Newbie trying to understand rolling resistance tests, requesting assistance

77 replies · 1,980 views

wheelmonkey
8 posts
#1Feb 10, 2023, 5:06 PM
I am new to the forum and new to gravel tire benchmarking, having happily ridden Terrene heavy casing tires for years for fear of flats in the wild.
recently some of my racing friends told me to look up rolling resistance, and I am having a lot of trouble! Hoping for some help.
I want to state up front that I have done a ton (3+ hours) of reading on this site before posting, and I don't think the specific articles I'm citing have been discussed before. If I've gotten this wrong, I apologize here up front.

I was looking at the Schwalbe G-One R (GOR), and I looked up rolling resistance testing.

I found this article at velonews where they did independent testing at a lab called Wheel Energy, and they found that the GOR was one of the fastest tires in the world, easily trouncing any other 40mm tire:
https://www.velonews.com/gear/gravel-gear/24-gravel-tires-lab-tested-for-speed/#

Then I found this blog by an indepdendent tester (BRR) that shows that the GOR is one of the slowest tires ever made:
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/cx-gravel-reviews?orderby=rating
(beaten by a riddler!!)

I can't overstate this difference. It is absolute. Velonews says the GOR is 25% faster than a Byway, BRR says they are basically the same. The Specialized Pathfinder Pro topped the testing at Velonews and is decidedly below-average on the BRR testings. Weirdly the Pathfinder seems to win a lot of important gravel races, which is consistent with testing fastest (Velonews), but not consistent with testing like a bad commuter tire (BRR).

What is going on here?

Clearly, which lab you believe matters, as Schwalbe is either making one of the world's fastest or slowest tires, depending on who is testing correctly.

This is clearly answered by Velonews, who spill a bunch of ink almost directly naming BRR and explaining how BRR is testing incorrectly:
https://www.velonews.com/gear/road-gear/causes-of-rolling-resistance-and-our-protocols-when-testing-it/

Of course, velonews are getting their information from a competing laboratory whose business is possibly threatened by BRR and therefore might not be an objective source.

As a consumer I've never been more confused, and less ready to dump $200 into tires that are either the best or the worst ever made.

I think the answer is important, as this tire (GOR) gets a lot of review ink for being one of the fastest race tires ever constructed. This means that if BRR is right, I can throw away entire review properties (off.road.cc, etc) as being hopelessly incorrect about almost everything. If BRR is right then a bunch of pro gravel racers are also winning races on a terrible tire (Spec Pathfinder).

For a third independent data source, roadbike.de:
https://www.roadbike.de/rennrad-parts/11-gravel-reifen-im-test/
BRR finds the G-One Bite much faster than the Challenge Gravel Grinder
Roadbike.de finds the Challenge Gravel Grinder faster than the G-One Bite

Roadbike: CGG: 8-622/37.1mm (8/10) | GOB 40-622/40mm (6/10)
BRR CGG 33mm 28.8 watts | GOB 40mm 24.8 watts

Finally, Silca's independent testing regarding PSI and break points seems to amplify Velonews on testing:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170216080607/https://silca.cc/blogs/journal/part-4b-rolling-resistance-and-impedance

Does anyone have ideas for getting to ground truth on this? I'm real close to buying two pairs of competing tires (1 pair tires that get high marks at BRR and low marks at Velonews, and vice versa) and doing my own power meter testing. I'm not sure what else to do.

Please help! (constructive or data-backed responses preferred)
2
stu
646 posts
#2Feb 10, 2023, 6:26 PM▲ Top
Thanks for posting, especially the VeloNews article. Disclaimer: Lennard Zinn, Jarno Bierman, and Jan Heine know far more about bikes and tires than I ever will so value my opinions accordingly.

What I see in drum testing is it resembles riding on a hard, fairly smooth surface (like pavement). If you're riding on a hard, fairly rough surface (like 2-inch gravel) I think you'd see greater variation with tire size and pressure. Some tires do relatively better at low pressures while others do relatively better at high pressures. If you're riding on anything soft (like sand or mud) I'm not sure drum testing is applicable.

Schwalbe has a multitude of models. Some with similar names show very different test results.

A deep tread pattern will probably affect drum test results but might not affect real-world performance in conditions where you need the tread.

If you need to ride on pavement you'll probably find the vast majority of gravel tires have inadequate puncture resistance. They might do well against sharp rocks but not against glass, screws, and nails you'll encounter on city streets. The Strada Bianca Pro is an outlier here but IMHO it's really a big road tire.

