Bontrager Race X-lite versus Continental GP3000 tires



B

Bob Palermo

Guest
Hi,

The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm. After
2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out. I
only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My LBS
recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a couple
of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the X-lite.
My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else used
both these tires? If so, what are your observations?

After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at the
choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is supposed
to be faster and more durable.

Thanks,

Bob P.
 
Bob Palermo says...

> Hi,
>
> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm. After
> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out. I
> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My LBS
> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a couple
> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the X-lite.
> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else used
> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>
> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at the
> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is supposed
> to be faster and more durable.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob P.


It's not the tire, it's the engine that is slower. You could put a
cheap $10 wire bead tire on your bike and it wouldn't affect your
average speed by anywhere near that much. The GP3000 was/is a high end
racing tire used and respected by thousands of riders the world over.
I'd be amazed if anyone could prove it was somehow slower than any other
tire.
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm. After
> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out. I
> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My LBS
> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a couple
> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the X-lite.
> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else used
> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>
> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at the
> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is supposed
> to be faster and more durable.
>
> Thanks,


Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
>
> Bob P.
 
Really. 0.5 mph (half a mile per hour per hour) doesn't seem like that much
of an average speed difference that it couldn't be due to the tire. Also,
it's the same engine (me), with just a different tire. My times for various
courses have been quite consistent, actually improving, for quite some time.
After switching tires and doing the same courses, with the same percieved
effort levels, I noticed roughly the 0.5 mph slip.

But you might be right. Perhaps my skepticism about the tire is showing in
my performance.

Bob P



"Barnard Frederick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Palermo says...
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
>> After
>> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out.
>> I
>> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
>> LBS
>> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
>> couple
>> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
>> X-lite.
>> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
>> used
>> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>>
>> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
>> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
>> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
>> the
>> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
>> supposed
>> to be faster and more durable.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob P.

>
> It's not the tire, it's the engine that is slower. You could put a
> cheap $10 wire bead tire on your bike and it wouldn't affect your
> average speed by anywhere near that much. The GP3000 was/is a high end
> racing tire used and respected by thousands of riders the world over.
> I'd be amazed if anyone could prove it was somehow slower than any other
> tire.
 
Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?

I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500 miles
on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides is
in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me, it
wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost of 2
tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.

Bob P.




"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bob Palermo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
>> After
>> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out.
>> I
>> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
>> LBS
>> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
>> couple
>> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
>> X-lite.
>> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
>> used
>> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>>
>> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
>> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
>> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
>> the
>> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
>> supposed
>> to be faster and more durable.
>>
>> Thanks,

>
> Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
> is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
> like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
> associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
> more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
>>
>> Bob P.

>
 
Bob Palermo says...

> Really. 0.5 mph (half a mile per hour per hour) doesn't seem like that much
> of an average speed difference that it couldn't be due to the tire. Also,
> it's the same engine (me), with just a different tire. My times for various
> courses have been quite consistent, actually improving, for quite some time.
> After switching tires and doing the same courses, with the same percieved
> effort levels, I noticed roughly the 0.5 mph slip.
>
> But you might be right. Perhaps my skepticism about the tire is showing in
> my performance.
>
> Bob P


A 0.5 difference is very significant for me. That's about the
difference I saw going from my hot rod hybrid (mixture of mountain and
road racing components) which was recently stolen, and a high end road
bike (Giant OCR Comp 1). The new bike is 4 lbs. lighter and has a much
more aero position.

Really, the GP3000 is about as good as it gets for a high performance
tire. And there are many variables when you look at average speed, like
wind speed and direction, how often you are forced to stop, your own
motivation and energy level, etc. You use a computer, so are you sure
the tire diameter is the same? I wouldn't think that would make much
difference, but actual tire width varies even though they may have the
same nominal size. That's one reason computers allow you to put in a
custom size.
 
Hi,

It's only the rear tire that has been replaced. My computer uses the front
tire. So, it's not an issue of the tire diameter. It's probably just my
skepticism about the change.

