Latex tubes with GP5000 tires?
#26
Senior Member
sort of like mock crit, guys sweeping corners using 2-3 lanes to manuver. Then depending on your size, you could be doing 600-700w out of corners to stay with the pack, the bigs at the front are probably pushing close to 900-1000w when they get out of the saddle. Getting out of the saddle kills your rolling resistance, but it's what you need to do if they pack is doing it. I've actually tried using 28c tubeless at 65/70 psi (I'm under 130 lbs), and that was the last time I run 28c at that psi ever. Tire gives way too much, feels heavy, like mud.
#27
Pizzaiolo Americano
You perceive no difference because your boundaries of "performance" is narrow, like riding at a constast speed in a straightline.
However, when I'm talking "performance", i'm talking about many factors, like high-G cornering while trailbraking. This is where I'd use latex on the front, this gives me great road feedback into my arms and fingers that are squeezing the lever, and feedback translate to confidence at higher speed.
I personally don't use latex because of its slightly better rolling resistance compared to butyl, main reason being the higher cost of latex.
As for tubeless. I won't use the if the tire size is not at least 32c. Tubeless tires have sidewalls that are too hard (it's necessary for tubeless), and to compensate for the hard sidewall, people run at lower psi. This is fine going in a straightline. The problem is high-g corners. Lower pressure makes the tire tend to "fold" in high-g corners, this gives an ambiguos road feedbak to the fingers. A highend clincher like Veloflex or Vittoria with latex doesn't do this, you can run them at higher psi (to avoid the "folding" feeling) while still getting great road feedback due to the suppleness.
I could also make a counter argument about using tubeless (with low psi) in fast group rides. Low psi will feel like you're acclerating in mud out of corners, and fast group rides we do this a lot, repeatedly, and if you gradually lose positions at every corner, then it's only a matter of time you'll slip off the back. In this setting, I don't care about comfort or rolling resistance, I care about instant acceleration where I won't lose the wheel of the guy in front.
Not everyone is out there doing high-g corners, but than again not everyone is interested in riding in a straight line at constant speed all day either.
The debate of tubeless, regular clincher, latex, butyl,... to me is choosing difference horses for different courses. In the car world, I don't want to bring a soft and comfty truck tire to a road course with flip-flopping high-g corners.
However, when I'm talking "performance", i'm talking about many factors, like high-G cornering while trailbraking. This is where I'd use latex on the front, this gives me great road feedback into my arms and fingers that are squeezing the lever, and feedback translate to confidence at higher speed.
I personally don't use latex because of its slightly better rolling resistance compared to butyl, main reason being the higher cost of latex.
As for tubeless. I won't use the if the tire size is not at least 32c. Tubeless tires have sidewalls that are too hard (it's necessary for tubeless), and to compensate for the hard sidewall, people run at lower psi. This is fine going in a straightline. The problem is high-g corners. Lower pressure makes the tire tend to "fold" in high-g corners, this gives an ambiguos road feedbak to the fingers. A highend clincher like Veloflex or Vittoria with latex doesn't do this, you can run them at higher psi (to avoid the "folding" feeling) while still getting great road feedback due to the suppleness.
I could also make a counter argument about using tubeless (with low psi) in fast group rides. Low psi will feel like you're acclerating in mud out of corners, and fast group rides we do this a lot, repeatedly, and if you gradually lose positions at every corner, then it's only a matter of time you'll slip off the back. In this setting, I don't care about comfort or rolling resistance, I care about instant acceleration where I won't lose the wheel of the guy in front.
Not everyone is out there doing high-g corners, but than again not everyone is interested in riding in a straight line at constant speed all day either.
The debate of tubeless, regular clincher, latex, butyl,... to me is choosing difference horses for different courses. In the car world, I don't want to bring a soft and comfty truck tire to a road course with flip-flopping high-g corners.
#28
Senior Member
That post is absurd enough that I could see myself saying that I'd put you on Ignore under the right circumstances, but I clearly didn't get around to it and you're not ringing a bell otherwise - sorry.
