Continental Tire Differences

Mike said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000 tire is.
Thanks

IIRC, the 3000 has "Silica" tread rubber. I guess the 2000 has ...
normal carbon black trad rubber?

Quoted message said:

Mike said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000 tire is.
Thanks

IIRC, the 3000 has "Silica" tread rubber. I guess the 2000 has ...
normal carbon black trad rubber?

http://www.autoemirates.com/michelin/Chapter5.asp

there's not too tech and it has some typos, but scroll down to para 3
for a good outline on why silica tread is good.

jim beam said:

[email hidden] wrote:

there's not too tech and it has some typos, but scroll down to para 3
for a good outline on why silica tread is good.

TOUR magazine tests of slipout angles of tires in the wet shows carbon
based tires consistently outperforming silica-based tires (Tour Magazin,
12/1996). E.g. Continental Grand Prix had a slip out angle of 47
degrees (carbon), Conti Grand Prix 3000 had a slip out angle of 43
degrees. It is marketing. The paragraph you quote is for large tires
at high rpms, anyway, a significantly different environment.

So, the main difference, once you get past weight and
folding/nonfolding, is price.
Rob

Mike wondered;

Quoted message said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000
tire is.

1000!

Sorry... I tried but couldn't resist.

Greg

--
=========================================================
"We're taking the history test
Who's baddest and who is best
(A) Lennon the brother
(B) Lennon the sisters
(C) Lenin the communist"

(Bob Walkenhorst)
---------------------------------------------------------
My Photos-
http://www.gsevans.com/photography/

My Blog-
http://www.gsevans.com/blog/

Greg Evans said:

Mike wondered;

Quoted message said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000
tire is.

1000!

But what would that equate to in US measurement units?

Quoted message said:

Sorry... I tried but couldn't resist.

Nor could I...

(At least I rsisted the urge to say "Which would be how much in
furlongs per fortnight?"😉
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Greg Evans said:

Mike wondered;

Quoted message said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000
tire is.

1000!

Sorry... I tried but couldn't resist.

Yeah, I was gonna guess "about 8 bucks" but decided to let someone ELSE be a
smart-ass first.

:-D

where can TOUR mag be found?

11 Jul 2005 14:21:08 -0700, <[email hidden]> skrev:

Quoted message said:

where can TOUR mag be found?

http://www.tour-magazin.de/
Kindly
Ivar

Quoted message said:

Mike said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000 tire is.
Thanks

IIRC, the 3000 has "Silica" tread rubber. I guess the 2000 has ...
normal carbon black trad rubber?

IIRC, the Ultra 3000 has an "anthracite" tread rubber. Anthracite is a
type of carbon.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:26:19 GMT, Victor Kan

_UCEloopdrive.net said:

Quoted message said:

Mike said:

Wondering what the diff between the Ultra 2000 and the Ultra 3000 tire is.
Thanks

IIRC, the 3000 has "Silica" tread rubber. I guess the 2000 has ...
normal carbon black trad rubber?

IIRC, the Ultra 3000 has an "anthracite" tread rubber. Anthracite is a
type of carbon.

Dear Victor,

The "anthracite" may be just a marketing term for the gray
color, not the actual material:

http://www.cecilwalker.com.au/category10_1.htm

The site above lists anthracite, black, trans, red, blue,
and yellow color combinations for the Ultra 3000, all the
same "innovative Silica rubber compound" with "30% better
dry weather traction" and 15% lower rolling resistance" than
some other Contintental tire.

Carl Fogel

Robert Perkins said:

jim beam said:

[email hidden] wrote:

there's not too tech and it has some typos, but scroll down to para 3
for a good outline on why silica tread is good.

TOUR magazine tests of slipout angles of tires in the wet shows carbon
based tires consistently outperforming silica-based tires (Tour Magazin,
12/1996). E.g. Continental Grand Prix had a slip out angle of 47
degrees (carbon), Conti Grand Prix 3000 had a slip out angle of 43
degrees. It is marketing. The paragraph you quote is for large tires
at high rpms, anyway, a significantly different environment.

