Do tires make a difference in ride feel?

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
jim beam wrote:


David L. Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:45:56 -0800, jim beam wrote:


so what? there's been progress in tire compound technology in the
last couple of decades. if that is accompanied by hyperbole, what
exactly does that hurt?

What makes you say that? What progress can you point to? You
can't compare to the tires of 30 years ago, and show improvement.

there's grip and there's rolling resistance. with carbon reinforced
rubbers, the hysteresis characteristics of the compound means you can
choose one or the other. with silica reinforced rubbers, you can
have both.


So far that's not what's happened where the silica meets the road.
Especially in the wet. Been lots of discussion of this, check it out
sometime.

i see anecdotal waffle, but where's the beef? i also see tires waxed
when new, but hey...



Actually,
that's Jobst's claim to fame here; he worked to get Avocet to make
a clincher tire that could approximate (not exceed, approximate)
the performance of the Clement Campionato del Mundo.

jobst is solely focused on rolling resistance for a polished steel
drum. where does grip enter his research? and what are your local
roads paved with?


Good grief, jim. Can you pick tinier nits?

And if you haven't been paying attention, you'd know that Jobst tested
grip with a tilt table.

he didn't test silica compounds because they weren't around then.

wrote:
George King writes:

I have a stash of light colored bare-wall Avocet ROAD 20 tires that
meet my expectation although not as good as the original ones made
by IRC.

You've mentioned this bef ore but do you mean blackwall? I thought
all tan sidewall production was Japan, and Korea was black. More
importantly, could you explain what the difference is between
whichever two it is that bothers you, whether in construction,
performa nce, or durability?

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. The black
casings have had flaws that caused bulges and the tread is
back-ass-wards, with a th in coating of the high durability rubber over
a thick body of the faster wearing rubber. This is visible as the
tire wears in that a rougher texture shows up. (Wear rate is
proportional to surface roughness according to Schallamach).

Youch. That's really bad. Here I was just finally convincing myself
that after my last tanwall Duro Plus wears out (only one pair left
after the current), it will be OK, because I will be able to get the
same thing in blackwall and I just won't look at them, but the tire
will be the same.

I assume you complained loudly to your friends at Avocet and received
an unsatisfactory response.i

Ivar Hesselager wrote:

If the roads you are riding give you only the benefits and not the
problems of the GP 3000, you have a good reason to stick to one of the
best tires on the market, regarding feel.

You might consider examining the construction details of the GP3K, and
asking yourself, "do they really have the features that make for good
feel; or is this just a myth?"

You will see that they have: 86tpi casings. OK, but not as good as the
127tpi of truly high quality tires of several brands. Further, the
GP3Ks have two extra layers of this heavier fabric under the tread,
which will deaden the feel even more. As for the tread, it is entirely
unexceptional. Thus, if such differences really can be felt, the GP3K
is not going to be the tire with "one of the best feels". They look
nice, and have a very high quality finish, and I expect that is the
source of the claims that they feel so good. The rolling resistance
tests discussed here recently prove that they are slow and
energy-wasting compared to better durable tires, such as the Michelin
Carbon.


I'm an old middleweight and (over)cautious rider - and I like the feel of
the Conti "4-Season" 25 mm vesion the best, because it has better traction
and makes me dare going faster through the curves - especially on wet
roads. And it also has reinforced sidewalls, which means a lot on the
roads I ride on.

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

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:09:46 -0800, jim beam wrote:

so what about the marketing? the technology is a matter of fact, not
r.b.t ludditism.

Is it? I haven't heard that, actually.

inability to seek or assimilate information is not a
basis for criticism. besides, silica rubbers are more expensive to
produce than carbon rubbers, so there's absolutely /no/ reason to use
them if marketing alone can sufficiently differentiate product.f

Sure there is a reason to use them, independently of any facts, if a
blue stripe on the tire gets more of them sold. And the color does help
"differentiate" the product. If some pro racer is using blue tires, then
blue tires will get sold, independently of any real performance
improvement.

