Best clincher tyre?

cydonian74

I want a great set of clincher tyres to complete my bike set up.
I would like the obvious;high grip, low weight, low rolling resistance but the choice is pretty huge these days, i don't want compromised durability though, so any suggestions? Also, what are the best tubes to pair up with them?

chriskempton

Michelin Pro Race 3 (if you're happy spending £23each), Pro Race 2 if you want to spend less. I find they last far longer than other fast, light, grippy tyres. The 3s weigh 200g, the 2s 20g more. In summer I use Maxxis Flyweight tubes (55g) and put up with the occasional (maybe 2-3 a year) pinch flat. I've tried other light tubes and hate them - Conti Supersonics especially. If you want something more solid, keep it Michelin, but avoid the latex ones.

cyclingjosh

I will have to put a vote in for the continental gp4000s, the best tyres i have owned. Not one puncture in 4000miles, brilliant in the wet and grippy, quite low weight as well. They are 10x better than the normal gp4000. Never used the pro race 3 but heard they are quite good. In terms of inner tubes a decent thick one i find is the best the low weight ones always pinch. J

simbil1

Conti 4000's are the equivalent to Pro Race's and are a very good tyre with a slightly lower rolling resistance and better cornering according to a recent German article.
The Ultremo's are the other tyre in this category to consider.
You don't get all those features you want without paying top dollar though.

il_principe

Go for the ContiGP4000S, better than the 4000's and a doddle to fit, which is odd because the 4000's were a nightmare.

maddog 2

Pro Race 2s here. Not tried the 3s yet.

I use them with Mich. latex tubes. They require regular top ups but are very supple, and light.

ChrisBowers

GP4000s for me anyday. The compound of these tyres is superb.

I've found them to be great in wet/dry and low rolling resistance.

aarw

latex tubes are the way to go for performance. they're one of the cheapest and most noticable upgrades you'll find. i use either vredstein or michelin. i prefer the vredestein ones.

I use vittoria open corsa tyres and really rate them. I'd also like to try some veloflex tyres...

Simon Notley

What is it that's supposed to be so good about latex tubes? Is it just the weight? I recently started another thread about the Vittoria Evo 55, which are a Butyl tube that's lighter than most latex, so would be interested in hearing about any other advantages of latex tubes...

For my money, I vote for GP4000S tyres too... I'm on my third set now...

Simon

Simon Notley

PS Veloflex are good but don't have the robustness of the others mentioned here. I was gutted to have to throw mine away after only a few hundred miles when holes started opening up!

portuguese mike

+1 for GP4000S - excellent tyre

aarw

latex aren't necessarily lighter than butyl tubes but they sure do feel a lot more supple and lively on the road. i've never had any reliablity issues with them either.

giant_man

Pro Race2s or 3s. Fantastic all round tyre, it doesn't disappoint.

cougie

I've had the Conti GP3000's on my bike for two years now - and not a single "problem". Fantastic tyres. But I think they're now the 4000 - so I've just bought one of those for my climbing wheel.

jpembroke

Vredestein Fortezza. Definitely. Always felt twitchy on Contis, Vittorias, and Michelin; Fortezzas have massively improved my confidence on fast descents. I love them. It's also one of the highest rated clinchers on Roadbikereview.com

(shame they can be a bugg*r to get on though)

System_1

I'm a Vredestein Fortezza Tricomp fan. Miles better than the Conti GP3000 they replaced in every respect. I haven't tried GP4000 but they'd need to be much much much better than the 3000 before I'd swap my Vredesteins. There's also a Quattro Tricomp version now that has a bit more p*****re protection (not that the originals were ever lacking in this respect).

I've never had trouble getting them on or off the rims either. In fact they're the easiest I've ever used.

cougie

Thats funny - my Vredestein Tricomps disintegrated in one pot hole in Frankfurt and I had to get the race service there to give me tyres - the Conti 3000s.

I did like the vredesteins before then, but they had given me the odd puncture, and then went pretty disastrously for me. But so far - 2 years on - the Contis havent missed a beat.

bahzob

Recent thread on this very topic pointed to this article
http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/road_tyres/attack%20force/Resistance%20Fighters.pdf

which apart from coming to a pretty firm conclusion in favour of GP4000S also give all the info you want/need to know about tyres and is probably a candidate for best cycle gear test of all time.

As a result I went and got some (having previously been fan of Vittorias but found recent examples puncture prone).

Very happy with results. Would recommend to anyone (and have)

cydonian74

bahzob wrote:

Recent thread on this very topic pointed to this article
http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/road_tyres/attack%20force/Resistance%20Fighters.pdf

which apart from coming to a pretty firm conclusion in favour of GP4000S also give all the info you want/need to know about tyres and is probably a candidate for best cycle gear test of all time.

As a result I went and got some (having previously been fan of Vittorias but found recent examples puncture prone).

