Continental Grand Prix 4000 RS

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
PDXWheels
Shop Owner
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Portland

by PDXWheels

I believe the 4000 RS is a Germany only, tire. The marketing was something along the lines of giving German riders an advantage nobody else has. It was very limited production.

If you need an ultra-light Conti, the Supersonic is widely available. If you ask me, even a 175g 4000 is still going to be outperformed by the 195g Michelin Pro3.

by Weenie


rruff
Shop Owner
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Alto, NM

by rruff

Frankie - B wrote:the RS is just an R with a thinner thread.


And the SS has the same casing as the 4000, only without the puncture layer, and the tread is thinner. I've had no issues with the SS in a few hundred miles of riding.

Yiannis-Super 6.
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Volos GR / CT US .

by Yiannis-Super 6.

Supersonic works great for me-front only though.
10 SuperSix Hi-Mod
07 System 6.
06 Caad 8
90s Merlin Extralight.

aeroslave
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:56 am

by aeroslave

rruff wrote:
Stats wrote: Expected wear (life) is approx half the GP4000S


IMO this is a no brainer and I'm surprised that more companies don't do this. Just make the tread half as thick and sell twice as many tires...



The Ultremo Rs are already that...1/10th the life of any racing tyre buwahahahaha
"Light bike? Its still about the engine!".

SLight
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:11 pm

by SLight

Tour has done another clincher vs. tubular test and the GP4000RS clincher wins (of course... test are done @ continental)
and again, no latex innertubes used

ODT
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:00 pm

by ODT

Downloaded that test yesterday and I think the result was slightly less rolling resistance, lighter weight, but more prone to flats.
Slightly worse in the wet(but the S is excellent in the wet mind you)
Good for TT's
http://www.cyclingtorrents.nl - Torrent Tracker dedicated to broadcasts of racing

rruff
Shop Owner
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Alto, NM

by rruff

IMO the Conti SS is the TT tire. I recently got one of the Attack 22mm, and it has a thin tread like the SS, but apparently has the puncture belt. Not much difference if any between that and the RS.

ODT
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:00 pm

by ODT

Ah you mean the supersonic? I think it would be quite "odd" for a German company, to put "SS" in your product name, perhaps even prohibited
http://www.cyclingtorrents.nl - Torrent Tracker dedicated to broadcasts of racing

rruff
Shop Owner
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Alto, NM

by rruff

Yes it is the Super Sonic. The Attack I have weighs only 175g, and it is constructed like the GP4000RS, but is a little smaller in size.

User avatar
Kraaf
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Netherlands

by Kraaf

SLight wrote:Tour has done another clincher vs. tubular test and the GP4000RS clincher wins (of course... test are done @ continental)
and again, no latex innertubes used


Bumping an old thread, for a small correction. Not getting into another Tour testing debate, just some facts:
- When talking rolling resistance and weight, Continental did not win, Veloflex did; the Record clincher is hailed as the lightest and best rolling tire ever tested. 2nd place in rolling resistance is the Continental GP Supersonic. The 4000 RS is in third. It did win the overall test (better puncture resistance and grip in the wet).
- The best rolling tubular tested was the Vittoria Crono EVO CS 22.
- Tour does test at the Continental facility, so it is logical that the Conti tires are optimized for that. Tour does however use there own measuring equipment.
- Tour acknowledges the effect of the inner tube. They tested with a 75g butyl tube (as opposed to a heavier tube in previous tests; results not directly backwards comparable) and state that with a latex tube, the rolling resistance of the clinchers, as tested, would drop by 2-3Watts.
- There is no measured difference in puncture resistance between the RS and the R (previous tests), as both tires pass the 180 second cut-off point in Tours' test (sharpened screwdriver pressed on the inflated tire with 35kg force, mechanical rocking motion applied)
- According Tour and Continental, the RS has a new compound, so it's not a R with a thinner tread, but it does have only half the tread depth. Tour tested the life of the RS at ~3000km for the rear tire.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________

durianrider
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:00 am

by durianrider

Looks like 4000s one of the best tyres now..

http://www.conti-online.com/generator/w ... 00s_en.pdf
My YT channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/durianriders?feature=mhee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Follow me on Strava
http://app.strava.com/athletes/254600

5 8 5
Posts: 1353
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:36 am
Location: UK

by 5 8 5

I like Tour tests but that one is 5 years old. Things have moved on.

User avatar
Kraaf
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Netherlands

by Kraaf

Yes, they have.
For example, Tour no longer tests at Continental. They have their own setup, purpose designed and built. It can measure rolling resistance in corners, not just when the wheel is perpendicular to the road. Nifty.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________

User avatar
WMW
in the industry
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:59 pm
Location: Ruidoso, NM

by WMW

Kraaf wrote:Bumping an old thread, for a small correction. Not getting into another Tour testing debate, just some facts


Are you referencing a new test?
formerly rruff...

User avatar
allezkmiec
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:01 pm
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

by allezkmiec

Umm, read a bit closer there... that bump was done over two years ago.

by Weenie


Post Reply