Slightly off topic : A while back, I calibrated my computer based on a fixed
course with mile markers. The calibration resulted in a value almost exactly
as that from the tire size table for my cateye.


"Barnard Frederick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Palermo says...
>
>> Really. 0.5 mph (half a mile per hour per hour) doesn't seem like that
>> much
>> of an average speed difference that it couldn't be due to the tire. Also,
>> it's the same engine (me), with just a different tire. My times for
>> various
>> courses have been quite consistent, actually improving, for quite some
>> time.
>> After switching tires and doing the same courses, with the same percieved
>> effort levels, I noticed roughly the 0.5 mph slip.
>>
>> But you might be right. Perhaps my skepticism about the tire is showing
>> in
>> my performance.
>>
>> Bob P

>
> A 0.5 difference is very significant for me. That's about the
> difference I saw going from my hot rod hybrid (mixture of mountain and
> road racing components) which was recently stolen, and a high end road
> bike (Giant OCR Comp 1). The new bike is 4 lbs. lighter and has a much
> more aero position.
>
> Really, the GP3000 is about as good as it gets for a high performance
> tire. And there are many variables when you look at average speed, like
> wind speed and direction, how often you are forced to stop, your own
> motivation and energy level, etc. You use a computer, so are you sure
> the tire diameter is the same? I wouldn't think that would make much
> difference, but actual tire width varies even though they may have the
> same nominal size. That's one reason computers allow you to put in a
> custom size.
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?
>
> I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500 miles
> on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
> cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides is
> in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me, it
> wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost of 2
> tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.
>
> Bob P.


Chepaer tires are a harder rubber and 'may' offer less rolling
resistence and less traction as well. Lighter isn't faster,
necessarily. I think i would look elsewhere as to why these tires
'feel' slower to the tune of .5mph...tires don't make that much
difference IMo-check the differences in rolling resistence, the number
differences are teeny/tiny.
>
>
>
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bob Palermo wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
> >> After
> >> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out.
> >> I
> >> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
> >> LBS
> >> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
> >> couple
> >> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
> >> X-lite.
> >> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
> >> used
> >> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
> >>
> >> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
> >> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> >> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
> >> the
> >> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
> >> supposed
> >> to be faster and more durable.
> >>
> >> Thanks,

> >
> > Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
> > is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
> > like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
> > associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
> > more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
> >>
> >> Bob P.

> >
 
On 20 Aug 2006 11:36:21 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Bob Palermo wrote:
>> Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?
>>
>> I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500 miles
>> on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
>> cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides is
>> in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me, it
>> wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost of 2
>> tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.
>>
>> Bob P.

>
>Chepaer tires are a harder rubber and 'may' offer less rolling
>resistence and less traction as well. Lighter isn't faster,
>necessarily. I think i would look elsewhere as to why these tires
>'feel' slower to the tune of .5mph...tires don't make that much
>difference IMo-check the differences in rolling resistence, the number
>differences are teeny/tiny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Bob Palermo wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
>> >> After
>> >> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out.
>> >> I
>> >> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
>> >> LBS
>> >> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
>> >> couple
>> >> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
>> >> X-lite.
>> >> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
>> >> used
>> >> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>> >>
>> >> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
>> >> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
>> >> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
>> >> the
>> >> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
>> >> supposed
>> >> to be faster and more durable.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >
>> > Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
>> > is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
>> > like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
>> > associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
>> > more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.


Dear Peter,

The speed calculators suggest that a "teeny" difference in rr produces
exactly the kind of 0.5 mph difference that Bob mentions:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ef101cca2498cdc6

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?
>
> I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500 miles
> on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
> cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides is
> in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me, it
> wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost of 2
> tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.
>
> Bob P.


I have a suggestion...trundle on down to your local Trek dealer and get
a pair of X-lites...
>
>
>
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bob Palermo wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
> >> After
> >> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out.
> >> I
> >> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
> >> LBS
> >> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
> >> couple
> >> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
> >> X-lite.
> >> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
> >> used
> >> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
> >>
> >> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
> >> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> >> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
> >> the
> >> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
> >> supposed
> >> to be faster and more durable.
> >>
> >> Thanks,

> >
> > Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
> > is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
> > like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
> > associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
> > more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
> >>
> >> Bob P.

