Road Bike Tire Recommendations



Originally Posted by sports86 .

I'm really up in the air on what Tire's to get.
Went to a one local bike shop that let me road test the Continental Gatorskin Hardshell, Bontrager racelite X hardcase
As I was riding on the hardshell as luck would have it I got a small leak in the side wall of the gatorskin, rear tire. But they road nice and seemed fast.
I weigh 225lbs at 5"11
Little heavy. Trying to loss weight.
Then I tried the Bontrager. Nice but seemed slower than the gator skins.
Another bike shop let me try the Specialized elite Armadillo. Nice but also a little slow. Out of all 3 pairs they seem to be the pair that would hold up the best but not sure.
Speed or no flats. Still need help.
Any one ride Specialized tires
All Conti's suffer from fragile sidewalls, the Hardshell is the only one that they tried to toughen up a bit more then their others, but it still pales in comparison to the Specialized. I use to ride on Specialize All Condition tires, they feel slow because their heavy but the Elites don't feel slow because their lighter and closer to the weight of the Hardshell but tougher. And just how slow are the All Condition tires? I knew a rider who helped his 4 person team win the 2001 RAAM race and they were riding on those tires! Their theory was that if they didn't have to stop to fix flats they could stand a good chance of winning, they won and never had a flat. And Specialized tires will wear longer then the Hardshell. I never tried the Bontrager's so I can't comment on those.

The thing that fools people is that the Conti due to their fragile sidewalls ride nicer then the Specialized Elite with their more durable thicker sidewalls, and that perception of a smooth ride makes one think they go faster...this isn't true.

If your looking for a smooth ride with adequate flat protection then go with the Hardshell, but if you want better then adequate flat protection and don't mind a bit harsher ride then go with the Elites. Also you can lower your Elites pressures down by 10 psi from what you would normally run the Hardshell at and the ride softens up bit more, the stiffer Elite sidewalls allow you to do that with any risk of pinch flats. I once rode those with just 45psi in the rear because my pump broke for about 22 miles back home and never got a pinch flat! What's really crazy for an experiment, after I had worn a rear All Condition to the cords and it finally flatted, I rode it flat slowly for a mile or two to see if the tire sidewalls would get chewed up and they were fine afterwards...so was the tube! And the tire never came off the rim so the rim was never in danger nor even got a scratch.
 
Originally Posted by KLabs .
Hi All, well I just had my first puncture with the Kenda Kaliente LR3 Pro as a rear tyre (about 800KMs traveled). It looks like its a glass shard and it took a few KMs to work it's way through the iron cloak protection, because it only went flat after I got home? So, that curtails my plan to use a latex tube, for the moment, anyway.
The Kenda Kaliente LR3 Pro tyre does not show a minimum pressure, only a maximum pressure which is 125psi.
Actually, by running the pressure at 95psi I probably unknowingly helped the puncture to occur and it also felt like the brakes were slightly on occasionally :-(

Froze, this tyre actually conforms to the tyre pressure calculator you pointed me too :)
I wouldn't have thought that 5psi of pressure could make such a difference, but it did.
FYI, my Bike and I weigh 92-93kgs (I am 85 Kg).
So for my weight it would appear that the min pressure is 100psi.
All good :)
Hi All, just ran the Kenda Kaliente LR3 Pro as a rear tyre at 105psi, and although nowhere near as dramatic an improvement in going from 95psi to 100psi, there is still a little bit of improvement. The noticeable change was how the tyre now runs on top of the road rather then in the road (sounds a bit strange but that was how it felt), and it still grips well and has good road feel, nice? Also, it now seems to ride over or on top of the bumps rather than through them, interesting :)

So now to try it at 110psi :)
 
Haven't experienced the dramatic change in climbing speeds that you cite, but I've also noticed that some tires "require" more pressure than the GP4000's. EG, currently I'm running a Vittoria Diamante Pro Light 25mm tire on the front, a GP4000s on the rear. The Pro Light is a thin race tire which felt (and looked) soft at 100 psi; at 110 psi it feels just right to me, with a very smooth ride and a stable steering feel.

The sidewall of the tire says "Min 130 , Max 160 psi". Interesting to compare this to the Michelin ProRace I ran a few years ago; those said "87 psi min, 116 psi max" (6-8 bar). Wonder how much of the difference is "real", based on tire construction and performance characteristics, vs just preference or marketing, ie, "any tire that's rated for 160 psi must be fast".
 
