Tour tire test 09/2007 A more up-to-date tire test

Triathlon Forum
1

I just saw this over at Fairwheelbikes.com (original poster there was pk0r).
It appears that Conti trumps Michelin finally in the clincher department.

Fresh out of the press, here are the results of the highly anticipated tire test in the latest Tour issue.

*Only the bare numbers for now, I will be adding other facts (rating system, handling at threshold, conclusion) lateron.
** Also be aware that testing on different measuring devices yields different results, so the results and conclusion from this very test can only be seen as trend. Other magazines that either tested on the track or on Schwalbe’s testing device usually came to pretty different results than Tour Magazin who is using Conti’s testing testing device.
Worth mentioning though: so far Conti always performed worst (rgds CRR) on their own testing rig, which seems to have changed with this test.

Caption: Manufacturer, model, MSRP, width x height, CRR at 35kph (85kg system weight, 7.5bar pressure), puncture proofness (max 180s), wet adhesion (max. cornering speed for a curve radius of 12.5m), mounting

Clinchers/Tubeless:
Continental GP 4 Season 45.00€ 23.4x23mm 224g 53.90W 180s 33.20kph possible without tools
Continental GP 4000 S 42.90€ 23.4x22.8mm 207g 34.30W 180s 33.00kph possible without tools TOUR - TEST WINNER
Hutchinson Fusion 2 39.80€ 23x22.7mm 233g 52.8W 56s 30.30kph with tools middle difficult
Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 49.80€ 21.9x20.5mm 299g 34.30W 41s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult
Michelin Pro²Grip 45.95€ 23.2x22mm 234g 43.70W 180s 32.60kph with tools easy Tour - Tip
Michelin Pro²Race 40.95€ 23.3x24.1mm 218g 36.00W 180s 30.30kph with tools easy
Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 36.90€ 23.6x23.2mm 215g 51.50W 180s 31.10kph possible without tools
Schwalbe Ultremo 42.90€ 22.5x21.2mm 196g 43.30W 180s 32.90kph possible without tools Tour - Tip
Vittoria Evo CX 43.95€ 23x22.7mm 229g 42.00W 9s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult
Zipp Tangente 77.50€ 21.5x18.9mm 204g 36.20W 47s 33.00kph possible without tools

Tubulars:
Continental 4000 SR 72.90€ 22.3x19mm 246g 41.60W 180s 31.80kph inconspicuous
Schwalbe Stelvio 64.90€ 22.0x20.0mm 220g 47.00W 180s 32.90kph inconspicuous
Tufo Elite Ride 25 69.95€ 26.0x24.4mm 262g 41.20W 180s 30.20kph inconspicuous
Vittoria Evo CX 59.95€ 21.9x19mm 282g 41.10W 50s 30.60kph inconspicuous
Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 58.65€ 22.7x21.6mm 278g 36.70W 6s 30.20kph inconspicuous
Zipp Tangente 99.00€ 21.5x19.5mm 269g 37.20W 70s 32.80kph inconspicuous

Rating:

Caption: Manufacturer, model, weight (10%), CRR (30%), puncture proofness (30%), wet grip (30%), overall grade
“-” #1: handling at limits
“-” #2: conclusion

Clinchers/Tubeless:
Continental GP 4 Season 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

