Challenge Criterium RS

[otnemem]

I would have to see Tour's methodology to check for variables and confounders. I also don't know how different the crr ranking ends up being. Do you have it handy?

I know Silca's and I know Josh frequently quotes BRR as tracking pretty well. Almost every other podcast episode it comes up.

[LanceLegstrong]

Can you share your source for this claim?

The easiest thing to look at is the top tires on BicycleRollingResistance vs Aerocoach and see a very different top 20. Which indicates that testing protocol alone will change how "fast" these tires are. BRR has the GP5000 S TR and Schwalbe Pro One TT very high up, whereas the Aerocoach has them relatively very slow. Aerocoach has the Veloflex Record as the fastest tire, where BRR has them ranked 9th fastest. So if these very controlled test protocols can't even agree on which is fastest, how are we supposed to translate that to real roads with any certainty?

Not to mention other factors like tire pressure, tire widths, tarmac condition, aero profiles, rider weight, weather conditions. There are just so many varibles that will change how fast a tire rides. I'm not paid enough to spend my time decyphering all the data.

You talk about being "high up" and "relatively very slow" but not about actual hard data. Even between different methodologies, consistent fast tires are still fast vs. consistent slow tires on both aerocoach and BRR.
You also show no proof of your claim in which you said "And there have been tires that test well for CRR but are slower in the real world because the test protocol doesn't mimic real roads."
Since aerocoach doesn't mimic real roads/real world either I'm still at a loss as to how you support your claim. If you have actual" real roads" tests that deny BRR (or aerocoach) data, I'm all eyes.

The data is right there. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's on you, I'm not going to spend my time listing it here when you can find it on their respective websites. And the fact that Aerocoach is getting different numbers from BRR by having the testing done riding a bike on rollers as opposed to just rolling the tire on a drum, how do you not get that riding the tires on varied real world conditions would change the results? If drum to rollers gets different numbers, why wouldn't rollers to tarmac get different numbers?

[otnemem]

You won't list where the data is because there's no data. If you were in the right you wouldn't have quoted aerocoach as that does nothing for your argument. You'd have gone straight to the data that proves your point.

You clearly don't understand CRR or testing methodology if you're surprised numbers differ between surface testing. Even less if you think you can reliably test for CRR in "the real world" for several tires, week in and week out, with ever changing conditions (at least a dozen variables you'd have no control over) between test sessions, and keep the data worth the ink it's printed on.

[LanceLegstrong]

You won't list where the data is because there's no data.

Lolz.

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/time-trial ... tance-data
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... ke-reviews

numbers differ between surface testing. Even less if you think you can reliably test for CRR in "the real world" for several tires, week in and week out, with ever changing conditions (at least a dozen variables you'd have no control over)

That's literally my point. Thank you for agreeing.

[Yoln]

You won't list where the data is because there's no data.

Lolz.

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/time-trial ... tance-data
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... ke-reviews

numbers differ between surface testing. Even less if you think you can reliably test for CRR in "the real world" for several tires, week in and week out, with ever changing conditions (at least a dozen variables you'd have no control over)

That's literally my point. Thank you for agreeing.

So what is your claim? If you remove the pre 2020 Veloflex track tires from the aerocoach ranking, that BRR clearly explain aren't in their ranking but were 10-15% faster than the ones in their current ranking: "NOTE: Veloflex renewed all their tires in Q3 2020 and the Record now makes use of a "natural rubber and silica" compound instead of the "natural rubber exclusive" compound that was used before Q3 2020. The use of silica increases wet grip but it comes at the cost of a 10-15% increase in rolling resistance"

And if I remove weird 23mm tires at super high presure from Aerocoach ranking

I see for both rankings:

1- Corsa Speed G2
2- GP5K TT TL
3- Schwalbe Pro One TT

You can make up numbers, or try to focus on micro details, but if you take this numbers for what they are: measures that have a margin of error. And try to make sense of them in an intelligent way instead of pointing out small descrepancies between them, they seem pretty much to agree, and above is your list of the fastest tires there is

[FlatlandClimber]

BRR should be testing these in February. Very interested in how fast they are.

[LanceLegstrong]

You won't list where the data is because there's no data.

Lolz.

https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/time-trial ... tance-data
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... ke-reviews

numbers differ between surface testing. Even less if you think you can reliably test for CRR in "the real world" for several tires, week in and week out, with ever changing conditions (at least a dozen variables you'd have no control over)

That's literally my point. Thank you for agreeing.

If you remove the pre 2020 Veloflex track tires from the aerocoach ranking

And if I remove weird 23mm tires at super high presure from Aerocoach ranking

I see for both rankings:

1- Corsa Speed G2
2- GP5K TT TL
3- Schwalbe Pro One TT

You can make up numbers, or try to focus on micro details, but if you take this numbers for what they are: measures that have a margin of error. And try to make sense of them in an intelligent way instead of pointing out small descrepancies between them, they seem pretty much to agree, and above is your list of the fastest tires there is

So if you remove a bunch of test data, the data is similar. Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure how that is good science but ok, you do you. If you have to remove data to fit your point, then I can't really argue with you. You say I'm making up numbers (I'd love to see where) but you want me to just remove data from the results?

