Rivendell tire TPI?

[Jim Rogers]

All the talk about tires lately got me wondering about the threads per
inch in the casings of Rivendell tires.

Anyone know the TPI for the Roll-y Pol-y and/or Ruffy Tuffy?


Thanks,

Jim Rogers

[Paul Southworth]

In article >,
Jim Rogers > wrote:
>All the talk about tires lately got me wondering about the threads per
>inch in the casings of Rivendell tires.
>
>Anyone know the TPI for the Roll-y Pol-y and/or Ruffy Tuffy?

Why not ask Rivendell? They'll know.

[Bruni]

These wonderful tires should not be judged by "normal" tpi numbers as they
use a kevlar wrapped thread in the casing. It's just Apples and Mangos.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
Paul Southworth > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Rogers > wrote:
> >All the talk about tires lately got me wondering about the threads per
> >inch in the casings of Rivendell tires.
> >
> >Anyone know the TPI for the Roll-y Pol-y and/or Ruffy Tuffy?
>
> Why not ask Rivendell? They'll know.
>

[Jim Rogers]

> Why not ask Rivendell? They'll know.

They're a small operation and I hate to tie up their staff for a
question to which someone here might know the answer. (Sure enough,
when I called to ask, the guy was away from the phone for awhile
getting the answer.)

The answer-- 127 TPI for both.


Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their tires
is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really any (or
much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so, does it really
make that much difference in their performance?

--Jim

[[email protected]]

Jim Rogers writes:

> They're a small operation and I hate to tie up their staff for a
> question to which someone here might know the answer. (Sure enough,
> when I called to ask, the guy was away from the phone for awhile
> getting the answer.)

> The answer-- 127 TPI for both.

I doubt it after seeing the claims of other tire brands that bounce
all over the range and Continental's claims that are obviously not
threads per inch... but could be filaments in the threads, something
we haven't previously counted.

> Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their
> tires is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really
> any (or much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so,
> does it really make that much difference in their performance?

Please clarify. To what roundness does this refer? Tire
circumference or tire cross section and how do they claim they measure
this? A tire that is out of round goes lump-lump-lump ad you coast
down a smoothly paved road so that isn't a problem with any tires I
have ridden. Cross sectional roundness is a function of inflation.
An inflated tire has a round cross section unless it is a belted
radial tire as on cars.

Jobst Brandt

[Dan Daniel]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:33:06 GMT,
wrote:

>Jim Rogers writes:

>
>> Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their
>> tires is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really
>> any (or much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so,
>> does it really make that much difference in their performance?
>
>Please clarify. To what roundness does this refer? Tire
>circumference or tire cross section and how do they claim they measure
>this? A tire that is out of round goes lump-lump-lump ad you coast
>down a smoothly paved road so that isn't a problem with any tires I
>have ridden.

Not their claim.

>Cross sectional roundness is a function of inflation.
>An inflated tire has a round cross section unless it is a belted
>radial tire as on cars.
>
>Jobst Brandt


This is it...

http://rivendellbicycles.com/webalog/tires_tubes/10033.html

"3. It has a round cross section for good cornering. They are rounder
than any other tire, and as a result we haven't ridden a better
cornering tire. The extra degree of roundness comes from a three part
mold, instead of the usual two part mold, which most modern road tires
have...."

I had some WTB Slickasaurus tires- 26"x 1.5" - that had almost an
egg-shaped cross section. Round on the outer/tread side (although
maybe not 'rounder'? :) Cut about a third off of an egg from the
pointed end and what's left is the idea of the cross section.

Would tread design and application of the tread affect the cross
section of the tire? When you say all non-radial belted tires have a
round cross section, is this on the interior and can be changed on the
exterior through treading?

[Steve]

"Jim Rogers" > wrote in message
>
> Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their tires
> is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really any (or
> much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so, does it really
> make that much difference in their performance?

My original Ruffy's are "rounder" and a bit bigger then the spanking new
Ruffy's I just received, one of which I just put on the front of my Heron.
It's seemingly taller as well, probaly a result of not as round and slightly
smaller (diameter).

The new one's measure slightly over 27mm though.

Steve B.

[[email protected]]

Dan Daniel writes:

>>> Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their
>>> tires is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really
>>> any (or much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so,
>>> does it really make that much difference in their performance?