  • Gives good feedback. Soft transition to the adherence limit. Predictable.
  • Very good puncutre protection with dual Vectran breaker and firm sidewall. For rough roads. Wears square, rolls sluggish.
    Continental GP 4000 S 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
  • Rich riding impressions of a lot of rubber. Very secure, predictable. Besides the Ultremo the best riding experience.
  • Test winner. Optimal compromise between CRR, grip and puncture protection. Perfect all-arounder for training and competition. Thread wears square.
    Hutchinson Fusion 2 2.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3
  • Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with a low adherence limit.
  • Thick thread made of three compounds. Sensitive despite of protection belt. Rolls sluggish. A tire without distinctive strengths.
    Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 2.3 1.0 3.3 3.0 2.4
  • Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with low adherence limit.
  • Tubeless tire for special rims. Construction and thinner thread allow for a much lower CRR than of the normal “Fusion”.
    Michelin Pro²Grip 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.5
  • Hard riding impression. Hobbles extremely. Hard to predict.
  • Competition and training tire. The CRR suffers under the improved grip. Wears very evenly.
    Michelin Pro²Race 1.67 1.33 1.00 3.00 1.8
  • Hard riding impression. Much grip on the shoulder, but less in the middle, stutters predictably.
  • Easily rolling competition tire with robust casing and good puncture protection. Wears evenly.
    Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.0 2.2
  • Hard to predict, doesn’t give any feedback. Slips away without stottering, tight limit range.
    Schwalbe Ultremo 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.4
  • Very good riding impression. Rich, predictable. Causes a feeling of much rubber on the road.
    -very light competition tire with optimal adhesion and still good CRR. Wears very evenly.
    Vittoria Evo CX 2.0 2.3 4.7 3.0 3.2
  • Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position. Unpredictable.
  • Rolls well, but other than that prooves itself problematic: bad puncture protection and delicate properties in the limit range make the Vittoria a good weather tire.
    Zipp Tangente 1.3 1.3 3.3 1.0 1.8
  • Gives early some very fine feedback, without stuttering. Only slightly worse than the GP 4000 S and the Ultremo.
  • The surprise. Except for the puncture protection a very good tire, grip and CRR within touching distance to the class winners. Relatively thin thread.

Tubulars:
Continental 4000 SR 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.6

  • Predictable and of good nature. Reaches the limits a little sooner than the GP 4000 S.
  • Best tubular in the test. Flat and seamless construction with butyl tube. Does not reach the level of the 4000 S clincher: rolls worse, grips worse.
    Schwalbe Stelvio 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.6
  • Gives little feedback, but grips well.
  • Light, seamless tubular with butyl tube. Despite of a conventional rubber coompound very good grip. Thin thread. High CRR.
    Tufo Elite Ride 25 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
  • Mediates the feeling of much rubber. Limit announces itself. But pretty low grip level.
    Vittoria Evo CX 2.7 2.0 3.3 3.0 2.8
  • Unpredictable. Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position.
  • Traditionally constructed, sewed tubular with latex tube and dual compound. Disappointing rgds grip and puncture protection.
    Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 2.3 1.3 4.7 3.0 2.9
  • Does never mediate the impression of a secure grip.
  • Traditionally constructed with latex tube. Construction very similar to Vittoria, but more voluminous and faster. Disappointing in grip and puncture protection.
    Zipp Tangente 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.0 1.8
  • Gives early some fine feedback, secure feeling of much rubber.
  • Traditionally constructed tubular with latex tube. Single compound with good CRR and dimples. Only slightly falls back rgds puncture protection.

I am sure that this will spark some good conversations.

2

Latex or butyl inner tubes? Also, I find the results a bit odd since the Michelin ProRace and Vittoria Evo CX clinchers usually test pretty similarly, yet in this test, they do not even come close. Did they also load a single tire with 85kg? If so, that would be odd since a single tire never sees that much weight. Any more details on the protocol?

3

I am sure that there will be more information available as these questions will come up I am sure. I will take what you have asked and put it over there to find out for you.

I am curious as well.

4

It’s interesting that they say the mounting for the Cx is “with tools middle difficult” and easy for the Pro2Race. Vittorias and Vreds are just about the only tires I can consistently mount without tools. They also measure 24 and not 23. I bought all my KS and CX tires in a big sale about 2 years ago. I wonder if the construction has changed since then.

-jens

5

I agree. I can mount my Vittorias Corsa CX clinchers by hand easily and struggle mighty with my ProRace2s! I’m sure butyl tubes for the test.