BTW, you said that rolling resistance was not everything, there was also
grip. True enough, but I don't think there is non-marketing data to
suggest that silica compounds are better in traction. There is also wear
and cut resistance, and silica-compound tires suck on both counts, and
everyone will attest to that, I bet.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
_`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong
(_)/ (_) |

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:23:42 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Diablo Scott writes:

I'll speak well of them. Never had a sidewall issue - true, I don't
ride too many gravel roads, but some and when I do it's usually on
Continentals. I've run Ultra 2000s on my foul weather and commuting
bike for years. They seem to last longer than others I've used on the
same bike - I chose them for their durability, no special offers. Just
got a pair of the new Ultra Gatorskins; 170tpi

I don't believe a word of it. 170TPI is a 0.006" (1/170) diameter
thread, better than any silk track tire made.

I don't believe it either. They probably multiply the tpi times three,
for the number of plies. I wanna see that 320tpi cloth those V-brand
tires are supposedly made of!

"Ultra Gatorskin" is
also Continental hyperbole of the worst kind. They have mediocre tires

They're not my favorites either but they work well enough for many. Some
higher mileage riders in our club swear by them, as a good value for a
decent riding tire. 4k miles on rough mountain roads for 20 bucks isn't
bad. They're always on sale somewhere. Most tires at the LBS last half
as long and cost twice as much. The sidewalls do unravel, but not if you
ride enough to wear the treads out first.

but superlative marketeers who come up with these phrases and names that
appeal to the enthusiast.

Other companies with supposedly better products should do as good a job
marketing them.

Matt O.

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 01:44:29 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:09:46 -0800, jim beam wrote:

so what about the marketing? the technology is a matter of fact, not
r.b.t ludditism.

Is it? I haven't heard that, actually.

inability to seek or assimilate information is not a
basis for criticism. besides, silica rubbers are more expensive to
produce than carbon rubbers, so there's absolutely /no/ reason to use
them if marketing alone can sufficiently differentiate product.f

Sure there is a reason to use them, independently of any facts, if a
blue stripe on the tire gets more of them sold. And the color does help
"differentiate" the product. If some pro racer is using blue tires, then
blue tires will get sold, independently of any real performance
improvement.

BTW, you said that rolling resistance was not everything, there was also
grip. True enough, but I don't think there is non-marketing data to
suggest that silica compounds are better in traction. There is also wear
and cut resistance, and silica-compound tires suck on both counts, and
everyone will attest to that, I bet.

This comment may come from my ignorance, please rectify it if so.

I don't recall the older tires being available in dual compound formats, I know
that is fairly common now and I know the tires work well. I don't know that they
are all that much better than the older carbon based tires, but I'm getting
excellent wear and traction and flat resistance.

Ron

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:31:57 -0500, "prometheus7"
wrote:

I am curious
though, as to whether different tires provide a different ride feel on a
bike or whether it would all be in air pressure...a Conti would feel like
everything else. I consider reliability a premium issue, so I don't want to
risk a bunch of flats just to scratch my curiosity itch. I figured I would
ask the collective wisdom of the group. Thoughts?

Use the same tire in a 700x25, if available, and put only 100 lbs. of
air in. The ride will change remarkably.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:09:46 -0800, jim beam wrote:


so what about the marketing? the technology is a matter of fact, not
r.b.t ludditism.


Is it? I haven't heard that, actually.


inability to seek or assimilate information is not a
basis for criticism. besides, silica rubbers are more expensive to
produce than carbon rubbers, so there's absolutely /no/ reason to use
them if marketing alone can sufficiently differentiate product.f


Sure there is a reason to use them, independently of any facts, if a
blue stripe on the tire gets more of them sold. And the color does help
"differentiate" the product. If some pro racer is using blue tires, then
blue tires will get sold, independently of any real performance
improvement.

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
could be silica, it could be carbon. on that basis, color does have value.


BTW, you said that rolling resistance was not everything, there was also
grip. True enough, but I don't think there is non-marketing data to
suggest that silica compounds are better in traction. There is also wear
and cut resistance, and silica-compound tires suck on both counts, and
everyone will attest to that, I bet.

dude, you're way off base. there's absolutely no reason a silica rubber
should wear any less well than a carbon rubber. it's all a matter of
composition. but given r.b.t's customary lack of data and f.u.d.
propagation, i'm not surprised you've jumped to that conclusion.

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.

Ó

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.