>> Please clarify. To what roundness does this refer? Tire
>> circumference or tire cross section and how do they claim they
>> measure this? A tire that is out of round goes lump-lump-lump ad
>> you coast down a smoothly paved road so that isn't a problem with
>> any tires I have ridden.

> Not their claim.

>> Cross sectional roundness is a function of inflation. An inflated
>> tire has a round cross section unless it is a belted radial tire as
>> on cars.

> This is it...

> http://rivendellbicycles.com/webalog/tires_tubes/10033.html

Wow what a bunch of double-talk. Of course a 700-28 is smaller than a
700-32 so what else is new. Besides:

:1. Sizewise, it's big (think "round and rolly") with larger air
: volume than most any tire near 700x28. It's smaller than the
: comfortable and fast 700x32 Avocet slick, and since the Avocet is
: too big for most modern short reach (compact) brake road frames,
: our Roll-y Pol-y couldn't be that big; and yet, with a name like
: Roll-y Pol-y, it is fatter and more round than any other tire
: close to its size. The designation on the sidewall is 700x28 due
: to some Japanese law we're told, but it measures a true 27mm wide
: on most road rims.

Either they are using the correct tire cross section size or they
aren't. Rolly poly or not it cannot have a larger air volume than any
other 28c tire unless the casing has zero thickness. Tread thickness
does not factor into the 28 of 28mm cross section, only the casing OD
when inflated and that is always round, as I explained above.

> "3. It has a round cross section for good cornering. They are
> rounder than any other tire, and as a result we haven't ridden a
> better cornering tire. The extra degree of roundness comes from a
> three part mold, instead of the usual two part mold, which most
> modern road tires have..."

Oh hogwash! The roundness comes from basic physics of an inflated
inelastic thin walled tube. That is what a bicycle tire casing is and
all of them have a round cross section. Tread rubber can be formed to
other shapes as we see in knobby tires but the tire IS round in cross
section. There is no way they are more or less round.

On top of that, the part smooth and part cosmetically micro-ribbed
tread does nothing for traction and as the ad copy states, it tries to
satisfy those who want slicks and those who want patterned tread.
Well that tells me they don't know the difference.

> I had some WTB Slickasaurus tires- 26"x 1.5" - that had almost an
> egg-shaped cross section. Round on the outer/tread side (although
> maybe not 'rounder'? :) Cut about a third off of an egg from the
> pointed end and what's left is the idea of the cross section.

Your shape was in the tread, not the tire casing and the thinner the
tread the less that part of the tire will deviate from perfectly
round.

> Would tread design and application of the tread affect the cross
> section of the tire? When you say all non-radial belted tires have
> a round cross section, is this on the interior and can be changed on
> the exterior through treading?

The casing will be round. Obviously you can stick a number of odd
shapes on top of that but the only way it will remain round is with NO
tread rubber.

Jobst Brandt

[Dan Daniel]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:16:18 GMT,
wrote:


>
>On top of that, the part smooth and part cosmetically micro-ribbed
>tread does nothing for traction and as the ad copy states, it tries to
>satisfy those who want slicks and those who want patterned tread.
>Well that tells me they don't know the difference.
>

I actually think that this is a joke on their part. I don't know if
they have a strong opinion on file tread versus smooth, but the
alternating pattern is a silly thing that I believe they would laugh
at as quickly as you.

Every now and then the Rivendell people actually put their money where
their humor is, not just where their next mortgage payment is going to
come from :) Of course, personally, of all the places on a bike to be
making jokes, my contact patch with the road is not a source of humor
or silly fashion statements. To each their own....

Thanks for your other comments.

[Gregory Sutter]

On 2004-05-12, > wrote:
> Dan Daniel writes:
>
>>>> Another question-- anyone know if the "extra roundness" of their
>>>> tires is the real deal or just a marketing angle? Are they really
>>>> any (or much) rounder in cross-section than other tires? If so,
>>>> does it really make that much difference in their performance?
>>>
>>> Cross sectional roundness is a function of inflation. An inflated
>>> tire has a round cross section unless it is a belted radial tire as
>>> on cars.
>>
>> "3. It has a round cross section for good cornering. They are
>> rounder than any other tire, and as a result we haven't ridden a
>> better cornering tire. The extra degree of roundness comes from a
>> three part mold, instead of the usual two part mold, which most
>> modern road tires have..."
>
> Oh hogwash! The roundness comes from basic physics of an inflated
> inelastic thin walled tube. That is what a bicycle tire casing is and
> all of them have a round cross section. Tread rubber can be formed to
> other shapes as we see in knobby tires but the tire IS round in cross
> section. There is no way they are more or less round.