OTOH touring tires might withstand everything up to shark bites but they tend to be too stiff for comfort and to have high rolling resistance at low pressures.

After trying 15 pairs of tires in the last 5 years or so I've been happiest with these:
34 mm Vittoroa Corsa N.EXT for pavement, kinda small for gravel
40 mm Strada Bianca Pro for all-around use
45 mm Cinturato Gravel H for rough stuff, not enough puncture resistance for pavement
5
SWGraveler
247 posts
#3Feb 10, 2023, 6:56 PM
It is a funny how each site presents their data as factual and I guess within the parameters and limitations they have, they probably are. Given the huge variability of the RR of a given tire for different riders/terrain/preferred tire pressure/whatever else you can think of, I'm just not sure how much actionable info is really presented by these tests. In my case, the gravel roads I typically ride can vary dramatically based upon the amount of maintenance they receive so unless I were to ride tires back to back on the same day(and hope the winds don't change), I don't know how I can really assess the performance of a given tire. I would assume that at a minimum, I would have less power on the second ride. If I were to do a short ride, I just don't think it would really tell me anything. When you start to ponder the factors that are rider-centric such as fatigue/nutrition/attitude on a given day, the data blur grows even more..

All that said, I would say talk to your local friends and ask what tires they have had success or troubles with. Everyone has a different take on durability etc and for most, a faster tire that flats is not worth the trade-off except for maybe a race if you are competitive. Folks who have been gravel riding for a bit in your conditions will probably have more relevant info than a drum in Europe, no disrespect to BRR intended..
2
wheelmonkey
8 posts
#4Feb 10, 2023, 7:17 PM
@stu @stu thanks for the thoughtful response and you make good points. Funny enough I ride Terrene because my friends ride them!
@stuYou are absolutely right that it's very easy to get tires mixed up, especially with Schwalbe. That is actually why I picked the G-One R - it is the one gravel tire they only make two versions of! Because it is a race tire, there are no compound or color choices at all, just two sizes that can easily be told apart. I even watched the BRR video and inspected the velonews article to make sure. They both tested the exact same tire. BRR found it to be one of the slowest tires ever tested. Velonews found it to be amongst the fastest ever tested.
Here is the complete model list for the G-One R at Schwalbe's site:
https://www.schwalbetires.com/Schwalbe-G-One-R-11654240
It's 700x40 and 700x45. That's it. Both sites tested the 700x40. I wish there was room for nuance here, but someone has to be... very, very wrong.
0
thumper88
198 posts
#5Feb 11, 2023, 5:08 AMedited
Apologize for length but...
The responses have been intelligent and get at a lot of the key points. I think it’s probably not good to focus on the results for one particular tire across the tests, in part because the design of gravel tires varies hugely and the different protocols might make one tire design look a fair amount better in one test vs another.
Just generally use all the available tests to think through which five or six tires generally do well in all of them and you won’t go fair wrong. And don’t focus too much on rankings as there may not be a significant amount of difference between, say, 4th fastest and 8th in a given test lab.

A few personal and gross generalizations: I thing BRR is generally is pretty close on rankings and def good enough to be useful with grains of salt. The comparative rankings usually match up ok with other testing like blather about bikes.

I find lab puncture testing in ALL labs highly suspect for gravel. And here we get to a key reason the Pathfinder Pro wins a lot of races. Its not just that specialized sponsors some of the fast riders. It’s that 1) they are RELATIVELY fast. Not the fastest, but maybe 3-4 watts off it and 2) They don’t flat as often as many many other tires. I had 6 riders I was working with on them at the last unbound, there was one puncture in the group. One, out of 12 tires. Have run them there myself three years with zero punctures. Dylan Johnson gets similar results.
Meanwhile...Taylor Phinney did the race one year on Vittorias and had by some counts nine punctures. I saw him at roadside at least 4 times myself and people said there were more.
Generally G-Ones there have been regarded as prone to a lot of punctures but perhaps that’s cured or was just imaginary. The winner last year was on g-0ne RS. But ... maybe he was just lucky. Sample size of one.
None of that scientific but I don’t think understanding puncture resistance for gravel ever will be, as the rocks and other flat hazards vary so much.
But for Unbound specifically...My best guess about why lab puncture tests are meaningless is they use pointy objects that go-between any tread and right to the carcass. Meanwhile the sharp rocks are more like a blade in many cases and tread design like that on the Pathfinder or say the classic Panaracer NON-SLICK Gravel Kings force the blade to spread its attack on the tire over a lot of tread and it would have to cut through a quarter inch of tread on a lot of surface area to get to the actual tire. Yes the pathfinder has a smooth center line but it's a thick, raised strip of rubber.
So, Pathfinder is pretty fast, fast enough... but doesn’t flat much there.
Rolling resistance tests in several labs do show consistently though that it does better at higher pressures. More evidence of the quirks of different tires.