Got any other cool, on-topic high-G exploits to tell us, Maverick? Or are you Iceman?
Got any other cool, on-topic high-G exploits to tell us, Maverick? Or are you Iceman?
you that bad girl friend who don't go away amigo
#29
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,102
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3427 Post(s)
Liked 3,563 Times
in
1,790 Posts
I've been using latex tubes with GP4000 tires for several years. Observations:
- they're a bit lighter than the "light" butyl tubes
- rolling resistance is supposed to be better, but I can't tell
- they require daily inflation
- they are a stinker to install on the roadside (got stuck on Mt. Hamilton once)
- I (almost) never get a puncture
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
"Highway to the Danger Zone" plays out of any nearby speakers whenever he accelerates out of a corner - who are we to question him? If he says tubeless are truck tires, they're truck tires.
Likes For WhyFi:
#31
Senior Member
yes I have. Used to try 25c, then 28c tubeless, ran them in all sort of conditions, regular training, mountain descents, crits, and seen other guys run and race with various tubeless setup. I'm in Socal, I see lots of amateur racers (cat1-5) and enthusiats a like running highend wheels with tubeless setup, all searching to the elusive "comfort" ride, "low rolling resistance", and high corner performance. I'm not new to tubeless, I race mtb, which i'm running tubeless on my race bike and still (yep) good ole innter tube on my training mtb bike with crappy wheels. Honestly I must have gone thru close to 15 highend wheelsets in various tire/tube/tubeless combo in the last 10 years (tubelss only last 3-4 years). I stand firm by my experience, and of course my experience may not be the same as others.
#32
Senior Member
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 2,880
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1461 Post(s)
Liked 1,481 Times
in
870 Posts
sort of like mock crit, guys sweeping corners using 2-3 lanes to manuver. Then depending on your size, you could be doing 600-700w out of corners to stay with the pack, the bigs at the front are probably pushing close to 900-1000w when they get out of the saddle. Getting out of the saddle kills your rolling resistance, but it's what you need to do if they pack is doing it. I've actually tried using 28c tubeless at 65/70 psi (I'm under 130 lbs), and that was the last time I run 28c at that psi ever. Tire gives way too much, feels heavy, like mud.
Likes For msu2001la:
#34
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,102
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3427 Post(s)
Liked 3,563 Times
in
1,790 Posts
#35
Senior Member
the tire carcass and rubber are made to behave differently, eg, when you're rolling with wheel perpendicular (when low RR is desired) or when leaned over (when grip, and thus resistance, is desired). When you're rocking out of the saddle, how is your wheel behaving? add this to the hysteresis of low psi, you get a lot of RR. RR laboratory tests are done in pretty ideal and static conditions to achieve lowest RR, ie, they use constant force, constant surface property, with wheel perpendicular to the drum. People don't ride in this static manner in real world.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
the tire carcass and rubber are made to behave differently, eg, when you're rolling with wheel perpendicular (when low RR is desired) or when leaned over (when grip, and thus resistance, is desired). When you're rocking out of the saddle, how is your wheel behaving? add this to the hysteresis of low psi, you get a lot of RR. RR laboratory tests are done in pretty ideal and static conditions to achieve lowest RR, ie, they use constant force, constant surface property, with wheel perpendicular to the drum. People don't ride in this static manner in real world.
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#37
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,102
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3427 Post(s)
Liked 3,563 Times
in
1,790 Posts
the tire carcass and rubber are made to behave differently, eg, when you're rolling with wheel perpendicular (when low RR is desired) or when leaned over (when grip, and thus resistance, is desired). When you're rocking out of the saddle, how is your wheel behaving? add this to the hysteresis of low psi, you get a lot of RR. RR laboratory tests are done in pretty ideal and static conditions to achieve lowest RR, ie, they use constant force, constant surface property, with wheel perpendicular to the drum. People don't ride in this static manner in real world.