The casing may be round on all tires, but the tread rubber seems to
be frequently formed to less round shapes. What the Rivendell text
above seems to be saying, and what I have experienced by riding on
these tires, is that the Rolly Poly / Ruffy Tuffy tires have very
round profiled tread--a continuously smooth curve all the way around
the edge of the tire.

In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever ridden.
Without additional effort on my part, I find myself leaning over more
than I have on any other rubber. The tread is basically slick, with
only a hint of a pattern on it. They're easy rolling, easy mounting
and so far have shown good protection vs. sharp road hazards.

Jobst, no matter the description, in reality the Rivendell tires seem
to be very much in line with what I've read about your opinions on
proper bicycle tires. If you ever decide to try them, I think that
you will like them very much.

Regards,

Greg
--
Gregory S. Sutter "How do I read this file?"
"You uudecode it."
http://zer0.org/~gsutter/ "I I I decode it?"

[Tim McNamara]

writes:

> On top of that, the part smooth and part cosmetically micro-ribbed
> tread does nothing for traction and as the ad copy states, it tries
> to satisfy those who want slicks and those who want patterned tread.
> Well that tells me they don't know the difference.

I think Grant's tongue was firmly in cheek, there. At least that's
how I've always read it.

As for the cross section diameter, I think Grant was referring to the
nominal vs actual issue where "700 x 28" tires actually measure 25 mm
in cross section; the Rolly Polys being 27 mm actual are wider than
many tires marked "700 x 28."

I've had clinchers that were less than round on the bike, being taller
than they were wide. What the actual casing shape on the inside was,
I don't know but presume was round in cross section. Physics pretty
much demands this. But on the outside, probably thanks to thicker
rubber at the center of the tread, the cross section profile wasn't
round. Avocet FasGrips were round in cross section profile IME, but
lots of other tires weren't.

[Richard Ney]

Tim McNamara writes:

> I've had clinchers that were less than round on the bike, being taller
> than they were wide. What the actual casing shape on the inside was,
> I don't know but presume was round in cross section. Physics pretty
> much demands this. But on the outside, probably thanks to thicker
> rubber at the center of the tread, the cross section profile wasn't
> round. Avocet FasGrips were round in cross section profile IME, but
> lots of other tires weren't.

The Avocet 700x23 (actually 24.5mm at 115 psi if anyone cares about
that) FasGrips I ride appear to be perfectly "round" in cross section.
They last about 1,500 miles on the rear. And the wire-bead model costs
about $25, a relative bargain in a bicycle tire. What else could one
want from a bicycle tire?

[[email protected]]

Gregory Sutter writes:

>>>> Cross sectional roundness is a function of inflation. An
>>>> inflated tire has a round cross section unless it is a belted
>>>> radial tire as on cars.

>>> "3. It has a round cross section for good cornering. They are
>>> rounder than any other tire, and as a result we haven't ridden a
>>> better cornering tire. The extra degree of roundness comes from a
>>> three part mold, instead of the usual two part mold, which most
>>> modern road tires have..."

>> Oh hogwash! The roundness comes from basic physics of an inflated
>> inelastic thin walled tube. That is what a bicycle tire casing is
>> and all of them have a round cross section. Tread rubber can be
>> formed to other shapes as we see in knobby tires but the tire IS
>> round in cross section. There is no way they are more or less
>> round.

> The casing may be round on all tires, but the tread rubber seems to
> be frequently formed to less round shapes. What the Rivendell text
> above seems to be saying, and what I have experienced by riding on
> these tires, is that the Rolly Poly / Ruffy Tuffy tires have very
> round profiled tread--a continuously smooth curve all the way around
> the edge of the tire.

