Tufo Rolling Resistance

Triathlon Forum
1

Since I’m a huge fan of Tufo tires I have been quite concerned regarding some of the threads on slowtwitch concerning Tufo rolling resistance. I am somewhat skeptical of some of the critics of tufo tires mainly because several of them recommended Zipp tubulars which, in my opinion, are the worst tubulars that I have ever ridden (from a durability, speed, and cost perspective). I still haven’t come to any conclusions regarding tufo rolling resistance other than I’m pretty sure the Vittoria Corsa’s and high-end Conti’s have less rolling resistance than Tufo’s, however, I am still using Tufo S3 lites (with slime) due to their superior puncture resistance. I’m also pretty sure that anyone who says Tufo’s are minutes slower (on any course) than Conti’s or Vittoria’s is smoking crack (once again,** my opinion only**)

Anyway, below is an email that I got from tufo regarding rolling resistance. It’s from a marketing guy so I have to take it with a grain of salt but for your info:

The question about tire rolling resistance is rather complex and complicated one due to the different methods and conditions influencing the measurement of this factor.

Generally, there are two basic measuring models:

  • in laboratory setting

  • in real life setting

The difference between these two settings is quite remarkable. Setting in real life conditions represents a road with infinite curvature (absolutely “flat”), in laboratory setting the tire is rolling on the drum with standard diameter of 120 cm. Diametric difference in a curvature between “flat” road and curved drum causes big difference in measured rolling resistance values, because the deformation at the contact point of the tire and drum is roughly double as compared to the road.

Tufo tires are constructed for real conditions use. The tire construction is very sensitive to the drum curvature (diameter 120 cm), on a “flat” road the tire works very well with minimum rolling resistance.

Unfortunately most of the rolling resistance tests are done in laboratory setting conditions which are not representing real road conditions.

Another major attribute influencing the rolling resistance is the tire pressure. Tufo tubular and tubular clincher tires, as compared to other brands, are constructed for very high inflation pressures, up to 220 psi. This fact is not taken into consideration and Tufo tires are tested with other tire brands at inflation pressures around 115 psi. It is necessary to mention that Tufo tires even at these low inflation pressures provide very low rolling resistance in real life settings. At inflation pressures closer to 220 psi, the rolling resistance is significantly lower.

High inflation pressure is preferable at sprints, acceleration, climbs…etc. At these high tire pressures the bike does not “float” but keeps nice straight track.

Tufo company is intensively researching the question of tire rolling resistance and this topic will be addressed in all it’s complexity on our official web site.

With best Regards Milan Simek Business Manager TUFO

2

Cool. Can’t wait to hear what you find.

I love it when manufacturers post here.

3

Never believe something that says “in a lab, our tires do very poorly. But on the road, they do MUCH better.”

The idea that maximum pressure provides lower RR is pretty bogus. On a track, yes? On the road, no way. That is totally contrary to everything that has been established about tires. Tufo’s may be different, but they aren’t that different. If that were even close to being true, motorcycles on the GP circuit would be running pressures like that, and they are NOT. The idea that deflecting the entire bike+rider is somehow more efficient than deflecting a tire?

Tufo’s are slower. It has to do with the construction of the tire. Let’s say the basic casing of a Vittoria tire and a Tufo tire is exactly the same – same fibers, same thread count, same everything. In order to make a Tufo hold air, they vulcanize rubber onto these fibers. Which is going to be more resistant to deformation – an uncoated fiber? Or a heavily rubberized fiber? Obviously the rubberized fiber. There is no way around it.

If Tufo’s were at all faster, you WOULD see them on TdF bikes and on track bikes. Tufo’s have zero major classic wins, zero major stage race wins, zero olympic medals. The only place they have a few decent results in on the track, where the surface is smooth. And that is assuming those athletes were actually riding Tufos, which they very well may not have been.

They are slower. They must be. Simple physics dictates it.

4

Well that answers that !

dirt

5

Talk to anyone who designs anything. The real world does funny things to data.

6

That’s true. I’m not saying it doesn’t. 50% in a lab doesn’t mean 50% on the road. But the real world doesn’t change fundamental physics.

Mostly I am saying it is very suspect that a company will say “ignore the results of testing in a lab, where variables can be controlled.” The big problem that everyone cites with all the empirical “evidence” that keeps pouring in is that it was NOT done in a lab.

7

Unfortunately most of the rolling resistance tests are done in laboratory setting conditions which are not representing real road conditions

My test was done on a real road, on a real bike, with a real rider.

8

Bones,

You can believe anything you want but in the real world on a flatish course with tufo’s taped on deep front/dsic combo - with a powermeter - the tufo/wheel combo was several minutes slower per hour than every other wheel/tire combo I’ve tested to date. I’ve tested Velomax Circuits, Renn disc, Hed Alps - yet all clinchers. I’m planning on testing some Hed 3’s with tubs and some other tubs soon…the Tufo’s were inflated to about 115 psi - I never tried anything higher.

