Like what we do and want to support to create more content like this? Buy us a coffee here: buymeacoffee.com/thattrisledguy 349mm tire test video here: • 349mm Race Tire Mega Test
in reallife scenario there is also airdrag that causes extra watts. all those plushy tyres like scorchers and 44 blues are fastest up to 25 miles per hour. if you ge beyond that then you feel the pullback by air but most people wont go that fast unless in a downhill. when it comes to price, safety, longivity, grip, speed, mounting the best are: continental contact urban. i had similar result just as win shermer did with his bandentest. would love to see tubeless, or different kinds of tubes test, latex, tpu etc.
Great job! I did similar tests. I can give you one piece of advice. To see the difference more clearly, you can take the test for a strictly defined time, say 3 minutes. And measure not instantaneous readings of power consumption, but the final indicator of energy consumption in watt-hours. So the result will be averaged, and the difference in readings will be more obvious.
GoCycle ( Vredestein F-Lite) is right there with the Scorcher. Folding. Nice round no problem. Rolls fast. Good grip. Light. Very comfortable, so smooth. Puncture protection. Wear resistant.€35. I love them. Try get a set! I'm surprised by the Continental Contact Urban. Very affordable €21 for the 42mm version 355 grams!
@Trisled do you have a link to (I think it was Ben's channel) video demo of why not to drill into HPV racing roll cages to attach anything. I can't seem to find it, this video reminded me of it again, great videos.
The michelin radial is tough to get running round on some rims, easy on others. Use plenty of mounting fluid and inflate to 8 bar until it seats itself into the rim properly. then reduce pressure to what you want to run (nominal pressure is 7 bar, but many teams run less than that).
Pro One TT unfortunately is tough to get mounted on most rims. Use mounting fluid and inflate to 10 bar or more. Then reduce pressure to what you want to run after the tire seats itself.
In the not too distant future would it be possible to test tires performace with the Tannus Inserts? I did my resistance testing with 3 types of schwalbes 20" and came away with the feeling it was all bad with the feeling of pedaling in mud with the Rotovelo and similar to riding with the brakes on in downhill testing. I have had my share of multiple fat tires on a variety of rides and the battle between flat protection and speed is a constant issue. Yes this basic information was confirmation without riding surface temperature input yet helpful.
that seat suspension is not a rong path i think ,buildings are set on ballbearings, why not use 2 seat shell with this idea as a light tilt suspension option
Wow! I've been wasting calories pushing myself around on Schwalbe Marathons for years. The good thing about it is, I live in Albuquerque the land of goatheads and I don't get flats.
Thanks for making the video, that must have been a lot of work. You managed to get a good selection of the best rolling tires for the test. Unfortunately the results are not very useful as many of the measurements are in stark contrast to the results of other tests :( Tire testing is hard.
Which other tests? The results are in line with previous 406 tyre testing that I have seen from both this rig and from others testing 406 tyres. Do not confuse 406 comparison results with 622 results - shrinking the size can have adverse effects on the peroformance where as some tyres, like the Scorcher, were designed at 406mm and do well in such tests. I have personally taken the results from this rig, ridden the tyres in real world conditions and verified that the rankings produced from the rig are consistent with actual riding. If you disagree, go produce & present better data.
@@Robtrike It's true that some 406 tires differ from the 622 versions, but we can still use the 622 results from bicyclerollingresistance as a rough guideline. But some of these results also disagree with Wim Schermer's 406 tests and my own. I have tested Michelin Blue 44-406, Greenspeed Scorcher 42-406, Schwalbe Pro One TT 28-406 and Michelin Radial 45/75R16 on a pendulum similar to Wim's testing setup.
@@w0ttheh3ll In the first case your 'bicyclerollingresistance' site didn't exist when we started this work 25 years ago. In the second, we quickly found out that 622 (or 700c) tyre comparisons DID NOT read across.
@@Robtrike Our results are not published, but I can give you the numbers. We use a pendulum somewhat similar to Wim Schermer's, but with a different method of analysing the data. I believe he reports the time in motion and calculates c_r based on that, I'm not sure what physical basis his method uses. We measure the distance covered while in motion and calculate c_r based on the initial energy of the pendulum, since Work equals Force integrated by Distance (F=E/s) and we are looking for the force of friction to calculate the coefficient of rolling resistance (c_r = F_r/F_N). We also measure time in motion. The measurements were not calibrated so I don't have c_r, only relative values that are c_r*k with an unknown constant k (k is roughly equal for all measured tires). The measurements were done on a smooth surface (unlike an actual road). All tires were fitted with the same type of pure latex inner tube from Ginkgo Veloteile. c_r*k; time in motion; tire 1.00; 186 s; Michelin Radial 45/75R16 @ 7 bar 1.59; 95 s; Schwalbe Pro One TT 28-406 @ 8 bar 1.78; 90 s; Michelin Blue Flange 44-406 @ 5 bar 1.88; 79 s; Greenspeed Scorcher 40-406 @ 7 bar Tire pressure was chosen as the max recommended pressure. The Michelin 44-406 has max PSI equivalent to 3.5 bar printed on the tire but 5 bar was recommended by the online shop. This results in the Michelin Blue Flange and the Schwalbe TT being a bit underinflated (lower wall tension) compared to the Greenspeed Scorcher. Higher pressure leads to better performance (at least on a smooth surface). The radial tire's pressure cannot be compared to the others since the tire construction is totally different.
the contact speed result seems wrong, it should be about the same as the contact urban. edit: looking at all the numbers from the entire video, it seems more likely that the result for the urban is wrong.
Contact Speed is widely reported as slower than the Urban... Results ordering seem consistant with my experience of Speed/Urban/Pro/ProOne/Scorcher120 - well done Ben!
@@Robtrike the contact speed is supposed to be a bit slower than the urban yes, but the difference measured here is huge. the contact urban result reported here beats the road bike tires (One, Pro One) by a huge margin. It's on par with the stripped down, no puncture protection, extremely thin tread competition tire (Pro One TT). the urban is a city bike tire with full puncture protection. it's a very good (and affordable) tire, but it's not that good.
@@w0ttheh3ll it is called science. The test gives a relative value, not a calibrated number. We've seen similar results before. The falacy that road tyres are the only fast option and commuter tyres are slow is just that - a falacy.
@@Robtrike you've seen similar results where? bicyclerollingresistance measured 18 W for the contact urban, 21 W for the contact speed, 15 W for the Schwalbe One, 13 W for the Pro One and 8 W for the Pro One TT. granted, all of those were 622, not 406. you're telling me that the 406 Contact Urban is as fast as the 406 Pro One TT because of "science"? I've handled and mounted both of those tires in size 406. I've spent several hours personally testing rolling resistance of the 28-406 Pro One TT. They are not comparable.