Isn't that what I just said. Besides how much rounder can it get than
a circular arc that, for instance, Avocet and Michelin use?

> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever ridden.
> Without additional effort on my part, I find myself leaning over more
> than I have on any other rubber. The tread is basically slick, with
> only a hint of a pattern on it.

So how is that better than other tires you have used? Did those tires
cause you to crash? Did they slip in corners and how did you recover
from these events? Your story is like so many other testimonials that
make such claims but no basis for comparison with other tires.

> They're easy rolling, easy mounting and so far have shown good
> protection vs. sharp road hazards.

How sharp? Do they prevent puncture vine flats or glass cuts from
freshly broken bottles? You say these things without flinching when
you show no evidence why others should take your testimonial as valid.
It's not that you are lying but that you don't show why you believe
what you say.

> Jobst, no matter the description, in reality the Rivendell tires seem
> to be very much in line with what I've read about your opinions on
> proper bicycle tires. If you ever decide to try them, I think that
> you will like them very much.

I like a lot of tires but my interest lies in how well they wear, how
well the hold on wet pavement and whether the sidewalls fray. I got
off Michelins because their rubber cracked and didn't wear well. I'm
not willing to become a life tester for the latest tire when I have
ones that last more than twice as long as the ones I previously used.
Avocets do that reliably.

Jobst Brandt

[Gregory Sutter]

On 2004-05-13, > wrote:
> Gregory Sutter writes:
>
>> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever ridden.
>> Without additional effort on my part, I find myself leaning over more
>> than I have on any other rubber. The tread is basically slick, with
>> only a hint of a pattern on it.
>
> So how is that better than other tires you have used? Did those tires
> cause you to crash? Did they slip in corners and how did you recover
> from these events? Your story is like so many other testimonials that
> make such claims but no basis for comparison with other tires.

OK, here are some comparisons. I used Michelin Axials before these.
They were good tires but did not inspire confidence in the corners.
It's not that they slipped, but that I didn't lean over as far as I
do with the current tires. Likewise with Michelin CX Sprint, and
several others long gone. I have a certain comfort or perceived
safety level when riding, and won't do things which cause too much
perceived danger. On these tires I just lean over farther without
feeling unsafe than I have on any other tire. That's difficult for
me to quantify.

I also rode on Vittoria Couriers for a short while. I do not
recommend those easy-flatting, slippery tires to anyone. Once on a
moderate downhill I was braking hard, in a straight line, to a stop
on rough pavement, when the tires slipped and I did some two-wheel
sliding, an experience which I do not wish to repeat. I have never
had the front wheel slide while going straight on other rubber
before or since. (I trashed the Couriers ASAP after that last-straw
experience.)

>> They're easy rolling, easy mounting and so far have shown good
>> protection vs. sharp road hazards.
>
> How sharp? Do they prevent puncture vine flats or glass cuts from
> freshly broken bottles? You say these things without flinching when
> you show no evidence why others should take your testimonial as valid.
> It's not that you are lying but that you don't show why you believe
> what you say.

Obviously I haven't tested a dozen tires in identical conditions over
a broken glass course. However, I do ride in San Francisco, have
rolled over broken glass a bunch of times, and on these tires, have
not flatted yet. But since such attestations are usually worthwhile
only in aggregate with others', and due to the lack of scientific
rigor in my meandering around the city and not flatting, adding
further detail seemed unnecessary. If it matters, I once rolled over
what seemed like an entire bottle's worth, with both tires, while
traveling north in the Valencia St. bike lane (at 17th) at about
20mph and didn't flat.

I hope this explanation has added credence to my statements about
my experiences with these tires.

Greg
--
Gregory S. Sutter "How do I read this file?"
"You uudecode it."
http://zer0.org/~gsutter/ "I I I decode it?"

[[email protected]]

Gregory Sutter writes:

>>> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever
>>> ridden. Without additional effort on my part, I find myself
>>> leaning over more than I have on any other rubber. The tread is
>>> basically slick, with only a hint of a pattern on it.

>> So how is that better than other tires you have used? Did those
>> tires cause you to crash? Did they slip in corners and how did you
>> recover from these events? Your story is like so many other
>> testimonials that make such claims but no basis for comparison with
>> other tires.

