Check out version 9 of Al Morrison's well regarded rolling resistance test results - see if you still think that Conti tubular tires are "good" rolling resistance tires.......when the first one doesn't show up until page 3.http://biketechreview.com/tires/rolling ... oller-data
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sometimes I wonder if people mis-perceive the "hard" ride of the conti as a "fast" ride - when instead it's just a rough hard ride and not all that fast.
keep in mind that in those rolling resistance tests, it starts by stating that he was originally using a poor method of gluing. he has since changed, but the conti tubulars on page 3 were still the "lightly glued" method. it appears he has not yet retested them "properly glued". i also would speculate that his original method would hurt the contis more, as their base tape is dry.
It may change the result a little to their advantage but that type of tyre will inevitable be hindered in the real world by its poor casing. (Even though Conti's figures lead you to believe otherwise)
I for one, would love to see SRM or Powrtap readings of the wattage lost on real roads and at different loads and tyre pressures.
It definitely is a very uncomfy tyre which suggests that it does not track road irregularities well which in turns translates into a loss of efficiency.