Dave

9

My Tufo on my Zipp 999 says 175 psi…my Tufo on my front 808 says 220 psi. Would this make a difference?

I’m concerned reading about all this negative stuff about Tufo, but my shop recently put them on my new bike and said all these negative threads about Tufos are BS…

Oops, I see you were writing about clinchers…you haven’t done tubulars yet, sorry. I’m still curious about what I should do… :frowning:

10

…my shop recently put them on my new bike and said all these negative threads about Tufos are BS…

.

Ask your shop for data. If they don’t have any, they’re guessing.

And, “I rode real fast on them” is not data. One must isolate rr from other effects. This is a very straightforward test procedure. All that is needed is about a mile of flat road on a still day (early morning, usually), a powermeter, and some patience.

I got figures of about .005 for a pair of Michelin clinchers, and .008 for a Tufo tubular in front and a Michelin clincher in the rear. Real road, real conditions. Real, actual data – not “gee, that one felt fast.”

And, FWIW – while those on the losing end of lab data like to waive it off as “not real world” – I defy anyone to point to an actual example where rr or CdA data derived in a lab turned out to be wrong in the “real world.” Bunches of people have done “verification tests” and found that the lab data does, in fact, carry over to real riding.

11

What wheels do you suggest I put on my Zipp 999’s?

12

Vittoria
.

13

What wheels do you suggest I put on my Zipp 999’s?

You mean tires? Tubies, I assume?

I have only personally tested Tufo tubulars against Michelin clinchers since that’s what I owned. My results were consistent with the oh-so-derided “lab data” that some others have published. The lab data seems quite consistent with the roll-down and regression real-world testing techniques.

Extending that confidence down the line, some of those tests find that the top-of-the-line Veloflex tubies with latex tubes are the best. Vittorias are right there in a virtual tie. There are good results reported for other brands too, but IIRC, it depended greatly on the exact model. IOW – Conti makes a fast tubie, but they make some really slow ones, too.

If I were buying tubies right now, I’d probably buy Vittoria or Veloflex, in the high-end models.

Thin, light, supple, with latex tubes. That seems to be a good formula. If you want more flat resistance (butyl tubes or heavier rubber and casing) you give up rolling speed. It’s a trade-off. Tufos are tough tires and I think are very flat-resistant. So, everybody needs to decide their priorities.

IMO – for the MOP/BOP racer, flat resistance is more important than eeking out every last drop of speed. Tufos are a perfectly fine choice there. But by the same token – those riders shouldn’t be investing in tubulars *at all! *Stick with clinchers.

In my own case, I have this idea in my head that I am within a minute here and there of making top-5 in a big half IM next spring. So, I want every minute I can get, and I am willing to take the slightly higher flat risk from my Michelin clinchers than I would take with Tufos pumped full of anti-flat goo. Based on the rr resistance figures I derived, the tire change is worth about 5 minutes.

14

Conti Competition

The most used competition tubular in both road and triathlon…

15

Clarence,

My 909’s were tested with tufo tubulars - S3 Lite taped with extreme tape. The other wheels I’ve run were clinchers. I’m still trying to get the tape residue off so I can mount my Vittoria Corsa EVO KS’s - tubulars on my 909’s and retest.

Don’t believe us - don’t believe your shop. Take your bike with training wheels - do a 10 or 20 mile hard time trial. Repeat with your race wheels. Pick early mornings with about the same wind/temp…do the same thing but ride like IM or half IM pace for 20 miles with both sets. Record your times and compare. Do it a couple times over a month or so. I’d bet that there would be an obvious difference and it should convince you…and yes there are a lot of variables - and yes if you do not have a powermeter - then you don’t know for sure - but if you keep RPE about the same - you should be able to tell if there is a BIG difference or close to none. Your race wheels should be about 1/2-1 mph faster - right? Test it! If your race wheels do well - then no worries - race with tufo’s with confidence.

Dave

16

Thanks for everybody’s input. I appreciate it.

17

Why should we believe Tufo over those who aren’t trying to sell us something?

What’s so great about Tufo that we should take a chance on them?

18

I received a similar email from Tufo about RR. The higher I inflated the tires over 115 psi the worse the RR. I thing that their claim is true on the drum in the lab and perhaps on a perfect velodrome but it isn’t true in the real world.

Don’t you find it strange that Tufo can’t produce ANY data to back up their claim? All they ever talk about is how “complex and complicated” the issue is… well its not.

Here is the link to my findings:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=394450;search_string=tufo;#394450

19

I love Tufo’s response. Basically they are saying, “We don’t have any data to back it up, but our tires are faster in real life situations. Just take our word for it.”

20

The only true way to measure if they are slower is with a power meter. Just riding a 10 or 20 mile TT has too manyb variables. I’ve gone 58:00 for 40k on tufo’s and on others in the same month on different courses. What does that tell me - nothing about tufo’s.

Set up your bike find a course get a power meter and ride at a constant power output. The tire wih more rolling resistance will be slower.