> OK, here are some comparisons. I used Michelin Axials before these.
> They were good tires but did not inspire confidence in the corners.
> It's not that they slipped, but that I didn't lean over as far as I
> do with the current tires. Likewise with Michelin CX Sprint, and
> several others long gone. I have a certain comfort or perceived
> safety level when riding, and won't do things which cause too much
> perceived danger. On these tires I just lean over farther without
> feeling unsafe than I have on any other tire. That's difficult for
> me to quantify.

Why don't you try riding the Michelin tires the way you do tires that
you suppose, corner more confidently? From what you say, you are
attributing your own expectations, possibly from promotional material,
to the way you ride. I can say for sure that in the years I have
ridden from tubulars to Specialized Touring II, to Michelin and
Vittoria clinchers I have not felt a tire slip other than crashing in
the rain on oil in the center of the lane.

The only tires that slipped were red tread Clement TT tires that had
no carbon to reduce RR. I and others slipped on them on wet roads.
The word got around to not ride red tread tubulars in the rain. I was
fortunate to recover after a slip with these and became a believer.

> I also rode on Vittoria Couriers for a short while. I do not
> recommend those easy-flatting, slippery tires to anyone. Once on a
> moderate downhill I was braking hard, in a straight line, to a stop
> on rough pavement, when the tires slipped and I did some two-wheel
> sliding, an experience which I do not wish to repeat. I have never
> had the front wheel slide while going straight on other rubber
> before or since. (I trashed the Couriers ASAP after that last-straw
> experience.)

So why are you riding colored tires after all that has been said here
on the subject? Comparing these tires to others should be limited to
dry pavement, if at all.

>>> They're easy rolling, easy mounting and so far have shown good
>>> protection vs. sharp road hazards.

>> How sharp? Do they prevent puncture vine flats or glass cuts from
>> freshly broken bottles? You say these things without flinching when
>> you show no evidence why others should take your testimonial as valid.
>> It's not that you are lying but that you don't show why you believe
>> what you say.

> Obviously I haven't tested a dozen tires in identical conditions over
> a broken glass course. However, I do ride in San Francisco, have
> rolled over broken glass a bunch of times, and on these tires, have
> not flatted yet. But since such attestations are usually worthwhile
> only in aggregate with others', and due to the lack of scientific
> rigor in my meandering around the city and not flatting, adding
> further detail seemed unnecessary. If it matters, I once rolled over
> what seemed like an entire bottle's worth, with both tires, while
> traveling north in the Valencia St. bike lane (at 17th) at about
> 20mph and didn't flat.

> I hope this explanation has added credence to my statements about
> my experiences with these tires.

It doesn't. I think if you take a razor blade and see what difference
in ability to cut tread rubber on various tires, you'll see they all
cut about the same and effortlessly when wet. Cornering traction for
most tires on the market lies within +-5 degrees, something measurable
only on calibrated machinery or by riding on a calibrated test surface.

Jobst Brandt

[Gregory Sutter]

On 2004-05-13, > wrote:
> Gregory Sutter writes:
>
>>>> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever
>>>> ridden. Without additional effort on my part, I find myself
>>>> leaning over more than I have on any other rubber. The tread is
>>>> basically slick, with only a hint of a pattern on it.
>
>> OK, here are some comparisons. I used Michelin Axials before these.
>> They were good tires but did not inspire confidence in the corners.
>> It's not that they slipped, but that I didn't lean over as far as I
>> do with the current tires. Likewise with Michelin CX Sprint, and
>> several others long gone. I have a certain comfort or perceived
>> safety level when riding, and won't do things which cause too much
>> perceived danger. On these tires I just lean over farther without
>> feeling unsafe than I have on any other tire. That's difficult for
>> me to quantify.
>
> Why don't you try riding the Michelin tires the way you do tires that
> you suppose, corner more confidently? From what you say, you are
> attributing your own expectations, possibly from promotional material,
> to the way you ride. I can say for sure that in the years I have
> ridden from tubulars to Specialized Touring II, to Michelin and
> Vittoria clinchers I have not felt a tire slip other than crashing in
> the rain on oil in the center of the lane.