6

So as for the testing protocol:

  • CRR:
    All tires have been tested on the testing rig of Continental which features the predominant conditions that can be found in Germany. The test station has been re-tooled with Tour-instrumentation and has been conducted and evaluated by Tour-engineers. Tested has been the CRR at 35kph with a load of 50kg. The measured variable is a force, which is converted into a power requirement in Watts as this one directly rates against the power input of the rider. In the table (see above, post #1) the CRR for a system weight of rider and bike of 85kg is stated. (The CRR increases linear with the speed and weight-loading). The CRR in this test falls between 34 and 54 W at 35kph. In reasonably aerodynamic position it takes about 220 W of power for this speed. The CRR of the tested tires amounts to between 15 and 25% of the total power at this speed.

  • Wet grip:
    Tested on wet road. For that purpose the tester has been descending a hill with a special scooter to then lay into the test corner with a 12.50 mtr radius. The speed has been increased each step - until drifting or crashing. The maximum achievable cornering speed, displayed in the table (post #1), is a measurement for the grip of the tire. Through repeated testing the test rider has been able to give feedback on the riding experience towards the limits, which would hardly been determinable in another way. The scooter has a load distribution and steering geometry which is similar to the ones of a road bike, the ridden lean angle is slightly lower than with a road bike, as the center of gravity lies deeper and more towards the inside of the corner. In comparison to the grip test from Tour 2/07 the test street has been significantly more slippery due to a more slippery tarmac. The adhesion coefficients, that describe the grip independently from the curve radius fall between 0.52 and 0.60 in this test (for the last test they have been falling between 0.69 and 1.17 for especially good griping asphalt (in the wet)).

  • Puncture proofness:
    Determined in the Tour-laboratory. A partially grounded screwdriver blade is being pushed onto the inflated tire with 35 kg of a weight-force. Then a vibrating unit is being engaged which loads the blade in an oscillatory way. Measured and displayed in the table (post #1) is the time, that it takes the blade to penetrate the tire. The test is being aborted as “passed” after three minutes and is being performed a total of five times. The measurements largely confirm our practical experiences. Tires, that resist the blade for three minutes, are very puncture resistant in the practice.

Find attached the test results from German “Triathlon” magazine from September '06 which have been performed both on the track as well as in the laboratory on Schwalbe’s testing rig.

  • Faltreifen = clincher
    Schlauchreifen = tubular
    Praxistest = on-road test (on the track)
    Labortest = laboratory test (on Schwalbe’s testing rig)
    ** pressures: clincher 8bar, tubulars 9bar
    *** the Tufo (C Elite Jet) almost topped the best CRR results when having been inflated to 15 instead of 8bar.

     **Triathlon September2006 - tire test.jpg**   Description:        Filesize:  87.53 KB   Viewed:  4 Time(s)

http://fairwheelbikes.com/forum/files/thumbs/t_triathlon_september2006__tire_test_679.jpg

7

I find the German results much more in line with my real world experience than the Tour ones. I had a pair of GP4000s when they were first released and had no fewer than six flats in the first week using standard weight tubes. Compare that to my Vittorias, which I’ve gotten 1600 miles on thus far (with Bontrager X Lite tubes, no less) and haven’t had a single flat – although they do have a few cuts. Different planet alignment this time around?

And since when do GP clinchers roll that well? I know it’s not very accurate, but my own coast down tests (I at least tried to keep the variables limited) puts the Grand Prix a lot higher than a Diamante Pro for RR, and the Corsa feels faster than the Diamante, so I’d assume it’s faster than the GP as well.

8

thanks, very interesting.

but where is continental, earlier you said it tops the list in low rolling resistance.

?

9

I did not say it topped everything but I did say it beat Michelin.

It was up in the first post. It came in just ahead of the Michelins. In my last post, in the attached information this info was from 2006 but the information at the very top is from just today or yesterday.

10

i see now thanks.

really hard to believe the conti’s would beat the vittorias by such a solid margin in rolling resistance.

all very interesting.