> >
 
My LBS is a Trek dealer. It's where I got my bike, a Trek 2300. They have
X-lites there but they recommended the GP3000 over the X-lites.

Bob P.


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bob Palermo wrote:
>> Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?
>>
>> I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500
>> miles
>> on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
>> cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides
>> is
>> in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me,
>> it
>> wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost
>> of 2
>> tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.
>>
>> Bob P.

>
> I have a suggestion...trundle on down to your local Trek dealer and get
> a pair of X-lites...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Bob Palermo wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
>> >> After
>> >> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn
>> >> out.
>> >> I
>> >> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
>> >> LBS
>> >> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
>> >> couple
>> >> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
>> >> X-lite.
>> >> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
>> >> used
>> >> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
>> >>
>> >> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced
>> >> by
>> >> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
>> >> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
>> >> the
>> >> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
>> >> supposed
>> >> to be faster and more durable.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >
>> > Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
>> > is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
>> > like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
>> > associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
>> > more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
>> >>
>> >> Bob P.
>> >

>
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> The table makes me want to get the Michelin Pro2 Race.


Or maybe the Michelin Carbon or Megamium (more durable tires) for the
rear...? Here is another table from last fall when this first came up.
The difference between tires is much greater than I would have
expected.

Tire Crr Speed* Delta

Deda Tre Giro d'Italia 0.0038 23.08
Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX 0.0039 23.05 0.03
Michelin Pro 2 Race 0.0042 22.96 0.12
Vittoria Diamante Pro Rain 0.0044 22.90 0.18
Michelin Megamium 2 0.0047 22.81 0.27
Pariba Revolution 0.0048 22.78 0.30
Michelin Carbon 0.0050 22.72 0.36
Panaracer Stradius Pro 0.0051 22.69 0.39
Schwalbe Stelvio Plus 0.0052 22.66 0.42
Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Front 0.0056 22.54 0.54
Continental GP Force (rear) 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Hutchinson Fusion 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Rear 0.0057 22.51 0.57
Continental Ultra GatorSkin 0.0058 22.48 0.60
Ritchey Pro Race Slick WCS 0.0058 22.48 0.60
Schwalbe Stelvio 0.0059 22.45 0.63
Specialized S-Works Mondo 0.0061 22.39 0.69
Continental GP 3000 0.0067 22.21 0.87
Hutchinson Top Speed 0.0069 22.15 0.93
Continental GP Attack (front) 0.0073 22.04 1.04

*
in MPH
185lb rider + bike
250W rider output
CdA = .32m^2 (racing crouch, normal road bike)
Transmission efficiency = 96%
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> My LBS is a Trek dealer. It's where I got my bike, a Trek 2300. They have
> X-lites there but they recommended the GP3000 over the X-lites.
>
> Bob P.


Why? better margin(hard to believe with any Bontrager/Trek product)? No
size in stock? Beef with Mr Burke and Bontrager?
>
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Bob Palermo wrote:
> >> Hi. Why do you suggest a cheaper tire?
> >>
> >> I'm not too concerned about additional durability. If I can get 2500
> >> miles
> >> on a rear tire, I'm pretty happy. That's what I got on my X-lite. Won't a
> >> cheaper tire be heavier and thus slower. The average speed for my rides
> >> is
> >> in the 19-20 mph range, and I'm not out killing myself to do it. To me,
> >> it
> >> wouldn't be worth the $30 or $40 a year savings (the difference in cost
> >> of 2
> >> tires) ir it meant that I'd lose some performance.
> >>
> >> Bob P.