Some you guys are imagining things, the Conti GP4000's are not "super fast", in fact their just average! Average obviously means there some tires that perform better and some not so good. With latex tube watts per wheel at 25mph and a 100 pound load for a GP4000S is 15.1 whereas the Specialized Mondo Open Tubular was the best clincher tested at 11.5. The Conti 4 Season did worse at 18.2 as did the GP4000 Black Chili at 18.9 which puts those two tires near the bottom...below average.

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires_old/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev9.pdf

And the good thing about those above test results was that their not bias due to the test being done by Conti that shows their tires doing better!!

Not sure why the test were done with mostly latex instead of butyl when most people use butyl, but maybe they are more intended for the pro racer, but latex rolls better and makes all tires perform better, but that performance factor is only a half a watt over any tire which a rider is never going to feel but could make a difference in a race especially long races.
 
I would agree that Continental's own testing results are flawed but the results you show above are flawed in exactly the same way (and several others).

There are a number of problems with the method used, but the biggest issue is the lack of realistic road surface. The basic premise of using these results (or any results obtained on a smooth roller) is that the rolling resistance will behave the same on the road. It doesn't, as is shown here.

On a roller rolling (as on other smooth surfaces) resistance decreases with increasing pressure. This idea does not transfer to the road. Instead, tyres have ideal pressures which minimises rolling resistance on the road. This ideal pressure is different for each different tyre and testing all tyres at the same pressure provides advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I would say that this is better data than nothing but it is only useful in that it can be used to group tyres in to broad categories. I don't think it is possible to separate between tyres lying near each other in the pecking order (or even on the same page). I would want to see a LOT better statistical samples and a more realistic treatment of the inherent uncertainty in the measurements (the assertion that this is only 1.3% is laughable) before I will trust such measurements in detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhk2
Originally Posted by tafi .
... On a roller rolling (as on other smooth surfaces) resistance decreases with increasing pressure. This idea does not transfer to the road. Instead, tyres have ideal pressures which minimises rolling resistance on the road. This ideal pressure is different for each different tyre and testing all tyres at the same pressure provides advantage to some and disadvantage to others.
+1, also it will depend on rider weight and perhaps even the bike itself :)
 
Originally Posted by Cannondale evo .

My bike has Schwalbe Ultremo ZX. It has triple layers of rubber and only 195g. It's fast.
Hi Cannondale evo, what other tyres have compared the Schwalbe Ultremo ZX too?
 
Originally Posted by tafi .

I would agree that Continental's own testing results are flawed but the results you show above are flawed in exactly the same way (and several others).

There are a number of problems with the method used, but the biggest issue is the lack of realistic road surface. The basic premise of using these results (or any results obtained on a smooth roller) is that the rolling resistance will behave the same on the road. It doesn't, as is shown here.

On a roller rolling (as on other smooth surfaces) resistance decreases with increasing pressure. This idea does not transfer to the road. Instead, tyres have ideal pressures which minimises rolling resistance on the road. This ideal pressure is different for each different tyre and testing all tyres at the same pressure provides advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I would say that this is better data than nothing but it is only useful in that it can be used to group tyres in to broad categories. I don't think it is possible to separate between tyres lying near each other in the pecking order (or even on the same page). I would want to see a LOT better statistical samples and a more realistic treatment of the inherent uncertainty in the measurements (the assertion that this is only 1.3% is laughable) before I will trust such measurements in detail.

I agree with you that. A road surface vs a smooth roller would actually use more watts the rougher the road got, thus it would seem to reason in my, howbeit unscientific pea brain, that you would still have the same results just more watts being generated per tire to run on a road.

Bike itself would have dampening characteristics which would either aid or hinder the bike from maintaining idea surface contact, but as far as the actual rolling resistance, again the result would be the same if you put all the tires on one bike of a certain geometry and material then repeat the test of different geometry and material. Again the watts used may vary on a particular bike but that variance would still show each tire with the same rolling resistance unique to that tire.

You could go insane trying to test all the variances of road surfaces, temperature, psi, different rims, rider/bike weight, different tubes, bike geometry, bike frame material, wind; you would have a billion (and probably more) variables. So the only way to do that is to do it the way it was done, because at the end of the day if one tire uses less wattage vs one that uses the most, it won't matter about all the variables because you would still have the same difference in wattage just greater watt usage depending on the variables.

