Continental Aero 111

[maxim809]

Xav if you're out there please set us free with your data.

[warthog101]

Xav if you're out there please set us free with your data.

I have found it an interesting discussion and learnt things also.

Would like to see the data too

[satanas]

The extremely limited number of vendors seems designed expressly to keep the price up, and to prevent any competition there; I doubt there will be any discounting. Since there's no availability in most countries or on most continents freight from elsewhere is also a significant cost factor too if you're not in the US or continental Europe.

It seems that the tyre does what it's intended to and so may still be worth it, but more normal distribution wouldn't hurt.

[justinfoxphotos]

If it turns out that the 111 is slower than other tyres on the market I'll 100% still be rockin' them for the way they reduce the effects of crosswinds for sure. That said considering it's a tyre that's all about aero, bad results would be hilarious!

[TobinHatesYou]

Just mounted a 26mm Aero 111 on a HED Vanquish Pro 84 (22.4mm internal, 30.9mm external.) At 100 psi, the tire is initially 26.1mm. Considering 26mm tires are supposed to be sized according to 19mm rims, this seems very narrow. As of right now the rim edge is very exposed.

[Lina]

I've read some bad takes in this thread but this one takes the cake.

What a terrible analogy; for one the Aero 111 is 100 Euro, the car tyres you're comparing it to cost more. Second, you're comparing apples to oranges as no-one in their right mind would put the cheapest Chinese tyres on an RS4 (and the cheapest bicycle tyre on the market costs WAY less).

Since you brought up Yokohama, a brand I have done a fair bit of design and marketing for, and a brand which sponsors the mighty World Time Attack Challenge (WTAC) with a control tyre for the world's fastest race cars (I designed the logo for WTAC) a much more fair comparison would be the Aero 111 vs. Yokohama Advan AO50 race tyre which, "just for kicks" would cost around 2,466 Euro for my Nissan Skyline R32 GT-R race car.

Yes and no. Compare the development, distribution, warehousing and manufacturing costs. The Conti needed a bit of aero time, but is available in 2 widths and one diameter. The car tyre will be multiples of each.

Most car tyres are initially released in very few sizes and then the range slowly expands. Take a look at the new Pirelli P Zero Winter 2, it is currently available in very limited range of sizes, especially compared to the previous model. Same applies for Michelin's new Pilot 5 or Pilot Alpine 5, or the new Continental WinterContact, etc.

It is designed to support the weight of a bicycle and rider at much lower speeds.
The car tyre must resist much, much higher forces.

Incorrect, the forces on bicycles are much higher. The pounds per square inch are highest on bicycles as compared to motorcycles or cars. Even the g forces are not really comparable. A high end sports car, like a Porsche 911, might experience up to 1.1g's on the track, your typical touring car maybe 0.9g, yet bicycles can experience up to 1.5g, and for downhill mtb riders sometimes even higher.

There will be development and manufacturing costs for all of the different sizes, not to mention storage and distribution.
The car tyre must resist much higher cornering, braking and acceleration forces. 100+ hp through the tyre rather than 2000w. Stopping 1500kg from higher speed. Centripetal force on the tyre and retain shape at a much higher speed. I see the demand placed on the car tyre as much higher.
The cornering force imposed on the car tyre is much greater as the tyre must keep a flat tread on the road surface whilst the cornering force attempts to push it sideways off the rim, and much higher mass so much higher force. As a bike leans the cornering force imposes much less lateral load on the tyre and the mass is a fraction of the car. Yes the tyre is much smaller but that would mean it has a much smaller surface area to resist deformation.
I did physics a long, long time ago however.

With respect to pressure, yes higher pressure on the tyre but that is not not what it was with tubeless.

The average car tire is an exercise in how cheaply can we make a tire that will not have awful properties. Tires like the Aero111 are an exercise in how we can make the fastest tire we know how to without it being excessively expensive. If you want an apples to apples comparison you should be looking at that 10 - 20 euro wire bead bicycle tire. When you don't have to worry about rolling resistance or weight because you have 100+ hp at your disposal it doesn't matter if you're losing hundreds of watts to rolling resistance. And yes, the tires you buy will have a noticeable impact on your gas mileage. And the cheaper ones are usually not the ones that have the best efficiency.