> >
> > I have a suggestion...trundle on down to your local Trek dealer and get
> > a pair of X-lites...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > Bob Palermo wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm.
> >> >> After
> >> >> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn
> >> >> out.
> >> >> I
> >> >> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My
> >> >> LBS
> >> >> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a
> >> >> couple
> >> >> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the
> >> >> X-lite.
> >> >> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else
> >> >> used
> >> >> both these tires? If so, what are your observations?
> >> >>
> >> >> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced
> >> >> by
> >> >> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> >> >> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at
> >> >> the
> >> >> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is
> >> >> supposed
> >> >> to be faster and more durable.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Doubt one is ''slower' than another. Differences in rolling resistence
> >> > is mostly teeny, lost in the noise. Remember that GP series of tires,
> >> > like lots of others at this high price point, are racing tires with the
> >> > associated sticky-ness, light weight and less durability. Perhaps a
> >> > more appropriate tire, that costs $15-$25 less would be a better idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob P.
> >> >

> >
 
I test tire speed by coasting down this hill that's right in front of
my house. every day check and average the speed. it works pretty well
if you start at the same speed and keep track of the wind and tire
pressure.
 
Bill Wright wrote:

> I have Continental GP4000's
> Does anyone know how these rate for rolling resistence?
> I'm pleased with them, have riden 2000 miles with them.


If you're pleased with them, then what does it matter?

Perception trumps reality... BS
 
Bob Palermo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The original tires on my road bike were Bontrager Race X-lites 23mm. After
> 2500 miles, some of which was on the trainer, my rear tire was worn out. I
> only had one flat on it and that was right at the very end of life. My LBS
> recommended the Conti GP3000 as a replacement, so I got it. After a couple
> of hundred miles, my impression is that it's a slower tire than the X-lite.
> My ride average speeds seem to be about .5 mph slower. Has anyone else used
> both thes e tires? If so, what are your observations?
>
> After I bought the tire, I found out that the GP3000 has been replaced by
> the GP4000. In fact my LBS had both, with the GP4000 about $5 more
> expensive. They didn't even mention the GP4000 when we were looking at the
> choices. I probably would have spent the extra $5 since the 4000 is supposed
> to be faster and more durable.


Try Avocet Road (25mm) or Criterium (23mm). These have 127tpi casings
unlike the Conti at 86tpi, and don't have the energy wasting extra two
belts. Tread thickness on the Road is 1.5mm of carbon rubber, Criterium
1.25mm. IRC Triathlon is similar to one or both of these, but nowadays
only available with kevlar puncture belt, which must suck some energy.
These tires are all better designed and way cheaper than the Contis.

For most purposes and people, 25mm is a better bet for a fast tire than
23. More durable, more comfortable ride.
{
 
C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

> These stats are very interesting, but I also view them with a little bit of
> skepticism. The GP 3000 has more rolling resistance than the Ultra Gator
> Skin?


I don't see any reason why the GP 3000 should be any faster than the
Ultra GatorSkin. They are both of similar weight and construction. The
GP 3000 was never a top-class racing tyre, having a relatively stiff and
thick canvas.

> Is anyone aware of a similar test on the newer GP 4000?


There's a comparison between GP 3000 and GP 4000 on the Continantal web
page:

http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/ti grand prix 4000.shtml

The rolling resistance numbers would indicate that the GP 4000 would be
somewhere in the midpack in test results already mentioned in this
thread. The tyre pressure in the tests was different, but the test
setup probably comparable because the mentioned tests were performed at
Continental.

Like the GP 3000, GP 4000 seems to be a very puncture resistant,
long-lasting and reliable tyre. It's probably somewhat faster but still
not top-class. I'm convinced that it is a great choice for training,
but I'd definitely use something else for racing.

-as
 
41 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Try Avocet Road (25mm) or Criterium (23mm). These have 127tpi casings
> unlike the Conti at 86tpi, and don't have the energy wasting extra two
> belts. Tread thickness on the Road is 1.5mm of carbon rubber, Criterium
> 1.25mm. IRC Triathlon is similar to one or both of these, but nowadays
> only available with kevlar puncture belt, which must suck some energy.
> These tires are all better designed and way cheaper than the Contis.


