Tour tire test 09/2007

[pk0r]

Fresh out of the press, here are the results of the highly anticipated tire test in the latest Tour issue.

*Only the bare numbers for now, I will be adding other facts (rating system, handling at threshold, conclusion) lateron.
** Also be aware that testing on different measuring devices yields different results, so the results and conclusion from this very test can only be seen as trend. Other magazines that either tested on the track or on Schwalbe's testing device usually came to pretty different results than Tour Magazin who is using Conti's testing testing device.
Worth mentioning though: so far Conti always performed worst (rgds CRR) on their own testing rig, which seems to have changed with this test.


Caption: Manufacturer, model, MSRP, width x height, CRR at 35kph (85kg system weight, 7.5bar pressure), puncture proofness (max 180s), wet adhesion (max. cornering speed for a curve radius of 12.5m), mounting

Clinchers/Tubeless:
Continental GP 4 Season 45.00€ 23.4x23mm 224g 53.90W 180s 33.20kph possible without tools
Continental GP 4000 S 42.90€ 23.4x22.8mm 207g 34.30W 180s 33.00kph possible without tools TOUR - TEST WINNER
Hutchinson Fusion 2 39.80€ 23x22.7mm 233g 52.8W 56s 30.30kph with tools middle difficult
Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 49.80€ 21.9x20.5mm 299g 34.30W 41s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult
Michelin Pro²Grip 45.95€ 23.2x22mm 234g 43.70W 180s 32.60kph with tools easy Tour - Tip
Michelin Pro²Race 40.95€ 23.3x24.1mm 218g 36.00W 180s 30.30kph with tools easy
Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 36.90€ 23.6x23.2mm 215g 51.50W 180s 31.10kph possible without tools
Schwalbe Ultremo 42.90€ 22.5x21.2mm 196g 43.30W 180s 32.90kph possible without tools Tour - Tip
Vittoria Evo CX 43.95€ 23x22.7mm 229g 42.00W 9s 30.40kph with tools middle difficult
Zipp Tangente 77.50€ 21.5x18.9mm 204g 36.20W 47s 33.00kph possible without tools


Tubulars:
Continental 4000 SR 72.90€ 22.3x19mm 246g 41.60W 180s 31.80kph inconspicuous
Schwalbe Stelvio 64.90€ 22.0x20.0mm 220g 47.00W 180s 32.90kph inconspicuous
Tufo Elite Ride 25 69.95€ 26.0x24.4mm 262g 41.20W 180s 30.20kph inconspicuous
Vittoria Evo CX 59.95€ 21.9x19mm 282g 41.10W 50s 30.60kph inconspicuous
Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 58.65€ 22.7x21.6mm 278g 36.70W 6s 30.20kph inconspicuous
Zipp Tangente 99.00€ 21.5x19.5mm 269g 37.20W 70s 32.80kph inconspicuous

[pritchet74]

The Nils, why must you tease us so? We anxiously await the rest of the data.....

Oh ya, thanks for translating & posting this for us!

[pk0r]

Here you go with the rest pritch.

Rating:

Caption: Manufacturer, model, weight (10%), CRR (30%), puncture proofness (30%), wet grip (30%), overall grade
"-" #1: handling at limits
"-" #2: conclusion

