Do tires make a difference in ride feel?

On 27 Mar 2006 19:29:12 -0800, "41" wrote:


jim beam wrote:

criticizing color as a marketing gimmick completely misses the point.
if the rubber is colored, it's a silica compound. if it's black, it
c ould be silica, it could be carbon. on that basis, color does have value.

Indeed. It tells you you have the dumb, marketing-driven tires.

I've got a red and black pair. The two of them cost me less than $20 about 1400
miles and no flats ago. Guess I got ripped off.

Ron

RonSonic wrote:
On 27 Mar 2006 19:29:12 -0800, "41" wrote:


jim beam wrote:

criticizing color as a marketing gimmick completely misses the point.
if the rubber is colored, it's a silica compound. if it's black, it
c ould be silica, it could be carbon. on that basis, color does have value.

Indeed. It tells you you have the dumb, marketing-driven tires.

I've got a red and black pair. The two of them cost me less than $20 about 1400
mile s and no flats ago. Guess I got ripped off.

A Hummer is a dumb, marketing-driven vehicle. But if I got 1400 miles
out of two of them for less than $20, I wouldn't feel ripped off.ˇ

In article
. com,
"41" wrote:

wrote:

As I said, I have purchased these a while back and still have enough
to go for a while. Then I'll have to see what's available.

Allow me to save you some effort since I have been looking myself. I
can report that you will not find one single tire model that is not in
some way exasperating. Apart from the IRC Triathlon/Road Winner series,
which presumably suffers the same changes or worse, the closest
approximations to what you want all fail in important ways: low tpi
casings (33-57tpi), tread patterns, gimmicks, anti-puncture kludges.
The closest you will find to your ideal is the Michelin Carbon, which
is only available in Kevlar bead, does nto have a true featureless
tread, and has an extra casing ply bead to bead. Since we both do have
some time before our respective stashes run out, it may just be enough
if you would start cajoling your friends at Avocet to get their act
back together. I'm sure many of us would write in to concur. It's not
like any other manufacturer is going to step in.

What about Avocet Carbon 12 tires. 127 tpi in the 25 mm
tire? Round profile, entirely slick. It is a good tire.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
"41" wrote:

wrote:

As I said, I have purchased these a while back and still have en ough
to go for a while. Then I'll have to see what's available.

Allow me to save you some effort since I have been looking myself. I
can report that you will not find one single tire model that is not in
some way exasperating. Apar t from the IRC Triathlon/Road Winner series,
which presumably suffers the same changes or worse, the closest
approximations to what you want all fail in important ways: low tpi
casings (33-57tpi), tread patterns, gimmicks, anti-puncture kludge s.
The closest you will find to your ideal is the Michelin Carbon, which
is only available in Kevlar bead, does nto have a true featureless
tread, and has an extra casing ply bead to bead. Since we both do have
some time before our respect ive stashes run out, it may just be enough
if you would start cajoling your friends at Avocet to get their act
back together. I'm sure many of us would write in to concur. It's not
like any other manufacturer is going to step in.

What ab out Avocet Carbon 12 tires. 127 tpi in the 25 mm
tire? Round profile, entirely slick. It is a good tire.

Yes, indeed, this is the one the discussion was about. Jobst already
uses that model and I already use that same one in 32.

26 Mar 2006 21:32:01 -0800, 41 skrev:


So, you need good wet traction, and you have to deal with those flints
causing sidewall cuts. Is the Conti 4-S really the tire for you?
Consider:

It's also an 86tpi tire; nothing exceptional, and it also has those two
extra belts under the tread, robbing you of speed. The tread compound
is "MaxGripSilica optimized for wet weather grip", which means that it
has a higher proportion of carbon in the compound than the regular
silica. Their rolling resistance sucks too, like all Conti tires, so if
there were any benefit to the silica, you are not achieving it anyway.
And the grip tests that were part of those RR tests being discussed
recently also show that the grip is nothing to write home about. So,
you would be better off going to a tire with all carbon rubber, with
consequent better wet weather grip and better durability, and having
lower rolling resistance to boot: e.g Michelin Carbon, Avocet Road or
Duro. Even the Gatorskin would probably be better, since it too is
high-carbon rubber, with consequent better wet grip and durability, and
the sidewalls will be more durable because they are 57tpi instead of
86.