11

I agree with you. I do not think that Conti is the best tire in the world and that is not why I posted this. I posted it because I was asking for more up to date information a few months back and was told that the 2006 information was the most recent information. I just thought that this would stir up a bit of conversation in regards to CCR and other topics related to tires. I do own a pair of the GP4000S for racing and the only reason is that I have had very very good luck with Conti for over 12 years with only about 6 flats in that time.

I am pretty anal retentive when it comes to my clincher set up so I am sure that this helps a lot. Talc powder in ever tire (to keep the tubes from sticking to the tires), inflated to 110 psi every ride and I am very careful when mounting my tires. I think this all leads to having less flats over the years. I also use my gloves a lot when I am riding to clean the tires when I run through crap. Racing is the only time that I do not clean my tires when I run through crap but I check them after every race.

12

thanks for posting, it is all pretty interesting.

yeah i too have trained on conti’s for years until i switched to a cross bike as my road ‘trainer’: 700 x 35c, soft as butter, no flats at all (yet), and unreal speed when i switch to my race bike …

13

Why didn’t they test the Conti Competition? Isn’t the Competition their #1 tubular tire? I don’t even see the 4000 SR listed on the Conti site? I would assume that the Competition is a better tire since it lists for $119 and the 4000 SR lists for $90?

14

Thanks for posting. But the following makes me suspicious "All tires have been tested on the testing rig of Continental ".

So not suprised that Continental tested the best.

15

Thanks for posting. But the following makes me suspicious "All tires have been tested on the testing rig of Continental ".

So not suprised that Continental tested the best.
Would you be surprised that previous tests that rated Continental as being among the worst were also done on the testing rig of Continental?

16

the following makes me suspicious "All tires have been tested on the testing rig of Continental ".

I gather that you don’t trust the independence of the people at Tour magazine: "The test station has been re-tooled with Tour-instrumentation and has been conducted and evaluated by Tour-engineers. "

17

I agree as well. I stopped using the Michelins because I got tired of fighting with the out on the road. I have never used a tool to mount the Vittoria’s. I bought my most recent batch about 2 months ago. I also find the Vittoria’s about as predictable as it gets. The Vreds on the other hand, not

18

Old thread, but stumbled over it when ordering tires for 2008 …

The tour test tests “Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX”, the Triathlon tests “Vittoria Open Corsa Evo KS”. Only two letters difference, but a completely different tire …

19

smell a lot like advertising to me …we know that Conti’s are good …still being the only brand without negative comments…common…
Would be very interesting to have Michelin feedback on this…

20

Old thread, but stumbled over it when ordering tires for 2008 …

The tour test tests “Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX”, the Triathlon tests “Vittoria Open Corsa Evo KS”. Only two letters difference, but a completely different tire …

The CX and KS are basically identical except for that the CX has a “file” tread while the KS is slick. Another thing, there is some evidence (photographic) that the CX tested in the latest Tour test may have been a 20c instead of 23c. That would explain it’s higher Crr. Here’s some comments I made about all this (along with an updated Crr chart) on another forum at the time:

OK, here’s my contribution. I converted the new tour test data to Crr to more easily compare between the tests. The previous clincher testing was done at 7 bar instead of the subsequent 7.5 bar used for the rest of the testing. That’s only a difference of ~7psi and should only cause a slight disadvantage to the clinchers from the first testing, so in the list for tires with equivalent Crrs, if one was from the original clincher test, it was listed first.

http://i23.tinypic.com/fz9buh.png

A couple of observations:

  • Someone needs to explain the large difference between the Vittoria Open Corsa CX between the 2 different tests. Other tires that were tested in both cases had reported Crrs much closer. E.g. look at the Pro2Race and the Vittoria Corsa CX tubular results.

  • The top of the list is still dominated by clinchers. Adjust the clincher results by subtracting ~15% from the Crr to account for the observed “ballpark” gains with using a latex tube, and the differences would be magnified.

  • Tufo appears to only gets into the top half of the list by the fact that the tire tested actually measures out at a whopping 26mm wide!

Enjoy.