I can't see how rolling resistance changes when the wheel's angle changes.. "Grip" is a function of the compound in the rubber, which doesn't change.
Rolling resistance is produced by the deflection-return of rubber. That deflection-return ought to be equivalent whether the wheel is upright or leaning.
RR laboratory tests are done with constant conditions because they are repeatable across multiple tests and tires, not because they are "ideal".
Rolling resistance is casued by rubber deformation losses in the
tread, the tube and the casing. The tube is firmly attached to the
casing by inflation pressure so it is like a tread inside the tire.
The whole tire flexes in three dimensional space, X, Y and Z. You can
verify this typically by laying a stadard business card between tire
and tube. It will shred to fine confetti when ridden. It is this
motion that causes hysteretic loss in the elastomer in the casing, the
tread and the tube. — Jobst Brandt 1998-03-19
tread, the tube and the casing. The tube is firmly attached to the
casing by inflation pressure so it is like a tread inside the tire.
The whole tire flexes in three dimensional space, X, Y and Z. You can
verify this typically by laying a stadard business card between tire
and tube. It will shred to fine confetti when ridden. It is this
motion that causes hysteretic loss in the elastomer in the casing, the
tread and the tube. — Jobst Brandt 1998-03-19
Likes For terrymorse:
#38
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,049
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22596 Post(s)
Liked 8,925 Times
in
4,158 Posts
#39
Senior Member
OK... but for a typical road cyclist who isn't at maximum lateral grip while blasting 900W into their crank in the middle of a 3 wide hairpin corner trying to hang onto the pack, would you still say clinchers with latex are "better overall" compared to the best tubeless?
I have already stated that I use lightweight tire and latex for the front, and regular light butyl tube with a heavier tire (Vittoria Rubino Pro) for the rear. I don't bother with tubeless becasue 1) roads here are great and I hardly get a flat, and 2) I'm not concerned about rolling resistance when I'm riding with a group, and if I'm riding by myself, then I'm also not concerned with RR either becuse I'm not racing anyone.
If you get a lot of flats from staples or small debris, then tubeless may be your answer, but you'd need to use a heavy tubeless tire to reap this flat protection benefit.
if you do a TT, then maybe a highend tubeless maybe beneficial.
For everything else, if you're riding on good roads, then I'd say go latex at least for the front and rear if you can afford it. For me personally, I have many wheelsets, and tubeless is a hassle if I were to have to keep up with their sealant maintenance. With regular clinchers, they're cheaper to get, and I don't need to be mindful of sealants.
well this is one of those questions that you only the individual riders can answer. My experience is just 1 data point.
Likes For aclinjury:
#40
Senior Member
Thanks, but I'm still not seeing it.
I can't see how rolling resistance changes when the wheel's angle changes.. "Grip" is a function of the compound in the rubber, which doesn't change.
Rolling resistance is produced by the deflection-return of rubber. That deflection-return ought to be equivalent whether the wheel is upright or leaning.
RR laboratory tests are done with constant conditions because they are repeatable across multiple tests and tires, not because they are "ideal".
I can't see how rolling resistance changes when the wheel's angle changes.. "Grip" is a function of the compound in the rubber, which doesn't change.
Rolling resistance is produced by the deflection-return of rubber. That deflection-return ought to be equivalent whether the wheel is upright or leaning.
RR laboratory tests are done with constant conditions because they are repeatable across multiple tests and tires, not because they are "ideal".
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/vittor...bike-2015.html
And no, RR is not just dependent on rubber compound alone, it's also dependent on tread pattern carcass.
#41
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,102
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3427 Post(s)
Liked 3,563 Times
in
1,790 Posts
say what?? tires are constructed with different rubber durometer, it's not the same rubber compound all around. Hell, Vittoria brags about their "3C" and "4C" rubber compounts within a tire.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/vittor...bike-2015.html
And no, RR is not just dependent on rubber compound alone, it's also dependent on tread pattern carcass.
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/vittor...bike-2015.html
And no, RR is not just dependent on rubber compound alone, it's also dependent on tread pattern carcass.