Another personal bias: There are tires that I don’t think of as being flat resistant enough to actually meet my definition of a tire. Meaning, it’s gone so far toward the flimsy/supple end of the scale its just going to flat too much to be functional for me. If you look at the very very fastest of the road and gravel tires you’re going to find some of these.

And yet another: I only find a handful of tires useful. Mainly if the course has serious flat hazards the tire is the Pathfinder Pro 42. If its smooth hardback, the Terra Speed. Though in about an hour I’m going to go take a second pre-season hard run on the Schwalbe RS in 45, which I’m considering for the first three races on tame gravel and probably SBT late in the season. I ran the Terra Speed on those last year and was happy with it, but at exactly 40mm on my wheels its a pretty small tire and there’s no practical reason to stay that small on gravel unless the course is seriously smooth hardback and a fair amount of pavement, The Pirelli Gravel H is also a pretty terrace tire but slightly more flat prone on gnarly courses than the Pathfinder in my experience and Dylan Johnson’s. There is a lot of chatter here about the Tufos... I haven’t tried them out but it sounds like a lot of people are happy with them.
And there’s the key: I use what has worked for me and change brands and models only very very carefully. And others here have tires that they’re comfortable with and work for them. And these personal biases, well-founded or not, help us deal with the huge number and variation in tires. We’ve generally used the information from testing to get us in the ballpark but we know there is no scientifically perfect tire, as every course is different, every rider is different and at some point you just have to make your best guess and get on the bike and go ride.

Second to lastly: Schwalbe makes a hell of a fine tire in terms of quality control etc. and Im pretty happy with the speed of the RS right now. And it does sometimes seem like BRR has some sort of bias against them. They could certainly though do themselves a favor by coming up with less confusing names for their minor changes in compounds and model etc...and some of the G-Ones are quite fast (2.0 Speed for sure and the RS) but others are just relatively quick.

And lastly....To give some sense of how much a given protocol can distort results -- thereby driving you batty if you put too much thought into trying to figure out why a given tire didn’t do well in a given test -- I give you the GCN test of a gravel tire vs a road tire.
They tested the tires that are as close to a known quantity as you can get, the Terra Speed in 40mm and GP5000 in 28mm. Both in every test known to man have been down at the fast end of the rankings. Great tires, can’t go wrong with either.
But ... they tested them on rollers. Yes, the kind you ride on. At 45 kph. I’ll shorten this for speed but at the pressures you would use them --at 90 psi the 5000s took 299w to pedal and the tester couldn’t even complete the 5 min test on the Terra Speeds at 40 psi as it was taking.... brace yourself.... 516w.
Now, those speeds are unusual for gravel and that’s part of the issue. But the tiny rollers bending the tire quite a bit in two places was the bulk of it.
In short, Ive ridden 5000s for tens of thousands of miles and raced Terra Speeds for close to a thousand and there may be 20w difference between them for a pair of tires but no way in hell is there 217 watts difference. I mean, it’s insane. You couldn’t finish a a loop around the neighborhood let alone 200 mile race if your tires were costing you an extra 217w.
https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/video/gravel-vs-road-tyres-how-much-slower-are-gravel-tyres
Dino Sore
27 posts
#6Feb 11, 2023, 7:17 AM
@thumper88 Good response. Regarding the Specialized Pathfinder Pro, I notice that they are no longer listed on their web site and several on-line retailers show them as out-of-stock. Do you know if they are still available or have been replaced with another model?
0
barrows
29 posts
#7Feb 11, 2023, 9:50 AM
There are a lot factors here. Note that a supple casing, is LESS likely to flat all other parameters being equal. The reason for this is that a supple casing will deform more around a sharp object (pointy rock) and therefore spread the load over a greater surface area than a tire which does not deform as much. This factor is also why lower tire pressure (within reason, one must have enough pressure to keep from taking really hard rim shots) will also result in less flatting. As far as rolling resistance goes, the Velo News test actually used a rough surface rather than a smooth drum, and so their results are likely more applicable to actually riding on a rough surface, but keep in mind these tests are relying on RR on a round drum, with a much different contact patch than what happens when riding on a flat surface-take all drum test results with a handful of grains of sand.
For a fast gravel tire, I love the Schwalbe G One RS (and R is good as well, but RS is faster). I am about 164 lbs, and run the 40 mm RS around 33-35 psi. I was on this tire most of last season, it was fast, and I did not have a single flat tire. This tire won Unbound with no flats, and I think I recall that it also did well at Unbound XL for 350 miles. The RS has a lot of grip for a mostly smooth tread tire, the side knobs really do make a difference over a full slick, the 40 mm version is actually 40 mm (unlike the R, which is a little narrower) on 25 inner width rims, maybe even a little wider. As to the flat potential, any tire can get a flat, and rider skill at picking lines, choosing appropriate pressures, are as much a factor as anything else. So far, for me, the RS is my favorite and I would recommend it to anyone. They also make a 45 mm version, which is likely even better for slightly rougher courses, especially courses with limited climbing (the bigger tire is a little heavier). Oh yeah, and if you like BRR testing, the RS does really well (unlike the R) in that...
0
stu
646 posts
#8Feb 11, 2023, 12:49 PM
thumper88 wrote:Another personal bias: There are tires that I don’t think of as being flat resistant enough to actually meet my definition of a tire. Meaning, it’s gone so far toward the flimsy/supple end of the scale its just going to flat too much to be functional for me. If you look at the very very fastest of the road and gravel tires you’re going to find some of these.
True. I've had tires which basically aren't rideable outdoors because they flat on anything but clean dirt.