[Mr.Gib]

Yeah, very very few prices reflect actual cost.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Generally no. Most prices reflect actual cost. I assume your context is consumer goods in general. Or perhaps bike tires specifically, but I think not.

Either way, by far the most common pricing method is "cost plus" as in cost to market plus a percentage markup. This applies both to manufacturers and resellers. What changes is the percentage that is added to the cost, the magnitude of which, as noted in an earlier post, will depend on power in the "value chain" (not to be confused with supply chain which does not include the end customer).

Things can break free of traditional pricing models with intangible market offerings such as services. How much should the Rolling Stones charge for a concert?

[BigBoyND]

Regarding price, also keep in mind DT is supplying them, not Conti. So there's one more middle-man markup on the way from the factory to the retailer, and I assume DT wants at least 20% margin on RRP.

[Requiem84]

Yeah, very very few prices reflect actual cost.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Generally no. Most prices reflect actual cost. I assume your context is consumer goods in general. Or perhaps bike tires specifically, but I think not.

Either way, by far the most common pricing method is "cost plus" as in cost to market plus a percentage markup. This applies both to manufacturers and resellers. What changes is the percentage that is added to the cost, the magnitude of which, as noted in an earlier post, will depend on power in the "value chain" (not to be confused with supply chain which does not include the end customer).

Things can break free of traditional pricing models with intangible market offerings such as services. How much should the Rolling Stones charge for a concert?

If you look at it from a transfer pricing perspective, I agree. Typically all routine activities with a limited risk are remunerated with a Cost plus (or a return on sales in case of an LRD).

But that is more so the view of the different nodes in the value chain. The total price that rolls out of the value chain will rarely be cost+, as the residual (the revenue for the entrepeneur in the VC) is much higher than the cost+ or RoS.

Sorry, I couldn't resist either .

(Associate Tax Director in Pharma... ).

[justinfoxphotos]

Just some more brain farts:

- When I worked for a bike shop I got a staff discount of 40%.
- When I was a graphic designer I tried (and mostly succeeded) to charge as much as I could when working with big companies, but I put just as many hours and effort into a $500 job for a small business vs a $15,000 job for a large company.

[CogInTheMachine]

I finally got to try a Continental Aero 111 on my Scope Artech 6 front wheel. It makes an unbelievable difference!

My 29 weighs 282.5g, very different from Recoilfx's 242g, and much heavier than the 217.0g tire it replaced.

My 29 inflates to 30.2mm on the Scope (23mm internal, 31.2mm external). I got it used, and it has stayed at that measurement after some miles. The Conti 5K TT 25 it replaced measured 28.2mm. The 28 TT I use on the rear measures 31.2mm (same rim as in front). So the 111 is narrower than the TT. I am curious if the 26 would be better. When a 26 comes around cheap I'll let you know.

I was really skeptical of the marketing claims, but given all the positive comments here when I found one on eBay I tried it. Compared to the Conti TT, I can't prove that it is any faster aerodynamically, but nor is the increase in rolling resistance noticeable (or I can't yet differentiate it from the increased weight). I don't notice any difference in grip, but I try not to skid my front wheel as that tends to go poorly. I do notice the additional 65.5g of weight rotating in the worst possible place, but I think that I got the heaviest 111 and lightest TT samples. What I really do notice, and what trumps everything else for me is the massive decrease in crosswind buffeting. My bike has a floppy front end which leads to instability at best, and death wobble so bad that it ejects bottles from their cages at worst. While it is a fast aero bike, the instability limits how fast I can descend. I'm nervous above 65kph in case there's a side gust from wind or traffic. That is extremely disappointing. Even in less extreme situations, the instability makes my paceline partners nervous when I'm blown around. So I've been trying to solve this problem by fixing the bike, my position, and (failing that) by using wheels less affected by wind. However the Scope are noticeably faster than anything shallower, so I really want to safely enjoy them.

