface, one would expect the losses for individual tires to go up on the rougher surface, but not for the “rank order” of the tires to change.
Of course, this is all assuming that the tires in question aren’t overinflated.
That said, yes…I agree that one needs to look at more than just rolling resistance when deciding what is best for a particular application.
Not my area of expertise, but my understanding from talking to tire guys, is it’s not a constant relationship. Different casing designs and materials can behave differently to different angle and level of deflection. The general Crr test are a lot like trying to judge the real world performance for aerodynamics, off of only 0 yaw.
Or at least that’s the way it was explained to me.
In the range of tire deflections seen by a road tire on a typical road surface, I can’t see how there could be any appreciable differences. Unlike CdA over yaw angle, the losses are pretty linear with deflection…
Don’t forget, each part of the tire deflects from zero to full deflection once per revolution. Riding on a rough surface just causes that “full deflection” level to vary with time…but the “full deflection” level is still within a pretty tight range, unless you’re talking about a REALLY rough surface.
A few weeks ago Source Endurance had a time trial camp at the Texas AM windtunnel. We are working on a report to post on our website. As part of the camp, we wanted to do an informal test of some different tires. Notice that I said informal, so please don’t barrage me with a bunch of questions about why we didn’t test this way or that. We used wheels and tires that either Source Endurance staff or camp attendees brought with them. The basics are below:
Same rider, same bike, assumed constant weight, tire pressure was 120psi, speed was 20mph, and I believe 53/15 gearing was used in each test to provide a chainline that was the same or only differed by 1 cog. SRM Pro was used to determine the wattage required at 20mph for 2 minutes. Each test was repeated 3 times to get an average. All tests were conducted indoors in a temperature controlled environment. All tests were conducted on inside ride rollers and the ‘bumpers’ were not hit during any of the tests. The actual wattage numbers may be posted on our site one the windtunnel camp summary report has been completed. The same front wheel (zipp 303 w/ Vredestein Tubular) was generally used in each of the test, especially in the ones referenced below, as an attempt to lessen the variables in the testing. The set of “training wheels” was tested at the beginning and end of the test to make sure that they were still the “slowest” and that the wattage numbers were close to repeatable…they were.
Fastest tire set up was a ProRace 2 clincher tire with a Latex tube…this has been demonstrated in other tests as well. This was on a disc.
Next fastest was a Vittoria Corsa CX tubular tire. This was also on a disc. It has also been shown that this is a fast tire, generally one of the faster tubulars.
Next fastest was the same ProRace 2 clincher with a butyl tube. This was also on a disc.
Next fastest was the Vittoria Corsa CX tubular on a couple of different wheels…a BW100 and a Zipp606.
After that came various Continental tires. A good check was that the clincher Maxxis Re-Fuse training tire with a Mr. Tuffy tire liner was the slowest one tested at the beginning and end of the test. Again, a basic test that showed results similar to those that have been posted here and on other websites.