But even given those multiple rubber compound tires, I'm still not seeing how a slight change in the shape of the contact patch when the wheel is at an angle is going to alter the rolling resistance in any significant way.
I also don't see much tread pattern on a typical road racing tire, so I suspect this tiny tread pattern has little effect on rolling resistance.
Here's a typical road racing tire cross section.
road racing tire cross section
Notice:
- the rubber is thickest at the top of the tire, so the volume of rubber being deflected (and thus RR) is maximized when the wheel is upright
- the "grippy" green rubber is quite thin, so any difference in RR from this rubber deflection ought to be tiny
- the tread pattern is quite tiny
#42
Senior Member
OK, yes, there's different rubber used in different spots of some tires.
But even given those multiple rubber compound tires, I'm still not seeing how a slight change in the shape of the contact patch when the wheel is at an angle is going to alter the rolling resistance in any significant way.
I also don't see much tread pattern on a typical road racing tire, so I suspect this tiny tread pattern has little effect on rolling resistance.
Here's a typical road racing tire cross section.
road racing tire cross section
Notice:
But even given those multiple rubber compound tires, I'm still not seeing how a slight change in the shape of the contact patch when the wheel is at an angle is going to alter the rolling resistance in any significant way.
I also don't see much tread pattern on a typical road racing tire, so I suspect this tiny tread pattern has little effect on rolling resistance.
Here's a typical road racing tire cross section.
road racing tire cross section
Notice:
- the rubber is thickest at the top of the tire, so the volume of rubber being deflected (and thus RR) is maximized when the wheel is upright
- the "grippy" green rubber is quite thin, so any difference in RR from this rubber deflection ought to be tiny
- the tread pattern is quite tiny
I'm sorry, but in science a difference is a difference, and whether that difference is significant or not is judged within a wider system. So, do you think a RR difference of 1-3W between two tires, when the rider is pushing 270W, mean much? I could also take your perspective and argue that 1-3W difference in RR is also tiny (helmet straps optimization can save 5W) and thus any differences in tire construction don't mean anything. But that is not how an objective argument should work.
Let me ask you this. If tire construction optimization is not important, and only result in "tiny" differences, then why don't tire manufactures just make all tires to be the same all around, same carcase, same rubber, same thickness, same thread,.. all the way around. This would save them a lot more money then injecting "tiny" bits differences into their tire in order to try to save you that 1-3W.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
The picture litterally shows a difference between the middle of the tire versus the the sides. You yourself pointed out the differences, yet you then concluded that the difference are tiny and ought not to make a difference. I'm baffled at your logics.
I'm sorry, but in science a difference is a difference, and whether that difference is significant or not is judged within a wider system. So, do you think a RR difference of 1-3W between two tires, when the rider is pushing 270W, mean much? I could also take your perspective and argue that 1-3W difference in RR is also tiny (helmet straps optimization can save 5W) and thus any differences in tire construction don't mean anything. But that is not how an objective argument should work.
Let me ask you this. If tire construction optimization is not important, and only result in "tiny" differences, then why don't tire manufactures just make all tires to be the same all around, same carcase, same rubber, same thickness, same thread,.. all the way around. This would save them a lot more money then injecting "tiny" bits differences into their tire in order to try to save you that 1-3W.
I'm sorry, but in science a difference is a difference, and whether that difference is significant or not is judged within a wider system. So, do you think a RR difference of 1-3W between two tires, when the rider is pushing 270W, mean much? I could also take your perspective and argue that 1-3W difference in RR is also tiny (helmet straps optimization can save 5W) and thus any differences in tire construction don't mean anything. But that is not how an objective argument should work.
Let me ask you this. If tire construction optimization is not important, and only result in "tiny" differences, then why don't tire manufactures just make all tires to be the same all around, same carcase, same rubber, same thickness, same thread,.. all the way around. This would save them a lot more money then injecting "tiny" bits differences into their tire in order to try to save you that 1-3W.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
EDIT: I should have kept reading
Easy way to test this is to run very low pressure on deep carbon wheels. The WHOOSH WHOOSH will intensify when you're throwing the bike around or leaning. That WHOOSH is the sound of rolling resistance.