Second to lastly: Schwalbe makes a hell of a fine tire in terms of quality control etc. and Im pretty happy with the speed of the RS right now. And it does sometimes seem like BRR has some sort of bias against them...
BRR does rate many of the Schwalbe touring tires highly but I'm guessing that's a relatively small and less competitive market.
0
thumper88
198 posts
#9Feb 11, 2023, 9:56 PM
Dino wrote:@thumper88 Good response. Regarding the Specialized Pathfinder Pro, I notice that they are no longer listed on their web site and several on-line retailers show them as out-of-stock. Do you know if they are still available or have been replaced with another model?

Have seen zero official on this. They’d be dumb to replace it with anything substantially different and its hard to think it would be a good business decision to do away with their most popular gravel tire by far.
The S-Works ones are expensive and just aren’t as good, except in weight department.
As to availability, they were on sale just three weeks ago or so, which seemed puzzling. You may still find a few strays at shops that will ship the to you.
There are a few 38s on eBay, but that seems to be about it.
If they have a slightly updated replacement you’d think they would pop it out any minute given the season is getting close.
1
ccand51997
265 posts
#10Feb 11, 2023, 11:52 PM
I would be willing to bet that the fast tire from velonews was the G-One RS and the slow tire on the BRR site was the G One R. They are not the same tire and measure about 8 watts different. The latter is far from the slowest tire out there (you probably need to pick something from Maxxis for that).
In my opinion, I trust BRR far more than any of the others. He's been doing it for a long time, like almost ten years and he is very particular about the way he tests.
People might argue whether his tests are relevent, but it is hard to argue his testing procedure and consistency. Plus, his tests show consistent results with another guy I trust who doesn't test as much name Tom Arnalt.
The problem with Schwalbe is that they have WAY TOO MANY tire models. The second probelm is that most of their gravel tires use ADDix Speedgrip which is supposed to grip better and wear longer than the Addix Speed, but is much slower. And in the beginning, they had some consistency issues with the actual speed of Addix Speed compound. They appear to have figured it out because they now make one of the fastest MTB tires and the fastest Gravel tires with Addix speed.
If you want a fast tire, make sure it is the G-One RS, not the G One R. Right now that seems to be the fastest tire that actually has some tread (the faster tire being the Challege Strada Bianca something or other, which is a near-slick, big road/light gravel tire.