It's not expectations or promotional material that influence the way
I ride, but the way the bicycle feels beneath me. I tried to explain
that above. They just feel better. I turn sharper and lean over
more as a result of feedback from the machine I'm riding.

>> I also rode on Vittoria Couriers for a short while. I do not
>> recommend those easy-flatting, slippery tires to anyone. Once on a
>
> So why are you riding colored tires after all that has been said here
> on the subject? Comparing these tires to others should be limited to
> dry pavement, if at all.

I was poor, I needed tires, and they were cheap. Note that I am no
longer riding colored tires.

> It doesn't. I think if you take a razor blade and see what difference
> in ability to cut tread rubber on various tires, you'll see they all
> cut about the same and effortlessly when wet. Cornering traction for
> most tires on the market lies within +-5 degrees, something measurable
> only on calibrated machinery or by riding on a calibrated test surface.

I imagine it's not the tread rubber that makes the difference in
puncture resistance, but the kevlar belt beneath it. Since Rivendell
tires are made by Panaracer, the rubber itself will be no more or less
cut-resistant than any other Panaracer tire.

Seeing cornering traction test results for these tires would be
interesting, since I don't know if they really have better traction
or if they just inspire me to push the boundaries of my cornering
ability.

At this point I think I'll just say "I like them" and leave it at
that. G'day.

Greg
--
Gregory S. Sutter "How do I read this file?"
"You uudecode it."
http://zer0.org/~gsutter/ "I I I decode it?"

[bfd]

"Gregory Sutter" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-05-13,
> wrote:
> > Gregory Sutter writes:
> >
> >>>> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever
> >>>> ridden. Without additional effort on my part, I find myself
> >>>> leaning over more than I have on any other rubber. The tread is
> >>>> basically slick, with only a hint of a pattern on it.
> >
> >> OK, here are some comparisons. I used Michelin Axials before these.
> >> They were good tires but did not inspire confidence in the corners.
> >> It's not that they slipped, but that I didn't lean over as far as I
> >> do with the current tires. Likewise with Michelin CX Sprint, and
> >> several others long gone. I have a certain comfort or perceived
> >> safety level when riding, and won't do things which cause too much
> >> perceived danger. On these tires I just lean over farther without
> >> feeling unsafe than I have on any other tire. That's difficult for
> >> me to quantify.
> >
> > Why don't you try riding the Michelin tires the way you do tires that
> > you suppose, corner more confidently? From what you say, you are
> > attributing your own expectations, possibly from promotional material,
> > to the way you ride. I can say for sure that in the years I have
> > ridden from tubulars to Specialized Touring II, to Michelin and
> > Vittoria clinchers I have not felt a tire slip other than crashing in
> > the rain on oil in the center of the lane.
>
> It's not expectations or promotional material that influence the way
> I ride, but the way the bicycle feels beneath me. I tried to explain
> that above. They just feel better. I turn sharper and lean over
> more as a result of feedback from the machine I'm riding.
>
> >> I also rode on Vittoria Couriers for a short while. I do not
> >> recommend those easy-flatting, slippery tires to anyone. Once on a
> >
> > So why are you riding colored tires after all that has been said here
> > on the subject? Comparing these tires to others should be limited to
> > dry pavement, if at all.
>
> I was poor, I needed tires, and they were cheap. Note that I am no
> longer riding colored tires.
>
> > It doesn't. I think if you take a razor blade and see what difference
> > in ability to cut tread rubber on various tires, you'll see they all
> > cut about the same and effortlessly when wet. Cornering traction for
> > most tires on the market lies within +-5 degrees, something measurable
> > only on calibrated machinery or by riding on a calibrated test surface.
>
> I imagine it's not the tread rubber that makes the difference in
> puncture resistance, but the kevlar belt beneath it. Since Rivendell
> tires are made by Panaracer, the rubber itself will be no more or less
> cut-resistant than any other Panaracer tire.
>
> Seeing cornering traction test results for these tires would be
> interesting, since I don't know if they really have better traction
> or if they just inspire me to push the boundaries of my cornering
> ability.
>
The Roly-Poly 700x27 tires are listed as a *true* 27mm wide tires. How wide
were the Michelins and other tires you tested? Could it be that these
"other" tires were narrower, thus causing you to have less confidence in
their corning abilities?

