Tufos - How Slow (relative) Are They?

Triathlon Forum
1

You know, it’s funny - in doing some searches about tubular tires it became apparent that Tufos were extremely popular with members of this forum back in '04 and '05. It actually appeared that Tufo was the tire of choice.

Regarding the past couple years of discussion about Tufo and the greater RR, can anyone give me any idea how much slower a Tufo (S33 Special, S3 Lite, whatever) is alleged to be compared to a Corsa CX or other quality tire? Are we talking 15 seconds over a 40K – or is the difference significant?

And, who still races on Tufos?

Thanks,

John

2

I got spooked by all the rolling resistance tests and actually did swtich over to Continental Sprinter Gatroskin tubulars for Steelhead, IM Wisconsin and Superfrog.

That said, my best perfromances at every distance have been on TUFO S3 Lites. I can’t tell you that I honestly notice any difference. I will say I like the Contis and TUFO’s better than any Vittoris since they are more flat resistant. If you like the Vittoria try the Zipp version with an additional flat resistant belt.

3

I like Tom was psyched out by the rolling resistance thing and am not running Tufos at present. I too have posted fast times (for me)on the S3 and even used to search for the Barum tires before the Tufos took over. You know I never have flatted a Tufo and have pulled many of them off the rim after they had worn all the tread down to the skin. I have seen a bunch of studies but I used to run my Conti and Tufos at 160 -180 ish psi in TT events with no problems. They sure felt “fast” back in the day. But there is a mistrust of them for the rolling resistance thing.

4

Yeah - thats when I bought mine. I think they were S3 Lites.

Based on powermeter tests that I did - I think S3 Lites/Tufo Tape were 1-2 mph slower than Vittoria Corsa (glues with Mastik). I figured I lost about 10 minutes in the half IM I did so I corrected my time…I REALLY did a 4:40 not a 4:50 at Soma…

My clincher race wheels seem to be another 15-30 seconds faster/hr than the Vittoria tubs mounted race wheels (though they are different sets of wheels and my testing isn’t perfect…).

Dave

5

I had a half IM bike pr yesterday with Tufo s3 lites.

6

Congrats. But, I assume this was on your new wheels. And those are the tires that came on the wheels when you got em, right?

How’d you like the wheels?

7

Yeah they were my new wheels, but really, they are just zipp 404s and my "Old"wheels are a disc and a really deep front rim so it isn’t like I switched from heavy training wheels. but yeah I liked the new wheels and I even like the Tufo tires. I had no issues with the set up. And yes, the Tufo tires were included with the new wheels.

8

You know, it’s funny - in doing some searches about tubular tires it became apparent that Tufos were extremely popular with members of this forum back in '04 and '05. It actually appeared that Tufo was the tire of choice.

Regarding the past couple years of discussion about Tufo and the greater RR, can anyone give me any idea how much slower a Tufo (S33 Special, S3 Lite, whatever) is alleged to be compared to a Corsa CX or other quality tire? Are we talking 15 seconds over a 40K – or is the difference significant?

And, who still races on Tufos?

Thanks,

John

According to AFMs testing here:
http://www.biketechreview.com/...ire_testing_rev6.pdf

…the best rolling Tufo he tested was the “Race Lite” which had a calculated flat, smooth surface Crr of .00322. The Vittoria CX tubular tested out at .00296. This makes for a difference of .00026.

For “real world” surfaces, he’s found that the Crr is typically higher by 50%, which would give a Crr difference of 1.5 x .00026 = .00039

OK, what can we do with that? Well, if we know the total mass supported by the tire and the speed traveled, we can figure out how much power is needed to overcome that difference.

Power = Crr * mass * gravity * velocity

Assuming a total mass of 85kg and a speed of 10.3 m/s (i.e. 23 mph), we get,
Power = .00039 * (85 kg) * (9.81 m/s^2) * (10.3 m/s) = 3.3W

The “rule of thumb” is that 5W is worth ~0.5s/km, so in this case it would be 0.33s/km of time difference, all else being equal. That would equate to ~13s over 40km. So, as you can see when choosing between these 2 tires, it’s not a huge difference. Then again, the other Tufos on the list (Elite jet clincher and S33) are much worse in Crr. For example, with the S33 (Crr = .00467), you’d be talking a difference of more like 22W and 2.2 s/km. That’s almost 1.5 minutes (1:28) over 40K.