The 111 has made a huge improvement! It really does dramatically change the handling for the better. It hasn't completely eliminated crosswind effects, but it has reduced them more than switching from a 65mm deep wheel to the same rim in 40mm. That means that I can enjoy the sailing effect of a deep wheel and the stability of a shallow wheel, just by changing a tire. I find that entirely worth the (2/3 of retail) price I paid for the tire. There is also a different feel in crosswind that wouldn't normally blow me around, and the effect isn't entirely positive but I'll get used to it. I don't yet have enough time on the 111 to be exact about the subtler effects. It certainly modifies the feel in any crosswind, and my best description so far is a modulation in timing and intensity. Sometimes it feels like a puff of wind takes some time to affect the handling, and the effect is more of a gradual nudge than a sharp blow (but again, I need more time on them in more situations to learn what's going on). What is instantly clear is how dramatic an improvement to stability the 111 makes on my ride. That is wonderful!

I also greatly appreciate the improved wear indicators, which are now graduated in three steps. That's a practical improvement that every other tire maker should copy.

[xav]

Okay - here is the full data set

https://aero-coach.co.uk/continental-ae ... tance-data

I think the main thing to bear in mind with this data is the wheel we mounted it on - our Zephyr rim will make tyres look closer together in terms of aero performance than a lot of other tyres, because that's how we designed it. The measured widths (as everyone keeps saying!) are interesting - we tested here a GP5000 TT 25mm but it ended up 1mm wider than the Aero 111 26mm.

The higher rolling resistance isn't something you can really get away from however, especially when it's all very close at lower yaws whether you look at our data or anyone elses data. Continental haven't published the aero data on their website vs the GP5000 TT, only the GP5000S TR, but you're not really deciding between Aero 111 vs S TR, the question is Aero 111 vs TT I feel.

[gloscherrybomb]

Okay - here is the full data set

https://aero-coach.co.uk/continental-ae ... tance-data

I think the main thing to bear in mind with this data is the wheel we mounted it on - our Zephyr rim will make tyres look closer together in terms of aero performance than a lot of other tyres, because that's how we designed it. The measured widths (as everyone keeps saying!) are interesting - we tested here a GP5000 TT 25mm but it ended up 1mm wider than the Aero 111 26mm.

The higher rolling resistance isn't something you can really get away from however, especially when it's all very close at lower yaws whether you look at our data or anyone elses data. Continental haven't published the aero data on their website vs the GP5000 TT, only the GP5000S TR, but you're not really deciding between Aero 111 vs S TR, the question is Aero 111 vs TT I feel.

Thanks for the study. I think this reinforces what people are generally (crazy video aside) saying...

The tyre makes no sense for time trials. Speeds are too high (ergo yaw too low).
It could be a good option for classics races where high cross winds at lower speeds could be race defining moments.
The selling point of the tyre for the everyday Joe is stability.

[CogInTheMachine]

Yes, thanks for the great data.

I think that the 111 is a well-balanced tire meant for the majority of my fast riding, not for absolute speed during a supported race. It would be nice if they marketed it that way, but the data is all pointing to that conclusion.

Crosswind handling is exceptional, grip is the highest BRR has measured, the puncture-resistance to rolling resistance ratio is good, and weight can be fine. There's not much better about the Conti S now, so maybe the 111 is best seen as an upgrade to the S, not to the TT. To get a faster tire you give up a lot of puncture resistance. To get more puncture resistance you give up a lot of speed. You give up a lot of money for the 111 though, so the S (and TT) remain useful if the stability isn't critical. The 111 seems like a sweet spot for practicality when riding fast without a support car behind me. I look forward to this equation completely changing with the release of the Aerothan.

Everyone chooses their own balance of factors. I love the array of choices we have, and the good folks giving us the data we need to choose properly. Again, thanks to everyone testing these things.

[Requiem84]

The total resistance (aero+crr) seems to be higher for this tire compared to the S TR or Corsa Pro speed. Which makes sense at typical low yaw angles. So yeah, for a TT still not the best option.

But for a fast every day tire (or longer road races like Granfondo's) I think it's still a great option:

- Rolling resistance pretty close to the faster rolling regular tires (S TR, P Zero RS)
- More stability in cross-winds
- Potentially substantial advantages in scenarios where there is a high cross-wind
- High level op grip
- High level of wet weather grip
- Good puncture resistance

My next tire likely will be this one on the front, paired with a P Zero RS at the back.