I ask this because I use to run Michelin Supercomp HD 700x23 tires. These
tires actually measured 23mm wide. However, I find the current Avocet
Fasgrip 700x25 (all black "carbon 12" SL version) and the older Avocet
Fasgrip 700x28 (black/tan sidewalls, Road 30 version) handle "better" than
the narrower Michelin. I attribute the "better" handling of the Avocets, due
to the fact that the Avocets measured wider than the Michelin, measuring
between 24-26mm wide.

Both tires had very "round" profiles, so I doubt the roundness issue of the
Roly-Poly is truly a factor.

[[email protected]]

Gregory Sutter writes:

>>>> In actual riding, they are the best cornering tire I've ever
>>>> ridden. Without additional effort on my part, I find myself
>>>> leaning over more than I have on any other rubber. The tread is
>>>> basically slick, with only a hint of a pattern on it.

>>> OK, here are some comparisons. I used Michelin Axials before
>>> these. They were good tires but did not inspire confidence in the
>>> corners. It's not that they slipped, but that I didn't lean over
>>> as far as I do with the current tires. Likewise with Michelin CX
>>> Sprint, and several others long gone. I have a certain comfort or
>>> perceived safety level when riding, and won't do things which
>>> cause too much perceived danger. On these tires I just lean over
>>> farther without feeling unsafe than I have on any other tire.
>>> That's difficult for me to quantify.

>> Why don't you try riding the Michelin tires the way you do tires
>> that you suppose, corner more confidently? From what you say, you
>> are attributing your own expectations, possibly from promotional
>> material, to the way you ride. I can say for sure that in the
>> years I have ridden from tubulars to Specialized Touring II, to
>> Michelin and Vittoria clinchers I have not felt a tire slip other
>> than crashing in the rain on oil in the center of the lane.

> It's not expectations or promotional material that influence the way
> I ride, but the way the bicycle feels beneath me. I tried to
> explain that above. They just feel better. I turn sharper and lean
> over more as a result of feedback from the machine I'm riding.

What is it you feel that makes the difference? If the tire is not
side slipping as a knobby tire does on pavement then what is it? As I
said, I have ridden many different tires with generally smooth tread
and found no difference in feel... up to the limit of sliding out in a
curve. I cannot imagine what you feel.

The other day I had a slow leak in the front tire and noticed the tire
wandering sideways on even gently leaning turns, much like a knobby but
that was correctable by changing tubes and re-inflating the tire.

>>> I also rode on Vittoria Couriers for a short while. I do not
>>> recommend those easy-flatting, slippery tires to anyone. Once on
>>> a

>> So why are you riding colored tires after all that has been said
>> here on the subject? Comparing these tires to others should be
>> limited to dry pavement, if at all.

> I was poor, I needed tires, and they were cheap. Note that I am no
> longer riding colored tires.

>> It doesn't. I think if you take a razor blade and see what
>> difference in ability to cut tread rubber on various tires, you'll
>> see they all cut about the same and effortlessly when wet.
>> Cornering traction for most tires on the market lies within +-5
>> degrees, something measurable only on calibrated machinery or by
>> riding on a calibrated test surface.

> I imagine it's not the tread rubber that makes the difference in
> puncture resistance, but the Kevlar belt beneath it. Since
> Rivendell tires are made by Panaracer, the rubber itself will be no
> more or less cut-resistant than any other Panaracer tire.

Wait a minute! We are discussing handling, not flat resistance.
Let's not get adrift here.

> Seeing cornering traction test results for these tires would be
> interesting, since I don't know if they really have better traction
> or if they just inspire me to push the boundaries of my cornering
> ability.

That's what I suspect and I think you should consider that before
unequivocally endorsing them as handling better.

> At this point I think I'll just say "I like them" and leave it at
> that.

I can't argue with that. Good.

Ride bike!

Jobst Brandt

[Matt O'Toole]

wrote:

> What is it you feel that makes the difference? If the tire is not
> side slipping as a knobby tire does on pavement then what is it? As I
> said, I have ridden many different tires with generally smooth tread
> and found no difference in feel... up to the limit of sliding out in a
> curve. I cannot imagine what you feel.