So, the main difference, once you get past weight and
folding/nonfolding, is price.
Rob

that's one carbon tire perfoming better in the wet. and that's why
/other/ tire manufacturers using silica-type rubbers have different
compounds on the edge of the tire vs. the center.

to make such a dismissive generalization of the biggest breakthrough in
rubber technology in the last 100 years is pretty crass.

jim beam said:

to make such a dismissive generalization of the biggest breakthrough in
rubber technology in the last 100 years is pretty crass.

In general, overall, carbon tires outperformed colored silica-tires in
the wet. There is plenty of information from Jobst Brandt and others on
why this is so. See http://yarchive.net/bike/tire_color.html

The continental web site even says this:
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/de/continental/fahrrad/allgemein/innovation/asc_de.html

Trockenhaftung= dry grip - silica marked as much better
Nassehaftung= wet grip - carbon marked as much better
Rollwiederstand= rolling resistance - silica marked as much better
Verschliess= wear - carbon marked as much better

The only real data I've seen to substantiate any of this is the Tour
12/96 test which showed the rolling resistance of silica to be 5-10%
better, but the wet traction for carbon better.

Also, Conti claims that silica tires wear out _much_faster_ than
carbon-based tires. Now, what manufacturer wouldn't want to have the
opportunity to sell you more tires?

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

A Conti Grand Prix folding goes for 24 Euros in Germany, $50 in the USA
mail order. This is an excellent tire that has been used for years. A
Grand Prix 3000- silica- now also goes for 26 Euros, or $41 in the USA,
mail order. Not much of a margin difference now- the difference in
price used to be greater. Sites were www.bicycles.de and
www.performancebike.com.

So, they spin it up again- now you are supposed to shell out $105 US for
the conti Attack/Force tire combination (in the USA). And, Continental
ignores THEIR OWN TEST DATA that shows that these tires (22/23mm wide,
respectively) have more rolling resistance than a 28mm version.
Hilarious.

In short, the use of silica and colored tires is all marketing. If you
are only riding in the dry, and competing, then maybe the lower rolling
resistance of silica would help a bit.

Rob

Robert Perkins said:

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

That's an often-repeated but meaningless fact.

If a wide tire and a skinny tire are inflated to the same pressure for
the same application, either the wide tire is overinflated, or the
skinny tire is underinflated.

Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/tires" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| A moment's insight is sometimes worth a life's experience. |
| --Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Robert Perkins said:

jim beam said:

to make such a dismissive generalization of the biggest breakthrough
in rubber technology in the last 100 years is pretty crass.

In general, overall, carbon tires outperformed colored silica-tires in
the wet. There is plenty of information from Jobst Brandt and others on
why this is so. See http://yarchive.net/bike/tire_color.html

no, all jobst does is present supposition as fact. he's got no
understanding of the chemistry and even admits that, but it doesn't
apparently stop him forming an opinion.

Quoted message said:

The continental web site even says this:
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/de/continental/fahrrad/allgemein/innovation/asc_de.html

Trockenhaftung= dry grip - silica marked as much better
Nassehaftung= wet grip - carbon marked as much better
Rollwiederstand= rolling resistance - silica marked as much better
Verschliess= wear - carbon marked as much better

i don't think you read the michelin article.

Quoted message said:

The only real data I've seen to substantiate any of this is the Tour
12/96 test which showed the rolling resistance of silica to be 5-10%
better, but the wet traction for carbon better.

which was about the time these rubbers were first introduced. you're
assuming there's been no improvement.

Quoted message said:

Also, Conti claims that silica tires wear out _much_faster_ than
carbon-based tires. Now, what manufacturer wouldn't want to have the
opportunity to sell you more tires?