Last edited by smashndash; 04-30-21 at 10:28 PM.
#45
Senior Member
I am impressed that cyclists can feel such a difference in tubes. I have tried cheap, expensive, name brands, no name brands and as long as it hold air, I can't tell a difference. Bombing down mountain roads with fast descent switchbacks with an average speed of 30+ MPH, some as long as 35 miles in length, I can not tell the difference in a tube.
Well, audiophiles "hear" big differences between interconnects and speaker cables .. ;-)
Im betting in cycling there is as much confirmation bias as is the case in HIFI, even if the differences between bike tyres and tube are objectively there. I sure cant tell the difference between tubes either, but i do like light tubes, all the same- They are lighter on the scale and take up less room in the pocket :-)
I agree with some of the above posts, that running narrow road bike tyres at very low pressure does make them feel weird. In my mind it sort of negates the whole "you can run TL at low pressure cos no snake bites" argument. At the end of the day Im always running 70 PSI or more and only had one snake bite in decades of cycling.
Likes For Racing Dan:
#46
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Hate to pull you guys away from each others throats and all, but somewhat long post incoming.
Thanks for your input. It's good to get some reassurance. And I tend to pump before every ride anyway, so the air loss thing shouldn't be a problem
Thanks. I will.
I've been thinking about that a lot recently. I'm definitely going to try tubeless at some point in time. You need a compatible wheelset, though, don't you? Isn't the internal structure (the depth or the sides) of a tubeless-ready rim cut or shaped differently? If so, any wheelset you can recommend in the $1,000 range?
Yea', I don't know. Doesn't sound appealing, but like you said, some people love them. So I think if not for anything else than to feed my own curiosity, I'll just have to test them out for myself, to see not only if I notice a difference, but if that difference is actually worth the potential hassle.
Yep, that's me. A typical, non-racer, on flat, city roads. Though I'll admit that I do enjoy speed, I'm looking more for comfort than handling turns with laser precision and feel.
You mentioned "best tubeless", though. Do you have any recommendations or advice to share for someone considering going that route? Any "industry standard" wheelsets out there? Or is the topic super subjective? I'd be willing to spend around $1,000, if that helps.
Interesting. I'll definitely look into that. Thanks for the heads up.
Thank, Datlas. I definitely will.
Appreciate the explanation. Thank you.
Thanks!
Yea', it's strange to me how polarizing even this sub topic is. Some say its the easiest thing in the world, while others say it's not. I'll definitely be carrying a spare butyl tube with me as well.
Latex doesn't hold air as well as butyl. (Always pump your tyres up before you ride, everytime) and they are more expensive than butyl.
gp5000 are the best tires out there at this time for the money. Period. I run light weight butyl with gp5000 and or the earlier version gp4000sII (I prefer the 4000) The difference is notable even over heavy tubes.Recently I tried Micheline pro4 endurance tires. They were quite close to 5000 in performance but, I got multiple flat tyres. And I had change them out before I could see how long they would last.
gp5000 are the best tires out there at this time for the money. Period. I run light weight butyl with gp5000 and or the earlier version gp4000sII (I prefer the 4000) The difference is notable even over heavy tubes.Recently I tried Micheline pro4 endurance tires. They were quite close to 5000 in performance but, I got multiple flat tyres. And I had change them out before I could see how long they would last.
OK... but for a typical road cyclist who isn't at maximum lateral grip while blasting 900W into their crank in the middle of a 3 wide hairpin corner trying to hang onto the pack, would you still say clinchers with latex are "better overall" compared to the best tubeless?
You mentioned "best tubeless", though. Do you have any recommendations or advice to share for someone considering going that route? Any "industry standard" wheelsets out there? Or is the topic super subjective? I'd be willing to spend around $1,000, if that helps.