If you have space for bigger tires, the Schwalbed Thunder Burt and Conti Raceking Protection are actually even better than the G One RS, but they require 2.1 and 2.2 clearance. They are my preferred gravel tire, but then my 'gravel' is not graded, has a lot of sand and is mostly in the western desert.
2
thumper88
198 posts
#11Feb 12, 2023, 9:31 AMedited
barrows wrote:There are a lot factors here. Note that a supple casing, is LESS likely to flat all other parameters being equal. The reason for this is that a supple casing will deform more around a sharp object (pointy rock) and therefore spread the load over a greater surface area than a tire which does not deform as much. This factor is also why lower tire pressure (within reason, one must have enough pressure to keep from taking really hard rim shots) will also result in less flatting. As far as rolling resistance goes, the Velo News test actually used a rough surface rather than a smooth drum, and so their results are likely more applicable to actually riding on a rough surface, but keep in mind these tests are relying on RR on a round drum, with a much different contact patch than what happens when riding on a flat surface-take all drum test results with a handful of grains of sand.
For a fast gravel tire, I love the Schwalbe G One RS (and R is good as well, but RS is faster). I am about 164 lbs, and run the 40 mm RS around 33-35 psi. I was on this tire most of last season, it was fast, and I did not have a single flat tire. This tire won Unbound with no flats, and I think I recall that it also did well at Unbound XL for 350 miles. The RS has a lot of grip for a mostly smooth tread tire, the side knobs really do make a difference over a full slick, the 40 mm version is actually 40 mm (unlike the R, which is a little narrower) on 25 inner width rims, maybe even a little wider. As to the flat potential, any tire can get a flat, and rider skill at picking lines, choosing appropriate pressures, are as much a factor as anything else. So far, for me, the RS is my favorite and I would recommend it to anyone. They also make a 45 mm version, which is likely even better for slightly rougher courses, especially courses with limited climbing (the bigger tire is a little heavier). Oh yeah, and if you like BRR testing, the RS does really well (unlike the R) in that...

I would agree with all of this except the assertion at the top about a highly supple tire being less likely to flat.
Kind of, but not exactly. Basically the effect you’re probably thinking about is the finger in the Pillsbury Dough Boy’s tummy.
wide, high-volume tire at relatively low pressure.
the vast bulk of the flat resistance in this case is from the tire being big with low volume.
to wit: take an uninflated supple tire and deflect the casing I dunno ..an inch with your index finger. Then do the same with a relatively thick tire.
That’s the amount of difference in resistance to conforming to a rock. It’s not enough to make a difference in likelihood of a puncture.
the give is pretty much a function of pressure and volume.
The suppleness that’s giving us 8 watts or whatever of rolling resistance is not for this purpose a big difference.
big fluffy shape though is…

When resisting a knife cut, there’s no substitute for thicker, tougher material.
For two 45mm tires with same volume at same pressure, say 28 psi, but one with thin Herse-type casing and other with thicker Pathfinder-type case, the thicker case is going to conform around a rock very close to same amount and resist cutting much much better.