Clinchers/Tubeless:
Continental GP 4 Season 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
- Gives good feedback. Soft transition to the adherence limit. Predictable.
- Very good puncutre protection with dual Vectran breaker and firm sidewall. For rough roads. Wears square, rolls sluggish.
Continental GP 4000 S 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
- Rich riding impressions of a lot of rubber. Very secure, predictable. Besides the Ultremo the best riding experience.
- Test winner. Optimal compromise between CRR, grip and puncture protection. Perfect all-arounder for training and competition. Thread wears square.
Hutchinson Fusion 2 2.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3
- Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with a low adherence limit.
- Thick thread made of three compounds. Sensitive despite of protection belt. Rolls sluggish. A tire without distinctive strengths.
Hutchinson Fusion 2 Tubeless 2.3 1.0 3.3 3.0 2.4
- Soft riding impression. Predictable, but with low adherence limit.
- Tubeless tire for special rims. Construction and thinner thread allow for a much lower CRR than of the normal "Fusion".
Michelin Pro²Grip 2.3 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.5
- Hard riding impression. Hobbles extremely. Hard to predict.
- Competition and training tire. The CRR suffers under the improved grip. Wears very evenly.
Michelin Pro²Race 1.67 1.33 1.00 3.00 1.8
- Hard riding impression. Much grip on the shoulder, but less in the middle, stutters predictably.
- Easily rolling competition tire with robust casing and good puncture protection. Wears evenly.
Schwalbe Stelvio Rain 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.0 2.2
- Hard to predict, doesn't give any feedback. Slips away without stottering, tight limit range.
Schwalbe Ultremo 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.4
- Very good riding impression. Rich, predictable. Causes a feeling of much rubber on the road.
-very light competition tire with optimal adhesion and still good CRR. Wears very evenly.
Vittoria Evo CX 2.0 2.3 4.7 3.0 3.2
- Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position. Unpredictable.
- Rolls well, but other than that prooves itself problematic: bad puncture protection and delicate properties in the limit range make the Vittoria a good weather tire.
Zipp Tangente 1.3 1.3 3.3 1.0 1.8
- Gives early some very fine feedback, without stuttering. Only slightly worse than the GP 4000 S and the Ultremo.
- The surprise. Except for the puncture protection a very good tire, grip and CRR within touching distance to the class winners. Relatively thin thread.


Tubulars:
Continental 4000 SR 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.6
- Predictable and of good nature. Reaches the limits a little sooner than the GP 4000 S.
- Best tubular in the test. Flat and seamless construction with butyl tube. Does not reach the level of the 4000 S clincher: rolls worse, grips worse.
Schwalbe Stelvio 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.6
- Gives little feedback, but grips well.
- Light, seamless tubular with butyl tube. Despite of a conventional rubber coompound very good grip. Thin thread. High CRR.
Tufo Elite Ride 25 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
- Mediates the feeling of much rubber. Limit announces itself. But pretty low grip level.
Vittoria Evo CX 2.7 2.0 3.3 3.0 2.8
- Unpredictable. Slips at a high, stutters at a slight sloping position.
- Traditionally constructed, sewed tubular with latex tube and dual compound. Disappointing rgds grip and puncture protection.
Vredestein Fortezza Pro TriComp 2.3 1.3 4.7 3.0 2.9
- Does never mediate the impression of a secure grip.
- Traditionally constructed with latex tube. Construction very similar to Vittoria, but more voluminous and faster. Disappointing in grip and puncture protection.
Zipp Tangente 2.0 1.3 3.0 1.0 1.8
- Gives early some fine feedback, secure feeling of much rubber.
- Traditionally constructed tubular with latex tube. Single compound with good CRR and dimples. Only slightly falls back rgds puncture protection.

[pritchet74]

Very, very, very surprised by the bad review of the Vittoria clincher & tubular. I am shocked!

[Adrien]

[BMANX]

Latex or butyl inner tubes? Also, I find the results a bit odd since the Michelin ProRace and Vittoria Evo CX clinchers usually test pretty similarly, yet in this test, they do not even come close. Did they also load a single tire with 85kg? If so, that would be odd since a single tire never sees that much weight. Any more details on the protocol?.

[madcow]

Thanks to The Nils.

[LegendRider]

I'm extremely surprised at the Hutchinson Fusion 2 - one of the big selling points of tubeless is the additional traction from lower pressure. This test suggests this isn't the case... Did they use 7,5 bar? That's too much for this tire.

[Ypsylon]

Thanks pk0r!

I will be able to check some details Sunday night when I get home, if Nils is busy.

How does everybody that has ridden more than one ti(y)re on the list feel about the results?

[j0m]

Thanks!
I bought a pair of Ultremos as replacement for my Michelin Pro²Race (mostly because of The Nils' excellent review) but I haven't found the time to put them on yet. If only the CRR was better. Speaking of that I haven't been keeping up much with the CRR debate. But if I recall correctly some people said that the CRR testing was useless and didn't translate to real road conditions. Anyone care to comment or do I have search myself?