I guess it must depend on where you live, because I've bought my
GP4000's for 23 euros a piece from mail order. I've also tried Avocets,
but because they are almost impossible to find in Europe they end up
being much more expensive. They are definitely nice tyres, but I also
experienced more than their share of punctures with them, especially
compared to Continentals.

-as
 
Antti Salonen wrote:
> 41 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Try Avocet Road (25mm) or Criterium (23mm). These have 127tpi casings
> > unlike the Conti at 86tpi, and don't have the energy wasting extra two
> > belts. Tread thickness on the Road is 1.5mm of carbon rubber, Criterium
> > 1.25mm. IRC Triathlon is similar to one or both of these, but nowadays
> > only available with kevlar puncture belt, which must suck some energy.
> > These tires are all better designed and way cheaper than the Contis.

>
> I guess it must depend on where you live, because I've bought my
> GP4000's for 23 euros a piece from mail order. I've also tried Avocets,
> but because they are almost impossible to find in Europe they end up
> being much more expensive. They are de finitely nice tyres, but I also
> experienced more than their share of punctures with them, especially
> compared to Continentals.


Yes, as you can see from <http://tinyurl.com/jcbjm> or
<http://tinyurl.com/zy47l> (Nashbar and Sheldon respectively), high-end
Continental tires tend to be extremely expensive in North America, i.e.
about twice the price of the Avocets. In turn, you can get the IRC
version of the Avocets for about half that price. As far as I can tell
the IRC are close but not quite exactly the same, with some confusion
over the sizing. The rubber on the Avocets may also be a little harder.
Unfortunately, the IRC versions are now all only available with energy
sucking, money-wasting, kevlar belt.

Conti tires have that five-layer carcass, relatively thick nylon (86tpi
vs 127tpi), plus relatively thick tread rubber, so they should be
relatively puncture resistant (and relatively slower). I have a folding
Ultra 2000 to use as a spare, and it seems a reasonable tire: the 57tpi
casing is not so much worse than the 66tpi of my Avocet Duro Plus,
while the tread rubber of the Conti is thicker at the middle, but does
not wrap nearly as far up the sidewalls. Also, unlike most other
brands, Avocet rubber gets thicker as the tire size goes up. I imagine
those using the Criterium or Time Trial (1.25mm and 1.0mm thick
respectively) would find them a little thin compared to Conti rubber,
and this is why they are faster. But the rubber is harder and so wears
better. The thickness of the Road model is 1.5 mm, and I expect
therefore the Duro to be 1.75mm and the Duro Plus to be 2.0mm. These
latter three are definitely very durable tires. The Michelin Carbon,
with 127tpi casing but strangely an extra fourth bead to bead layer,
and very thick (comparable to Conti), hard, carbon tread rubber, was
found in all these tests to have low rolling resistance, excellent
wear, and very good puncture resistance. The tread rubber does not wrap
up as far up the sidewalls as the Avocets, and they too are about twice
the price, and the size only goes up to 25mm. But I really like those
brown Conti sidewalls, to the extent they are still available.

I imagine almost everyone on this newsgroup would be perfectly well
served by cheap Michelin Dynamics in whatever size.
a
 
41 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I imagine
> those using the Criterium or Time Trial (1.25mm and 1.0mm thick
> respectively) would find them a little thin compared to Conti rubber,
> and this is why they are faster. But the rubber is harder and so wears
> better.


For what it's worth, I wore two new Avocet Criteriums down to the canvas
in about 3000 km as a rear tyre. I'm barely 70 kg WITH the bike and all
equipment so that's kind of dissappointing. As a comparison a
Continental Grand Prix 4-Season lasted 7000 km. Both tyres are 23 mm
wide and about 220 grams.

What comes to puncture resistance I had several flats with Avocets
especially in wet conditions and when the rubber was already thin. I've
had a flat or two with Continentals over about 20 thousand km, but the
incidence rate is about five times less than with Avocets. It could be
just terrible luck, but it really smells like something statistically
significant.

I guess this is when somebody will jump up yelling that flats are all
about rider skill.

-as
 

Similar threads