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

A Conti Grand Prix folding goes for 24 Euros in Germany, $50 in the USA
mail order. This is an excellent tire that has been used for years. A
Grand Prix 3000- silica- now also goes for 26 Euros, or $41 in the USA,
mail order. Not much of a margin difference now- the difference in
price used to be greater. Sites were www.bicycles.de and
www.performancebike.com.

So, they spin it up again- now you are supposed to shell out $105 US for
the conti Attack/Force tire combination (in the USA). And, Continental
ignores THEIR OWN TEST DATA that shows that these tires (22/23mm wide,
respectively) have more rolling resistance than a 28mm version. Hilarious.

In short, the use of silica and colored tires is all marketing. If you
are only riding in the dry, and competing, then maybe the lower rolling
resistance of silica would help a bit.

ah, the old "anti marketing" diatribe. stop being a victim and start
doing some research, not spewing up jobstian misinformation. then vote
with your wallet. better yet, do research, then take the trouble to
post it here rather than just belly-ache. google "degussa".

Quoted message said:

Rob

Quoting Sheldon Brown <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Robert Perkins said:

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

That's an often-repeated but meaningless fact.

It's not meaningless at all; along with the fact that (to a point) higher
pressures mean less RR, it neatly describes the relationship between tyre
width, pressure, and RR.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Chedday, Presuary.

jim beam said:

Robert Perkins said:

jim beam wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In general, overall, carbon tires outperformed colored silica-tires in
the wet. There is plenty of information from Jobst Brandt and others on
why this is so. See http://yarchive.net/bike/tire_color.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The continental web site even says this:
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/de/continental/fahrrad/allgemein/innovation/asc_de.html

Trockenhaftung= dry grip - silica marked as much better
Nassehaftung= wet grip - carbon marked as much better
Rollwiederstand= rolling resistance - silica marked as much better
Verschliess= wear - carbon marked as much better

i don't think you read the michelin article.

On the other hand, as usual, you throw around fancy web references
without bothering to either read them or understand them yourself, let
alone to put them in context.

If you had bothered to read and understand your own citation, you would
have seen that:

(a) they got the physics/chemistry of poor grip on ice wrong, in a
classic "bad science" mistake:
http://www.princeton.edu/~lehmann/BadChemistry.html#Skating

(b) While they use the most roundabout and over-complicated way of
talking about the simple reasons why silica-filled rubber has low
rolling resistance yet good dry grip, they pointedly DO NOT discuss how
silica or carbon fillers compare for either wet grip or durability.

(c) Context: as it happens Michelin makes and markets a certain tire
known as the "Michelin Carbon". What do they market its chief benefits
as, compared to silica filled tires? Extreme DURABILITY and GRIP in WET
and dry- with rolling resistance close to that of silica tires.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In short, the use of silica and colored tires is all marketing. If you
are only riding in the dry, and competing, then maybe the lower rolling
resistance of silica would help a bit.

ah, the old "anti marketing" diatribe. stop being a victim and start
doing some rese arch, not spewing up jobstian misinformation. then vote
with your wallet. better yet, do research, then take the trouble to
post it here rather than just belly-ache. google "degussa".

======================================================================
**NEW PRODUCT** from JIM BEAM & Company- World leaders in erroneous
claims!

The TIMETOILETBOT!

Are you tired of being exposed as a fake expert and poseur on Usenet,
and generally being made to look like a fool, just because you don't
know what you are talking about? Do inconvenient facts keep getting in
the way of your desperate need to pontificate? Let us solve this
problem for you. Using our patented DIVERSION & OBFUSCATION algorithms,
the TIMETOILETBOT begins its two pronged attack by providing
jargon-loaded web references to supplement your erroneous posts. These
references may very well have gross errors in them, or in fact support
your opponents arguments, but that doesn't matter: the TIMETOILETBOT
then turns your opponents' clear and convincing arguments around with
classic riposts such as "I don't think you read that article I cited",
the ever-popular "start doing some research, not spewing up (your
enemy's name here + 'ian'😉 misinformation", the much loved "when you
learn something, post it here, rather than just belly-ache", and of
course "Google (marginally relevant name)". We guarantee that every one
of your posts made with the TIMETOILETBOT will be a complete waste of
everybody else's time- not yours!