Very happy with results. Would recommend to anyone (and have)[/quote

Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that report bazhob, thats really informative. Thanks to everybody who has contributed to my thread so far as well. I really appreciate the advice, it does seem that the Conti's are the tyre to be looking at, and perhaps the Vredesteins.

dorkingdan

Go for Veloflex - if you go for the 22mm Pave's they aren't as fragile as you'd think; I've had about 1 puncture in quite a few years and the back roads of Surrey aren't great. Admittedly only tend to use them April through to October and have different (wider) tyres on winter bike.

Latex tubes are also worthwhile - not for their weight saving or supposed supple ride (I can't tell the difference) but solely because they are better at resisting punctures, especially of minor incision type. Vredstein do a nice latex tube that's quite thick - same weight as a decent butyl one but much better puncture resistance.

blorg

I got Schwalbe Ultremos recently, which came second in the test above. Very happy so far but don't have enough miles yet to gauge the puncture resistance.

Very interesting that clinchers came out ahead of tubulars.

Could someone possibly explain the rolling resistance watt figures- I read the section explaining it but it didn't help. If a tyre has 10 watts lower rolling resistance does this suggest that you would need to be outputting 10 watts more to maintain the same speed? Or 20 watts more (two tyres?) Either sounds like a lot if so.

cougie

Does seem like a decent test there doesnt it ?

And interesting that my old vredesteins lasted 6 secs in the puncture test whilst the contis did the full three minutes. That goes with my own very un scientific findings..

Harp

I'm not sure there is a best clincher. Rolling resistance is just so so so small between the tyres noone will be able to tell from the seat of their pants which rolls better than the other. It takes complicated machinery to detremine if one tyre uses more watts than another to roll. If anyone thinks they can tell by feel then I reckon they are guessing.

Puncture resistance - pick a tyre with an anti puncture belt and it'll be as good as the next one unless you go for something with an APB and a really thick rubber carcass.

dennisn

These days, being almost 60, I tend to go for convenience in a tire. Lately I have been using Tufo tubular clinchers. Fairly easy to mount(without tools), no pinch flats, no need for rim tape, different models(racing, training, etc.), much higher pressure that regular clinchers(up to 200 psi), easily changed on the road, good wearing, small punctures
are easily fixed with Tufo's own version of Slime, fairly comparable in weight to a
regular clincher, tube, and rim strip, will stay on the rim if you have a flat, I haven't had flat problems with them(well, that's bound to change just because I said it). Downsides??
A bit more expensive, can not be fixed(except with their version of Slime), you need to
carry a spare(but that's good because then people will think you are running actual
tubulars and are therefore really cool). So, I don't race these days(haven't for many ("days") but I do ride a lot and tubular clinchers just seem to work for me. Then again
I still use regular tubulars form time to time, so I am a bit weird.

Dennis Noward

blorg

I particularly liked the way they tested the wet adhesion- test rider took a defined corner in the wet upping the speed each time until he "drifted or crashed." Includes a nice photo of the tester in the latter scenario.

System_1

blorg wrote:

Very interesting that clinchers came out ahead of tubulars.

Because most tubs are made for racing and are therefore built more for speed and light weight rather than all out grip and puncture protection.

cougie wrote:

And interesting that my old vredesteins lasted 6 secs in the puncture test whilst the contis did the full three minutes. That goes with my own very un scientific findings..

The Vredesteins they tested though are the Fortezza PRO Tricomp tubulars. Most likely a very different tyre compared to the standard clinchers.

wildmoustache

to those who use latex (so to speak) ... do you find there to be much difference in puncture resistance between that and say a 70-80g butyle (i.e. mid-weight) ? ?? I did, and have been scared off latex

there is IME a big difference in puncture resistance /fragility between really light (40-50g) butyl and mid-weight butyl.

blorg

System wrote:

Because most tubs are made for racing and are therefore built more for speed and light weight rather than all out grip and puncture protection.

But this was the very point made in the test- the best clinchers rolled faster than the tubulars and there wasn't a significant weight advantage with many of the tubs actually heavier than a clincher+tube combo (of course this doesn't take into account rim differences.) The test doesn't specifiy inflation pressure; I guess it's possible they inflated the tubs to the same pressure as the clinchers but there are plenty who say there's no benefit to going to extreme pressures with tubs just because you can.

wildmoustache

the rm difference weight and the superior cornering due to rounder profile is the puppy though ... that's what makes tubs better for road racing IMO.

but i prefer clinchers for everything else.

blorg

According to the article the best performing clincher in this test cornered better than the best tubular. So that brings us down to rim weight and you can get pretty light clincher rims these days.

wildmoustache

blorg wrote:

According to the article the best performing clincher in this test cornered better than the best tubular. So that brings us down to rim weight and you can get pretty light clincher rims these days.

you can get quite a bit lighter tub rims - with the exception of lightweight and LEW clinchers which are outliers (and carbon clinchers which forfeit the braking benefits)

this test might have said one thing, but why would that matter if a rider feels that tubs corner better? It's not just about absolute grip either - it's also about how progressive the cornering is and feedback.