on another note related to suppleness…I can’t figure out what to make of Keegan Swenson running 33mm at very high pressures at SBT. Tire may or may not have been supple at normal pressure but nothing is when you inflate it up hard.
I think he got results despite the tires rather than because of them but here we are. It’s mainly hardpack with very few large tire wrecking rocks and he clearly dodged them… but this seems to be opposite of fast and opposite of what protects from puncture.
he also was running liners which also don’t make much sense for gravel…but maybe covered his butt on the crazy setup fir snakebites, which on a normal setup wouldn’t be an issue.
there’s also talk of some other pros running higher pressure than common wisdom dictates because they want the sidewalls more vertical so it’s harder for rocks to get at them.
this seems completely misguided for proper rolling resistance but the lack of a way to properly test gravel puncture vulnerability well has opened the door to this kind of wild idea.
barrows
29 posts
#12Feb 12, 2023, 10:17 AM
thumper88: note I did say "all other things being equal", so I did consider casing durability. Now this comes down to the skills of the tire developers: getting the balance right between casing durability and tire suppleness. For example, the Rene Herse "extralight" casing is very, very supple, but in the experience of any riders I know of, it is too light and flimsy, and will cut at the nearest hint of a sharp rock. By no means did I intend to suggest the one should go with the most supple casing available for riding on gravel with sharp rocks. But I do suggest using the Schwalbe G One RS, which is quite a supple tire, and IME has very good durability. So, to sum up, say we consider the RS, it will better resist cuts, and punctures from shape objects at a lower pressure, as the lower pressure spreads the load of the shape object (rock) over a greater area rather than point loading it. Of course one does not want to go so low that pinching or rim damage are possible, and if a route has significant pavement sections, a little more air pressure may give an advantage there, so one has to consider all these things on balance.
As to Keegan at SBT, yeah, his choices were curious to me. I think, perhaps, he expected to be off the front a lot, and at the speed those guys are going at SBT, aero factors are a big part of the equation (not so much for use mere mortals!). He did ride a relatively deep section wheel as well, so the narrow tires were necessary if he was going for aero gains, despite the rough ride he must have endured. He also has Maxxis as a sponsor, and while their MTB tires are pretty good, their gravel choices do not appeal to me. Of course with the narrow tires, he had to run higher pressures to avoid pinching and perhaps damaging a rim. Those guys are really fast-Keegan's group passed me (I was riding the blue course) towards the end of the race, and Keegan was leading the bunch, chasing down the front two, they were really moving, and I could see how aero benefits at those speeds might outweigh other considerations, SBT GRVL is mostly a pretty fast course.
1
John Z
174 posts
#13Feb 12, 2023, 12:16 PM
ccand51997 wrote:I would be willing to bet that the fast tire from velonews was the G-One RS and the slow tire on the BRR site was the G One R. They are not the same tire and measure about 8 watts different. The latter is far from the slowest tire out there (you probably need to pick something from Maxxis for that).
In my opinion, I trust BRR far more than any of the others. He's been doing it for a long time, like almost ten years and he is very particular about the way he tests.
People might argue whether his tests are relevent, but it is hard to argue his testing procedure and consistency. Plus, his tests show consistent results with another guy I trust who doesn't test as much name Tom Arnalt.
The problem with Schwalbe is that they have WAY TOO MANY tire models. The second probelm is that most of their gravel tires use ADDix Speedgrip which is supposed to grip better and wear longer than the Addix Speed, but is much slower. And in the beginning, they had some consistency issues with the actual speed of Addix Speed compound. They appear to have figured it out because they now make one of the fastest MTB tires and the fastest Gravel tires with Addix speed.
If you want a fast tire, make sure it is the G-One RS, not the G One R. Right now that seems to be the fastest tire that actually has some tread (the faster tire being the Challege Strada Bianca something or other, which is a near-slick, big road/light gravel tire.

If you have space for bigger tires, the Schwalbed Thunder Burt and Conti Raceking Protection are actually even better than the G One RS, but they require 2.1 and 2.2 clearance. They are my preferred gravel tire, but then my 'gravel' is not graded, has a lot of sand and is mostly in the western desert.

My very thoughts. I could not tell for certain if the G-One RS in question are in fact the same tire, due to Schwalbe's naming convention and number of tire models. Also, the tubes used in a test (or lack thereof) are a factor. Another consideration, one that also opens endless debate, is whether or not the relatively small knobbies on gravel tires with such actually provide any benefit. Tom Arnalt's testing that revealed "Breakpoint Pressure" should also be considered.

Side note: I have Continental Raceking Protection tires on my mountain bike and they are fast! In fact, I have some interesting, although limited data indicating that on gravel, my mountain bike is faster than my gravel bike.
0
Volsung
878 posts
#14Feb 12, 2023, 12:46 PMedited
Just for clarification, the Challenge Strada Bianca isn't exactly a road tire and has extra puncture protection. They have a regular Strada without that protection. I submitted a vote at BRR to test the difference but the smallfolk want to test Vittoria Nexts in every 2mm increment.

Edit- regardless of your favorite rolling resistance test, they're all better than a 15 second Jan Heine roll down test.
0
thumper88
198 posts
#15Feb 12, 2023, 1:24 PMedited
Volsung wrote:Just for clarification, the Challenge Strada Bianca isn't exactly a road tire and has extra puncture protection. They have a regular Strada without that protection. I submitted a vote at BRR to test the difference but the smallfolk want to test Vittoria Nexts in every 2mm increment.

Edit- regardless of your favorite rolling resistance test, they're all better than a 15 second Jan Heine roll down test.

I've tried and tried with roll down tests and found them not particularly useful except to figure out, Ok, the Thunder Burts are still ballpark fast at 24psi etc, but 16 psi is way low. Have friends that swear by challenge, but I need bigger than 40 for most events and they aren’t. Vittorias don’t seem to have any reason to recommend them at all... and yeah Keegan was prob looking for some aero benefit there but he had to have been giving up whatever that was worth in that long soft section and in the bouncier parts of the hardpack. They passed me going the other way on the out and back part of the Black course and I swear were doing 30 mph on a flat section... It was pretty shocking...
Ran 45mm RS’s yesterday for a hard training ride... they are super fast in smooth conditions. May risk them at Unbound in effort to eke out another few minutes, but gut says stick with Pathfinders.
0
John Z
174 posts
#16Feb 12, 2023, 2:01 PM
Volsung wrote:Just for clarification, the Challenge Strada Bianca isn't exactly a road tire and has extra puncture protection. They have a regular Strada without that protection. I submitted a vote at BRR to test the difference but the smallfolk want to test Vittoria Nexts in every 2mm increment.

