Title pretty much says it all. Getting ready to pick up some tires that'll be used for race days only (can't afford tubulars/rims). Does anyone have any experience with these tires? If so can you post what you think about them?
Continentail Grand Prix Supersonic vs. Veloflex Record: Opinions wanted
- Thread starter Max Phillips
- Start date
supersonics have little to no tyre life. They are good for, at best, maybe 500km. They are truly a race day tyre and if you use them on less than ideal roads, they might not last you a race (depends on distance, weight, etc. etc.). If they are for a special race where you are prepared to take a risk puncturing, go for it.
I haven't had a Veloflex, but yeah, the Supersonics have very little life in them. I didn't find the Supersonics to be anything special; I still prefer Pro Races
We used to have criteriums around the carpark of VFL Park (~2.5km circuit), and a guy said to me that the Supersonics saved him 4mins a lap.
We used to have criteriums around the carpark of VFL Park (~2.5km circuit), and a guy said to me that the Supersonics saved him 4mins a lap.
I found the Records to be too vulnerable to flats and cuts. The Pave is a much better choice. None of this stuff is very durable. You have to weigh the consequences of flatting against the very small benefits of the 40 - 50 grams per wheel you will save with the Veloflex Pave vs. a heavier tire.Max Phillips said:
You might want to try mixing tires and using heavier rubber on the rear.
I have not tried the Supersonic version of Conti's road tires, but I have used the MTB version. They get torn up pretty quickly.
Max Phillips said:
I think you're better off with GP4000s. The Supersonic is billed as a TT tyre - I certainly wouldn't take one near a road race.
bobbyOCR said:
I've raced with Force/Attacks. Nothing wrong with them and much preferred them over Proraces, which I find lack road feel. I also really enjoy Hutchinson's top-end tyres. If I was shopping for race tyres right now though, GP4000s would go on. (currently riding sponsored Kenda Kalientes, which haven't given any problems)
While I ride on Attack force too for racing, and while they don't puncture,MidBunchLurker said:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html
Their rolling resistance data shows that they are pretty poor compared to some other offerings.
The pro2race were listed. They absorbed 15 less watts (apparently) compared to attack/force.jcjordan said:
If you run your tyre pressures at 120psi, I hope you are a big rider r ride on perfectly smooth roads otherwise you are losing speed. 120psi is high and on bad roads, will significantly increase rolling resistance. I run 80/85 psi for training and 95/100 for racing (138lb)
bobbyOCR said:
quite right, I missed the pro2race tires.
I am still not sure why they used the lower pressure for the test, there own information states that a higher pressure will give you a lowered rolling resistance and the Force/Attack are designed to work at 120psi which means they were not tested at the optimal conditions.
On the rougher roads around Canberra the higher pressure can be a bit less comfortable, but I only race on these tires and train on GP 4000.
Higher pressures are only better on nice smooth surfaces (like in this lab test, or those rare smooth roads). The rougher the surface the lower the optimum pressure is.
You can take this to the extreme, eg MTB tyres, where lowest rolling resistances are achieved at very low pressures, and bikers have to balance pinch-flat risk against rolling resistance to find the optimum pressure.
You can take this to the extreme, eg MTB tyres, where lowest rolling resistances are achieved at very low pressures, and bikers have to balance pinch-flat risk against rolling resistance to find the optimum pressure.
Similar threads