Again I'm not a scientist, but I can't see one tire being the least rolling resistant tire suddenly swapping places with the tire that has the most rolling resistance just because a variable was changed. If that is true that a tire's rolling resistance would change then we're back to square one, and that is it won't matter which tire you use!!!

Personally I think this negative view on such tests is more about someones favorite tire not doing well so they come out against the test and instead trust a very unscientific method of their own perception and say stuff like, "these tires are super fast", which is just pure ignorance, especially considering none of the tires were tested and rated as super fast, their just mildly faster from the best to the worst, but everything in between a rider is not going to notice at all. I suppose if you went from Specialized Armadillo All Condition tire that weighed 480 grams to a Specialized Mondo Open Tubular that weighs 175 grms and had the least rolling resistance you could probably feel like you went to a super fast tire.
 
Hi All, just ran the Kenda Kaliente LR3 Pro as a rear tyre at 105psi, and although nowhere near as dramatic an improvement in going from 95psi to 100psi, there is still a little bit of improvement. The noticeable change was how the tyre now runs on top of the road rather then in the road (sounds a bit strange but that was how it felt), and it still grips well and has good road feel, nice? Also, it now seems to ride over or on top of the bumps rather than through them, interesting :)
So now to try it at 110psi :)
Hi All, I have just run about 300kms with the Kaliente LR3 Pro tyre and a Panaracer R'Air tube and this tube turns this tyre into a more comfortable ride than the GP4000S with a standard Butyl tube (such as the Maxxis Welterweight or Ultralight). The Kaliente LR3 Pro is definitely more puncture resistant than the GP4000S and faster rolling also. Since the puncture I had at 800kms I have probably travelled at least another 1000kms without getting another puncture. Even with the Kaliente LR3 Pro tyre inflated to a just over 115psi in the rear, and just over 105psi in the front, the ride is still comfortable. I will now try 120psi rear and 110psi front, and let you know what I think :)

Actually, I changed the rear to front, which replaced a pro 3 race, when it had done about 1600kms and have not noticed any difference between the pro 3 race and Kaliente LR3 Pro. Thus far, I haven't really tried it in the wet because I am always a little cautious when the road is damp/wet, although I haven't noticed anything to be concerned about. After all "your only as good as your last ride" :)

The Panaracer R'Air tube seems deflate at about the same rate as a Butyl tube and can be patched just like a Butyl tube (such as the Maxxis Welterweight or Ultralight). I wonder how similar the ride of the Panaracer R'Air tube is when compared to a latex tube?

I am sure there are many nice tyres out there but the Kaliente LR3 Pro tyre and Panaracer R'Air tube make a nice combination, whether used on the rear or front :)
 
My "super fast" Vittoria Diamante Prolight on the front just had the first cut/puncture flat. Went about 800 miles before a tiny shard of flint, went through the cord and caused a pinhole slow leak. Not unexpected, but the tires came free with some wheels, so I'm using them and enjoying the nice ride and roadfeel. Believe I'll rotate the cut tire to the rear, where I'll wear it out much faster, and put the other new one on the front. My logic tells me that if the tire has a tendency to punctures, it's more likely I'll get the miles out of it on the back. Might as well wear it out, rather than ride with a front tire has has punctures in it.

I've been running GP 4000s for the past few years and 15K miles without a single puncture. The only issues I had with "fragile sidewalls" on the GP's were years ago, when the old 3000 had the thin, natural gum colored sidewalls which were easily scuffed or damaged.
 
I switched from Gatorskins to Michelin Krylions (700 x 25) on my Roubaix. They were noticeably faster and more compliant on the road, and I've had one flat in 2000 miles. They're widely available in 700 x 23, but at your weight I recommend looking online for the 25s if you can't find them at the lbs.
 
this doesnt have anything to do with biking .... several years agi i just bought a new 2008 ford pickup. i install sat dishes here in texas and was on a job. there were some tree trimmers there cutting down this giant tree and they asked me if i could move my truck. i backed up into the road right over this small tree branch and didnt think any thing of it. small branch maybe 3/4 inch diameter max. part of it went right through the side wall and stuck in the tire. i coulnt believe it.. ruinned the tire.. 120 bucks.. oh well you just never know when murphys looking over your shoulder!! cheers
 
yes, I go along with the Gatorskin referral. too. that good. thx for your shareing. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
56.jpg