Edit- regardless of your favorite rolling resistance test, they're all better than a 15 second Jan Heine roll down test.

Coast-down tests present many problems because the weight, aerodynamic, and environmental conditions must be identical. Then, the problem or extrapolation -- if all conditions are the same, tires with lower rolling resistance will allow for a faster coasting speed, but part of that will be lost due to aerodynamic drag, hence "faster" tires won't test as good as they should.
0
wheelmonkey
8 posts
#17Feb 12, 2023, 8:00 PM
This is a great thread and I want to thank everyone for their experience and inputs. I spent some time today trying to work through some of the explanations that have been offered in this thread for the testing differences and wanted to share what I found.
To review:
The Specialized Pathfinder Pro (SPP) and the Schwalbe G-One R (SGOR) have both won major gravel races and tested at the top of the VeloNews rolling resistance testing conducted at Wheel Energy: https://wheelenergy.com/test-procedures/rolling-resistance-testing/
The SPP and SGOR tested near the bottom of the rankings at BRR, making them amongst the worst tires ever tested there.
Possible explanations:
Q1: Schwalbe makes a whole bunch of different tires and it's confusing, maybe it's different tires?
Q1b: maybe the tire was actually the RS?
A: In this case, Schwalbe only makes two models of the SGOR: 40mm and 45mm. VeloNews published a picture of their tire under test and I blew it up: It is the SGOR 40mm. It is NOT the the RS. It is NOT an alternate compound. Additionally, BRR published their video of testing the SGOR and I verified it is the exact same tire, to include 40mm width and compound. Resources:
https://www.velonews.com/gear/gravel-gear/24-gravel-tires-lab-tested-for-speed/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSPXrCAIbI
Q2: Maybe the difference in these tires is very large in the rankings, but very small in measured watts?
A: The difference in published watts is massive. The SGOR is only a few watts away from the slowest tire ever test at BRR, and nearly 16 watts away from the fastest tested. Note that the SPP and SGOR test at the very top of the VeloNews ratings, contested only by the Strada Bianca Pro. They test at the bottom of BRR, beaten by many of the tires they beat at VeloNews. The gaps aren't driven by ranking bias, they are huge gaps that indicate two completely different testing methodologies with different results.
One place the discussion hasn't gone is towards the specific claims made in the VeloNews article about testing methodologies. The argument made there is that Wheel Energy results are more accurate due to:
- Large diameter drum
- Drum with cobblestone-simulating surface
- Shock-loaded levered frame instead of vertical dead weight
Would be nice to hear some mechanical-engineering driven discussion of why these differences don't matter.
The argument I've seen in other threads the most is that these slow tires (SGOR, SPP) win races because pros win on whatever they're sponsored to ride, and that's why terrible tires keep winning. One of my big questions here is: where are the sharpies? In Downhill racing, pros sponsored by companies with non-competitive tires famously use markers to cover up the logo and race on Maxxis. They've done this for years. Why aren't gravel racers sponsored by Specialized and Schwalbe using Sharpies to mask their tires?
Still curious and thanks everyone!
thumper88
198 posts
#18Feb 12, 2023, 8:30 PMedited
wheelmonkey wrote:
This is a great thread and I want to thank everyone for their experience and inputs. I spent some time today trying to work through some of the explanations that have been offered in this thread for the testing differences and wanted to share what I found.
To review:
The Specialized Pathfinder Pro (SPP) and the Schwalbe G-One R (SGOR) have both won major gravel races and tested at the top of the VeloNews rolling resistance testing conducted at Wheel Energy: https://wheelenergy.com/test-procedures/rolling-resistance-testing/
The SPP and SGOR tested near the bottom of the rankings at BRR, making them amongst the worst tires ever tested there.
Possible explanations:
Q1: Schwalbe makes a whole bunch of different tires and it's confusing, maybe it's different tires?
Q1b: maybe the tire was actually the RS?
A: In this case, Schwalbe only makes two models of the SGOR: 40mm and 45mm. VeloNews published a picture of their tire under test and I blew it up: It is the SGOR 40mm. It is NOT the the RS. It is NOT an alternate compound. Additionally, BRR published their video of testing the SGOR and I verified it is the exact same tire, to include 40mm width and compound. Resources:

<a href="https://www.velonews.com/gear/gravel-gear/24-gravel-tires-lab-tested-for-speed/" target="_blank"> https://www.velonews.com/gear/gravel-gear/24-gravel-tires-lab-tested-for-speed/</a>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSPXrCAIbI?