Now about those sidewall cuts. Conti's "sidewall reinforcement" is not
much to write home about either: a little bit of coarse-weave nylon
mesh. There is a more intelligent strategy: get a larger size tire,
like a 28, which will keep the sidewalls a little further off the
ground; and/or, a tire where the tread rubber wraps around higher than
it does on Contis, where seems to be a relatively narrow strip. Avocets
and IRCs are very good that way. This will give far more durable
sidewalls than any cheesy coarse-weave mesh. The approach of the
Michelin Carbon, with a fourth layer of 127tpi fabric bead to bead,
also seems more intelligent than Conti's approach.r



Very informative and well argued posting. Respect.

I do beliveve I could get even better tires than the ones I have.
But I am down to a couple of flats each year with my GP 4 Season - with
9000 km behind me last year I find that quite satisfying. I know it's no
basis of
statistics, but I have no need to find a tire with better flat resistance.

I newer fell thru slipping on wet roads - exept on a painted stripe many
years ago. I fell for a number of other reasons, though.

I do feel more confident on wet road curves with these GP 4-season.
Possibly because of myth, but more likely because of the feel of grip I
have thru years of experience with this tire. Though I am pushing my
courage going down the mountain road curves, I seem to be well within the
limit of traction, since I never fell. A braver man might find the limit
by going past it.

On the Tour Magazin recent test of tires (debatable I know), the Michelin
Carbon did well, but in regards to traction not at well as the Continental
Ultra Gatorskin. In addition it is heavier and difficult to mount.

The optimal tire is a compromise between primarily weight, RR, traction,
punture resistance, secondarily price and availability as well. I will
leave out looks and hype in this context. But you just can't have it all
in one tire.
Feel is another dimension. It is not included in the test. Its a personal
relation between you and your tire. Myth as well as taste and experience
is part of the feel.

So my conclusion is:
1)Find a good tire
2)that fits the roads you ride
3a)if you like it, get well acquainted with it thru years of experience.
3b)if you dont like it, go back to 1)
4)and stick to it.

So I am back to my recommandation to the original poster. If he has
practically no flats and a good feel with the GP3000 tire, he has good
reasons to stick to it.

Ivar of Denmark


--
Sendt med Operas banebrydende nyhedsgruppe-
og e-postklient: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Ivar Hesselager wrote:

On the Tour Magazin recent test of tires (debatable I know), the Michelin
Carbon did well, but in regards to traction not at well as the Continental
Ultra Gatorskin.

These two tires have the same tread compound (high-carbon rubber), the
difference being the UG is smooth while the MC is filligreed. That
accounts for the latter's somewhat poorer grip when new.;

"41" writes:

These two tires have the same tread compound (high-carbon rubber), the
difference being the UG is smooth while the MC is filligreed. That
accounts for the latter's somewhat poorer grip when new.;

I have both tires here and I don't think they are made of same rubber
compound. The UG's feels softer and stickier to hand. Also, the Michelin
is as smooth as you can get while the UG's have some cosmetic grooves.

Juhani

Dans le message de ,
Juhani Simola a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
"41" writes:

These two tires have the same tread compound (high-carbon rubber),
the difference being the UG is smooth while the MC is filligreed.
That accounts for the latter's somewhat poorer grip when new.;

I have both tires here and I don't think they are made of same rubber
compound. The UG's feels softer and stickier to hand. Also, the
Michelin is as smooth as you can get while the UG's have some
cosmetic grooves.

Juhani

Sorry, but it adds nothing to 41's perception when you confuse him with
facts.
After all, he is the stalwart defender of 30 year-old tires. Kept them in
his basement, in a freezer, in vacuum-sealed black plastic bags. If he's
that proud to cite his QI, let him.
--
Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive
que celle de la douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres,
elles ne trompent point comme celles du plaisir.
- de Sade.

Juhani Simola wrote:
"41" writes:

These two tires have the same tread compound (high-carbon rubber), the
difference being the UG is smooth while the MC is filligreed. That
accounts for the latter's somewhat poore r grip when new.;

I have both tires here and I don't think they are made of same rubber
compound. The UG's feels softer and stickier to hand. Also, the Michelin
is as smooth as you can get while the UG's have some cosmetic grooves.

I have not seen this year's version (Krylion) but I did handle last
year's and the tread was dissappointingly filligreed (like painted with
a wire brush), and the description at the time in the Michelin brochure
likewise spoke about its specially textured surface. I agree though
that the MC does feel harder at first than last year's UG, however they
are both high-carbon rubber. I should have said "same basic". The UG
pattern has changed from last year's to this, this year there are
hardly any features, and they are all away on the side.e