Tires do feel different in the way they turn-in. Some have a more gradual feel
from dead straight to full lean, while others seem to have a more tip-catch kind
of feel. I'm sure this is due to differing tread cross sections. Some treads
are much thicker in the middle, while others are more even in thickness all the
way around. But either way, one gets used to it after several dozen miles.
There were a couple of tires I could never quite get used to -- the old
Specialized ones with the silly raised rib down the middle, and another
(Michelin?) that had a pointy, egg-shaped profile. However, most tires are so
similar it's not worth talking about.

Matt O.

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole writes:

>> What is it you feel that makes the difference? If the tire is not
>> side slipping as a knobby tire does on pavement then what is it?
>> As I said, I have ridden many different tires with generally smooth
>> tread and found no difference in feel... up to the limit of sliding
>> out in a curve. I cannot imagine what you feel.

> Tires do feel different in the way they turn-in. Some have a more
> gradual feel from dead straight to full lean, while others seem to
> have a more tip-catch kind of feel. I'm sure this is due to
> differing tread cross sections. Some treads are much thicker in the
> middle, while others are more even in thickness all the way around.
> But either way, one gets used to it after several dozen miles.
> There were a couple of tires I could never quite get used to -- the
> old Specialized ones with the silly raised rib down the middle, and
> another (Michelin?) that had a pointy, egg-shaped profile. However,
> most tires are so similar it's not worth talking about.

I think that was more perception than palpable difference. I rode
those tires for years and found them to be as good as tubulars that I
had previously ridden, the raised center ridge, Specialized Touring II
being the best tire available at the time. I always felt better about
them after wearing off the raised center rib but I did not feel a
difference. It was believed at the time that RR came from scrubbing
between tread and road and that the raised center ridge reduced that.
In fact it made RR worse because there was more tread squirm as the
ridge bulged laterally.

These tires, by the way, used a tread rubber that had poor wear
durability so that I had to rotate tires on trips in the alps to get
2000-2500 miles on them. Advances offered by IRC as Avocet tires
introduced me to tires lasting more than 3000 miles on the rear wheel.

Anecdote:

The introduction of these tires was a last minute effort and IRC said
they couldn't make the tires in time for the upcoming InterBike show
due to tread pattern tooling time. I proposed a circular arc smooth
tread (which I had pushed for all along) and the tires were ready in
plenty of time to be tested and for display at the show.

Jobst Brandt

[Richard Ney]

writes:

> Advances offered by IRC as Avocet tires
> introduced me to tires lasting more than 3000 miles on the rear wheel.

I get half that mileage.

Our riding styles surely can't be different enough to account for that
discrepancy. Has Avocet changed the tread design to your knwledge?

[[email protected]]

Richard Ney writes:

>> Advances offered by IRC as Avocet tires introduced me to tires
>> lasting more than 3000 miles on the rear wheel.

> I get half that mileage.

I ride the 700-25 (Road) model. You must be riding the Criterium or
worse, the TT that has even less thread thickness.

> Our riding styles surely can't be different enough to account for that
> discrepancy. Has Avocet changed the tread design to your knowledge?

I don't know. I and my friends who ride these tires get about 3000.

Jobst Brandt

[Tim McNamara]

writes:

> Richard Ney writes:
>
>>> Advances offered by IRC as Avocet tires introduced me to tires
>>> lasting more than 3000 miles on the rear wheel.
>
>> I get half that mileage.
>
> I ride the 700-25 (Road) model. You must be riding the Criterium or
> worse, the TT that has even less thread thickness.
>
>> Our riding styles surely can't be different enough to account for
>> that discrepancy. Has Avocet changed the tread design to your
>> knowledge?
>
> I don't know. I and my friends who ride these tires get about 3000.

That's about par for me as well, when I rode the 700 x 32 versions
(now marked 700 x 28, I think).

[Richard Ney]

writes:

>>> Advances offered by IRC as Avocet tires introduced me to tires
>>> lasting more than 3000 miles on the rear wheel.
>
>> I get half that mileage.
>
> I ride the 700-25 (Road) model. You must be riding the Criterium or
> worse, the TT that has even less thread thickness.

That's right. I'm on the 700-23 "Criterium".. Excellent tire, 1500
mile lifespan notwithstanding.