Q2: Maybe the difference in these tires is very large in the rankings, but very small in measured watts?
A: The difference in published watts is massive. The SGOR is only a few watts away from the slowest tire ever test at BRR, and nearly 16 watts away from the fastest tested. Note that the SPP and SGOR test at the very top of the VeloNews ratings, contested only by the Strada Bianca Pro. They test at the bottom of BRR, beaten by many of the tires they beat at VeloNews. The gaps aren't driven by ranking bias, they are huge gaps that indicate two completely different testing methodologies with different results.
One place the discussion hasn't gone is towards the specific claims made in the VeloNews article about testing methodologies. The argument made there is that Wheel Energy results are more accurate due to:
- Large diameter drum
- Drum with cobblestone-simulating surface
- Shock-loaded levered frame instead of vertical dead weight
Would be nice to hear some mechanical-engineering driven discussion of why these differences don't matter.
The argument I've seen in other threads the most is that these slow tires (SGOR, SPP) win races because pros win on whatever they're sponsored to ride, and that's why terrible tires keep winning. One of my big questions here is: where are the sharpies? In Downhill racing, pros sponsored by companies with non-competitive tires famously use markers to cover up the logo and race on Maxxis. They've done this for years. Why aren't gravel racers sponsored by Specialized and Schwalbe using Sharpies to mask their tires?
Still curious and thanks everyone!

im not reading the BRR test chart like you are, for starters.
the first thing I do is totally disregard the handful of strange outliers at the top of the list, like Conti 32 road tires. And I’m sorry, I don’t count the Herse 44. It’s just not a viable tire. People here will disagree but it’s just not a tire I can imagine using.
by my standards the first real gravel tire on the list is the schwalbe RS. So the pathfinder pro is then closer to the top of the list than the bottom in terms of median watts, if not ranking…. There are quite a few clustered in the 20-24 range and the ranking can give the impression the pathfinder doesn’t hold up well the competition, which as median watts show, isn’t exactly true.
Given that, at this point I think the various anomalies are just not big enough to worry about.
Most tires that gave been tested in three or four places seem to group roughly where they should be in all or most. It’s just that there will be an anomaly or two in each protocol. I think we!ve touched on some of the reasons already. Another is manufacturing tolerances…
I don’t see any reason to get excited about the schwalbe R. The world is full of other tires that consistently test well. Just pick one of those.
very few gravel pros are going to run sponsor tires they think are crap and I don’t think a large number have cut deals dictating tire brand…just a few. And too much is at stake to ride tires you know are slow or you’ll have flats with.
wheelmonkey
8 posts
#19Feb 12, 2023, 9:07 PM
@thumper88 respectfully I am not convinced. I don't think that only outlier tires beat the Pathfinder Pro at BRR. For instance, the Pathfinder Pro is beaten by 40mm Gravelking SS TLC and 40mm Gravelking TLC in BRR's testing. I think Gravelkings are real tires, not outliers. At velonews, the pathfinder pro beat every gravel king tire on test, including gravelkings at the same tire width.
I think I'm going to have to end up doing my own testing. Only one lab can be right, and I'm really curious who it is.
0
stu
646 posts
#20Feb 12, 2023, 10:25 PM
wheelmonkey wrote:...
I think I'm going to have to end up doing my own testing. Only one lab can be right, and I'm really curious who it is.
Paraphrasing my mother, in a discussion about religion: At most one can be right, probably none.
3

Related threads

Why Don't Specialized Pathfinder Pros get more love on the forum? Are the BRR Rankings legit?Gravel Tires · 53 replies · Aug 9, 2021
Rolling resistance of wide tiresGravel Tires · 90 replies · Dec 20, 2023
Gravel bike as only 'road' bike, and yet-another "what bike"Bikes · 30 replies · Jun 21, 2017
Myths In CyclingGravel Tires · 82 replies · Mar 20, 2021
Compass Bon Jon tubelessGravel Tires · 39 replies · Mar 23, 2018