What about the Michelin Power TT? Which are faster than GP5000 S in one test but slower in the other. Heck, Aerocoach even have the Specialized Turbo Cotton faster than both GP5000 TR versions. And the two sources have the GP5000 TR vs GP5000 S TR switched in order of CRR.

Which really takes me back to my point. The testing protocol is such a specific, no variables, sterilized version of what anybody would actually experience unless you're on a pristine velodrome track maybe. It may look nice on paper and we can judge these tires on how fast they theoretically are, but in my book it doesn't translate to the real world. Is it the best thing we have right now? Probably. But I'm not going to fret over some numbers on a website that may or may not even be true for what I'm riding. Heck, even batch to batch on the same tire may be faster or slower, so why waste time pouring over the numbers?

[otnemem]

That's literally my point. Thank you for agreeing.

My dude, your claim was re "tires that test well for CRR but are slower in the real world because the test protocol doesn't mimic real roads".
You've got nothing. It's ok, you don't even have to admit it.

[LanceLegstrong]

That's literally my point. Thank you for agreeing.

My dude, your claim was re "tires that test well for CRR but are slower in the real world because the test protocol doesn't mimic real roads".
You've got nothing. It's ok, you don't even have to admit it.

My brother in Christ have you not read any of my responses? Are you already writing your response before I even say anything? You can't be that thick can you? Or are you intentionally skipping over the important parts of my response?

Since I'm talking with a brick wall that doesn't appear to even read my comments, I'm going to just step away from this pointless argument. I've responded many times with all the data you ask for and yet you still seem to gloss over all the meaningful responses and stick to one sentence of text of I've written. Which doesn't surprise me honestly. If you are so set in stone in your beliefs, I can't change that. Cheers.

[otnemem]

The data I ask is the one that supports your "slower in real world" claim. You replied with aerocoach data which:
A) is even further from real world than BRR's steel drum;
B) doesn't even confirm what you claim, it even does the opposite as Yoln eloquently demonstrated.

You have not presented any data that backs up your claim.

Had you even done the most basic of google searches, you would have come upon Silca's research (which quotes other research) that shows that, considering the use of low pressures, BRR or BRR-style testing, tracks really well with real world conditions. Fast tires are fast tires.

Your beliefs and feelings don't mean anything and you're playing the fool here.
Regardless, I bid thee good luck with your buy. Hope it works out well for you.

[FlatlandClimber]

BRR and AC test tires a little differently, which might or might not effect the results.
AeroCoach tests at higher speeds (45kph) than BRR (29kph). AC uses a rider on rollers measurement and verifies these with track test data. BRR tests a wheel on a metal drum.
AC uses a 19.6mm internal width, BRR uses 17.8mm internal width rim.
BRR uses extremely slow 100g Conti butyl tubes for clincher testing, and sometimes releases data for latex tubes, where the Michelin TT for example is just as fast as the Corsa Speed 2.0 (see the conclusion at the bottom: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... trial-2020).

BRR might or might not test at the same tire pressure as AC. AC sets the tire pressure only to the "best" (for performance), while BRR tests a range, but the main number that is compared is usually the one at the highest pressure. You then however see, that some of the tires perform non-linear compared to others when pressure is lowered (I mean that a great performer at 100PSI isn't necessarily a great performer at 60PSI).
Therefore I am very happy we have both companies conducting these tests, and don't find it productive to find which one is correct. Likely both are equally correct and incorrect at the same time.

[LanceLegstrong]

BRR and AC test tires a little differently, which might or might not effect the results.
AeroCoach tests at higher speeds (45kph) than BRR (29kph). AC uses a rider on rollers measurement and verifies these with track test data. BRR tests a wheel on a metal drum.
AC uses a 19.6mm internal width, BRR uses 17.8mm internal width rim.
BRR uses extremely slow 100g Conti butyl tubes for clincher testing, and sometimes releases data for latex tubes, where the Michelin TT for example is just as fast as the Corsa Speed 2.0 (see the conclusion at the bottom: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... trial-2020).

BRR might or might not test at the same tire pressure as AC. AC sets the tire pressure only to the "best" (for performance), while BRR tests a range, but the main number that is compared is usually the one at the highest pressure. You then however see, that some of the tires perform non-linear compared to others when pressure is lowered (I mean that a great performer at 100PSI isn't necessarily a great performer at 60PSI).
Therefore I am very happy we have both companies conducting these tests, and don't find it productive to find which one is correct. Likely both are equally correct and incorrect at the same time.

Couldn't agree more, especially that last bit. And like I said earlier, it may be the best proxy available right now. But for me personally, there are just too many variables for it to guide my decision. Even more so when I'm not going to have different sets for training or racing, or for different surfaces. I just want a set that looks good and rides good. And I love the look of these. If I was doing TTs and the marginal gains mattered more, maybe I'd nerd out.

[e4rthm0ver]

BRR review is up

[Erwin]

Wet grip is still a problem with the new compound, but everything else looks quite good.

[wreckulator]

BRR review seems to have confirmed my predicitons and seems like a great summer/racing tire. The puncture score seems to be similar to what I've experienced with the strada bianca: sidewalls are vulnerable, but tread area is very resistant. The only time I've punctured the tread of a challenge HTLR tire was when I ran over a nail.