Thank, Datlas. I definitely will.
Thanks!
Yea', it's strange to me how polarizing even this sub topic is. Some say its the easiest thing in the world, while others say it's not. I'll definitely be carrying a spare butyl tube with me as well.
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
people tend to focus way too much on rolling resistance as the sole factor in cycling.
Taking a fast sweeper at 35-40+ mph in a descent, or trailbraking hard around a hairpin at 25 mph, you will quickly learn to appreciate front end control, and that tires that give a good rolling resistance (eg, gp 5000) will give far inferior feed back to a supple tire with latex tube. But sure, if you the money, then go all latex front and back. I have a lot of bikes cost of tubes is a factor for me. While latex tubes can be patched, they are more diffcult to patch due to the slick nature of the tube, and I've patched latex tubes go leaky on me after a while, forcing me to change to a new tubes, and latex tubes cost over 2x more then a light butyl.
Personally, if I'm riding in a group, even in a fast group ride averaging 27-28 mph, I almost never worry about rolling resistance as a factor holding me back. But the ability to take a corner at a higher speed than the guys around me is quite satisfying and energy saving. Rolling resistance will mean nothing if you get dropped coming out of corners.
Taking a fast sweeper at 35-40+ mph in a descent, or trailbraking hard around a hairpin at 25 mph, you will quickly learn to appreciate front end control, and that tires that give a good rolling resistance (eg, gp 5000) will give far inferior feed back to a supple tire with latex tube. But sure, if you the money, then go all latex front and back. I have a lot of bikes cost of tubes is a factor for me. While latex tubes can be patched, they are more diffcult to patch due to the slick nature of the tube, and I've patched latex tubes go leaky on me after a while, forcing me to change to a new tubes, and latex tubes cost over 2x more then a light butyl.
Personally, if I'm riding in a group, even in a fast group ride averaging 27-28 mph, I almost never worry about rolling resistance as a factor holding me back. But the ability to take a corner at a higher speed than the guys around me is quite satisfying and energy saving. Rolling resistance will mean nothing if you get dropped coming out of corners.
It's why there's so much focus on it, because it's a consistent constant unlike wind resistance.
Anyway, I've frequently raced on Conti 4ks and now 5ks with latex tubes (if not running tubulars). I have no issues at all cornering in crits at 30+ mph and routinely corner faster than most, so don't quite understand the handling issue.
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I used latex years ago but found them too fussy and too easy to ruin, and so went back to butyl. Years after that, I’ve been happy with road tubeless since ‘13, but now there is Aerothan tubes which claim to offer similar benefits of both latex and tubeless without the hassles of either. I’ve got a pair on hand waiting for my next tire swap, and I’ll see if they’ve got the goods to supplant tubeless.
I've got them paired with Vittoria Corsa Speeds on my "fast day wheels" for the ultimate in rolling resistance. They're reportedly about 1w slower than the latex, but "should" provide slightly better puncture protection for the Corsa Speeds which are much thinner than other tires but are about the faster tires you can buy (save for the Veloflex Records). Plus the bit of weight savings.
Likes For rubiksoval:
#49
Senior Member
So bro, are you gonna get some of that Rene Herse centerpull brakes to go with those Rene Herse magical tires?
https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...erpull-brakes/
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
Yes, I'd love to come work for Rene Herse so that I could help him perfect the center-pull brakes that he is still preaching on and on. I like how he demostrate how centerpull gives enough stopping power (which it does) by (falsely) demo'ing how he could perform a stoppie on a bike by standing out of the saddle and thus shifting his weight in favor of a stoppie. BMX trickers have been doing stoppies for years (if they wanted to) by shifting weight like this and not even needing any brakes.
So bro, are you gonna get some of that Rene Herse centerpull brakes to go with those Rene Herse magical tires?
https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...erpull-brakes/
So bro, are you gonna get some of that Rene Herse centerpull brakes to go with those Rene Herse magical tires?
https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...erpull-brakes/
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 05-01-21 at 01:46 PM.