[pritchet74]

Thanks!
I bought a pair of Ultremos as replacement for my Michelin Pro²Race (mostly because of The Nils' excellent review) but I haven't found the time to put them on yet. If only the CRR was better. Speaking of that I haven't been keeping up much with the CRR debate. But if I recall correctly some people said that the CRR testing was useless and didn't translate to real road conditions. Anyone care to comment or do I have search myself?

These tests are usually done on some sort of smooth roller drum, which obviously isn't the same as pavement (unless you are on a really smooth track), but the differences are real - but maybe not at the magnitude that the testing shows.

I was going to get the Ultremos too, but then I saw the Crr data. For me speed is #1 & everything else is secondary.

[Ypsylon]

What ever happend to Cees and his crr-measureityourselfdevice?

[pk0r]

Nah, I am definitely not too busy to keep you guys posted.
So as for the testing protocol:
- CRR:
All tires have been tested on the testing rig of Continental which features the predominant conditions that can be found in Germany. The test station has been re-tooled with Tour-instrumentation and has been conducted and evaluated by Tour-engineers. Tested has been the CRR at 35kph with a load of 50kg. The measured variable is a force, which is converted into a power requirement in Watts as this one directly rates against the power input of the rider. In the table (see above, post #1) the CRR for a system weight of rider and bike of 85kg is stated. (The CRR increases linear with the speed and weight-loading). The CRR in this test falls between 34 and 54 W at 35kph. In reasonably aerodynamic position it takes about 220 W of power for this speed. The CRR of the tested tires amounts to between 15 and 25% of the total power at this speed.

- Wet grip:
Tested on wet road. For that purpose the tester has been descending a hill with a special scooter to then lay into the test corner with a 12.50 mtr radius. The speed has been increased each step - until drifting or crashing. The maximum achievable cornering speed, displayed in the table (post #1), is a measurement for the grip of the tire. Through repeated testing the test rider has been able to give feedback on the riding experience towards the limits, which would hardly been determinable in another way. The scooter has a load distribution and steering geometry which is similar to the ones of a road bike, the ridden lean angle is slightly lower than with a road bike, as the center of gravity lies deeper and more towards the inside of the corner. In comparison to the grip test from Tour 2/07 the test street has been significantly more slippery due to a more slippery tarmac. The adhesion coefficients, that describe the grip independently from the curve radius fall between 0.52 and 0.60 in this test (for the last test they have been falling between 0.69 and 1.17 for especially good griping asphalt (in the wet)).

- Puncture proofness:
Determined in the Tour-laboratory. A partially grounded screwdriver blade is being pushed onto the inflated tire with 35 kg of a weight-force. Then a vibrating unit is being engaged which loads the blade in an oscillatory way. Measured and displayed in the table (post #1) is the time, that it takes the blade to penetrate the tire. The test is being aborted as "passed" after three minutes and is being performed a total of five times. The measurements largely confirm our [i.e. Tour's] practical experiences. Tires, that resist the blade for three minutes, are very puncture resistant in the practice.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Find attached the test results from German "Triathlon" magazine from September '06 which have been performed both on the track as well as in the laboratory on Schwalbe's testing rig.
* Faltreifen = clincher
Schlauchreifen = tubular
Praxistest = on-road test (on the track)
Labortest = laboratory test (on Schwalbe's testing rig)
** pressures: clincher 8bar, tubulars 9bar
*** the Tufo (C Elite Jet) almost topped the best CRR results when having been inflated to 15 instead of 8bar.

[schmalex]

The speed has been increased each step - until drifting or crashing. The maximum achievable cornering speed, displayed in the table (post #1), is a measurement for the grip of the tire. Through repeated testing the test rider has been able to give feedback on the riding experience towards the limits, which would hardly been determinable in another way.

Who volunteers for this position?

[kiela]

always great to see such tests but there are too many variables that are left unknown.
if i am riding my standart afternoon course there are more than 5 different asphalts and also different cobbles from roubaix-like to some kinda red stones. if u take into account that there is nearly 1000s of different weather conditions and those tyres all have different pressure recomandations this kind of testing makes me kinda SICK

PLS Cyclingmagazins we arent dumb

lookes pretty much like it was a Homeplay for continental and i wonder how long tour and the rest of cyclingmagazines muck around with this stuped ....
atleast they can go for a nice holiday with the money they earned from this test and ofcourse sell some pictures of the holiday as another great test.