Time toilets and [censored]- from JIM BEAM... and company!

CALL and inquire about our Usenet stalking service. Keep taking your
meds and lead a normal life, while we do your obsessing for you! As
always, psychopathic creepiness assured.
=========================================================================

Sheldon Brown said:

Robert Perkins said:

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

That's an often-repeated but meaningless fact.

If a wide tire and a skinny tire are inflated to the same pressure for
the same application, either the wide tire is overinflated, or the
skinny tire is underinflated.

Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/tires" Brown

You appear to be claiming that for two tires at the same inflation
pressure, the wider one will give a "harsher" ride. Is this really the
case? (Basically, I'm asking how the spring constant for a tire relates to
width and inflation pressure, assuming tires behave approximately like
springs)

--
Benjamin Lewis

All what we got here is American made.
It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed. -- FZ

Benjamin Lewis said:

Sheldon Brown said:

Robert Perkins said:

As an aside, I've seen tests from continental themselves that show that
wider tires have lower rolling resistance than skinnier tires, given the
same tire pressure in both.

That's an often-repeated but meaningless fact.

If a wide tire and a skinny tire are inflated to the same pressure for
the same application, either the wide tire is overinflated, or the
skinny tire is underinflated.

Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/tires" Brown

You appear to be claiming that for two tires at the same inflation
pressure, the wider one will give a "harsher" ride. Is this really the
case? (Basically, I'm asking how the spring constant for a tire relates to
width and inflation pressure, assuming tires behave approximately like
springs)

Dear Benjamin,

I like your question.

One explanation might be the shape of the contact patch.

At 100 psi with 100 lbs on the tire, a wide tire might have
a roughly 1-inch square of rubber touching the ground, but a
narrow tire might have a 0.5 x 2.0 strip of rubber.

wide tire narrow tire
@ 100 psi @ 100 psi

XX
XX XXXX

Would a longer and narrow contact patch give a smoother ride
than a short, stubby one?

That is, at the same pressure, the narrow tire's contact
patch mimics a tall wheel, while the wide tire's contact
patch mimics a much shorter wheel.

To the pavement, the narrow tire looks like a tall
smooth-rolling touring bike wheel, while the wide tire looks
like a tiny, rumbling shopping cart wheel.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You appear to be claiming that for two tires at the same inflation
pressure, the wider one will give a "harsher" ride. Is this really the
case? (Basically, I'm asking how the spring constant for a tire relates
to width and inflation pressure, assuming tires behave approximately
like springs)

Dear Benjamin,

I like your question.

One explanation might be the shape of the contact patch.

At 100 psi with 100 lbs on the tire, a wide tire might have a roughly
1-inch square of rubber touching the ground, but a narrow tire might have
a 0.5 x 2.0 strip of rubber.

wide tire narrow tire
@ 100 psi @ 100 psi

XX
XX XXXX

Would a longer and narrow contact patch give a smoother ride than a
short, stubby one?

That is, at the same pressure, the narrow tire's contact patch mimics a
tall wheel, while the wide tire's contact patch mimics a much shorter
wheel.

To the pavement, the narrow tire looks like a tall smooth-rolling touring
bike wheel, while the wide tire looks like a tiny, rumbling shopping cart
wheel.

Hmmm. After some reflection,

F = pA (p is tire pressure, A is size of contact patch)

dF/dx = p(dA/dx) where x is the vertical displacement of the wheel.

So our "spring constant" is p(dA/dx). All we have to do now is to figure
out how much the area changes with respect to vertical displacements.
Without solving the geometry problem, it seems to me that this quantity
will be larger for wider tires (based on the slope of the tire at the edge
of the contact patch), and that therefore, given equal pressures, the wider
tire will indeed be the harsher ride.

--
Benjamin Lewis

All what we got here is American made.
It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed. -- FZ