BUT, what’s the difference between those models of Tufos and an OPEN Corsa CX with a latex tube (Crr = .00261)? For the “Race Lite” model, the “real world” difference would end up being .00092, and the power difference for the above case would be 8W. That translates to ~0.8 s/km, or 36s over 40K. For the S33 model, the difference would be more like 27W and 2.7 s/km. That’s almost 1:48 over 40K.

You can be the judge of what’s “significant” :slight_smile:

9

I got spooked by all the rolling resistance tests and actually did swtich over to Continental Sprinter Gatroskin tubulars for Steelhead, IM Wisconsin and Superfrog.

That said, my best perfromances at every distance have been on TUFO S3 Lites. I can’t tell you that I honestly notice any difference. I will say I like the Contis and TUFO’s better than any Vittoris since they are more flat resistant.

I’m not surprised you didn’t “notice any difference” between those 2 tires…like I told you in another thread, you sure know how to pick 'em :wink:

If you like the Vittoria try the Zipp version with an additional flat resistant belt.

Are you sure about that? IIRC the main differences are the “dimples” and possibly a higher TPI casing (which would actually make them MORE likely to puncture). Besides, the Zipps typically test slightly faster than the Open Corsas…I can’t imagine how that could happen with the insertion of an additional puncture layer over the one that’s already in the Corsa.

10

Still racing on S3 215’s on road & track. I’m very happy

11

Based on my data collection effort over the course of a few weeks a while back…

The Tufo S3’s on 404s would be about 10-12 minutes slower in an IM than Michelin Pro2 Race clinchers with latex tubes. More if you’re slower; less if you’re faster.

Like the guy above, I once set a half IM PR on s3’s. Of course, I’ve since set much faster PRs on the Michelins…fitness has something to do with it, too…

12

Well the race I mentioned (SOMA on Tufo’s) - was a half IM PR by over 10 minutes at the time and remains the fastest half IM that I’ve done…of course SOMA is about the fastest half IM that I’ve seen.

That being said - EVERY test I did showed that my race wheels with Tufo’s are sig. slower than my training wheels…and a lot slower.

I don’t remember which brand of Tufo’s I had - I do know that I used the tape to put them on and I’ve heard that the tape is a lot slower than glue (but I never tested that).

How are your Tufo’s attached?

I’m also a slow biker so 20 watts to me is a lot.

Dave

13

why exactly is the tape so much slower?

14

I never tested it but it seemed like people thought the tape was slow.

I can’t explain it well - but they said it had to do with the tape staying tacky/flexible. Seems like the lowest RR comes when your tubular is glued dry/hard to the rim and can’t move at all. All the little movement/shifts that the tape allows is bad…how’s that for an explanation?

If you post as a new post I’m sure the engineer types can explain…

Dave

15

even if the Tufo tires are slower, there is absolutely no way that they are 10 minutes slower over a 56 mile bike course, no way. perhaps 2-3 minutes slower over a 112 mile IM course.

16

Believe what you wish - I tested them with a PM multiple times. My 50+mm front/disc rear with taped Tufo’s was at least 2-3 min slower per hour vs. training wheels. I can go back and pull the data if you want specifics. Now if you add up 2-3 min/hr x 2 1/2 hours and then take into account racing wheels vs. training wheels (another 2-3+ minutes or so) - you can get close to or above 10 minutes in a half IM…

Whatever the exact numbers were/are - it was a lot.

Read the posts above - people are posting 20+ watt differences - thats a ton! Does that even include tape?

Dave

17

…

I can’t explain it well - but they said it had to do with the tape staying tacky/flexible. Seems like the lowest RR comes when your tubular is glued dry/hard to the rim and can’t move at all. All the little movement/shifts that the tape allows is bad…how’s that for an explanation?

If you post as a new post I’m sure the engineer types can explain…

Dave

I believe the phrase you are looking for (so one may Google or wiki) is elastic hysteresis

18

You are fighting a losing battle my friend :slight_smile:

Been there, done that. You will get called all kinds of names by a bunch of laymen if you pursue it. The athorities will be the most professional about explaining it to you though.

jaretj

19

I can say that I once rode a set of H3s with taped S3 lites and it felt like I was biking in sand compared to my clincher alps with Michelin Pro Race lites. I obviously didn’t have my powertap for those rides, but it was just after this that someone posted the Crr numbers and it made sense.

The tape is bad enough that you don’t need a bunch of fancy equipment to tell it is bad. For the differences between tires themselves…you’ll need the powermeters…

20

well now I’m just flat pissed off, I knew I shouldn’t have used TUFOs at SOMA, I did it anyways and now look. ( I am not even joking)