Tour’s ridiculous tyre test and their questionable findings.

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Rodrego Hernandez
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:11 pm
Location: Out there

by Rodrego Hernandez

havana wrote:On the whole, this is nothing new. Magazines and other print media [b]always favour their main advertisers[/b], there have been plenty of cases in which this is proven already. Colnago stopped advertising in the Dutch magazine Fiets, because Fiets wrote the Christallo was not at all stiff. The Dutch footbal mag VI never published a highly interesting story on corruption at footbalclub AZ, because the owner (a banker) was one of VI's main advertisers. In Holland we say : "who's bread you eat, who's word you spread".

These days, a lot of magazines have a hard time making profit or even doing break-even, which makes it even harder for editors not to do so.

Conclusion: there is no such thing as objectivity. In a French mag, the Michelin Pro3 wil probably win every single test. Who cares? In the end they are both good tires.


Maybe true with some mags but I know from one of the writers at cycling weekly that there is no link between advertising and positive reviews. It also seems like Fiets also has no connection so it's a bit strong to say they always favour advertisers.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7929
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

HammerTime2 wrote:What is it about Greece/Greek roads which makes them so slippery?
Funny. I broke my Pelvis descending Parnitha, which is an awesome road -- just don't try to corner over the white center stripe. The road was a white asphalt with white stripes. Not realizing my Pelvis was broken, I was able to complete the descent and ride to the closest town. Once I stopped riding, though, I couldn't even walk, let alone ride.

by Weenie


Ypsylon
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:25 pm

by Ypsylon

Amadeus wrote:
In addition to the former test they added a kind of highly ridiculous “kick scooter” test.


Remember the picturewith a guy in motorcycle clothing on a kick bike the last two times they tested tires?

What exactly did they add?

They explain why they think the test is valid and give the reader the possibility to disagree.

They tell the reader that the differences in between different stretches of road are way bigger than between different tires.

STARNUT wrote:move over.......... why Tour? I don't hold their tests in high regard because they fail to RIDE THE DAMN BIKES! Or at minimize it's importance.

So your telling me they tested bike tires.................... not on a phuckin' bike :lol:. Cool.


Well it's either that or the part where they talk about the bikes after they ride them doesn't make it here because people are too lazy to translate stuff and post the numbers.

Guys, you may disagree with the results they get all day long, but the bashing here, imho, is off.
"Nothing compares to the simple pleasures of a bike ride," said John F. Kennedy, a man who had the pleasure of Marilyn Monroe.

User avatar
Taz
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Greece

by Taz

HammerTime2 wrote:
Taz wrote:Anyone who has visited and driven/ridden in Greece will have noticed one thing: our roads are extremely slippery.

What is it about Greece/Greek roads which makes them so slippery?


The gravel used to make the asphalt in Greece is mostly limestone based and thus very soft. A road turns from qood quality tarmac to an ice skating track in a couple of years. Of course the heat does not help either. Newer highways are made to stricter standards but most b-roads are cr@p.

@dj Parnitha is not that bad, the tarmac is ok.

User avatar
Amadeus
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:53 pm
Location: Leiden, NETHERLANDS

by Amadeus

@ Taz,

I agree with you …
It is not possible to compare my simple testing with some racers and the TOUR testing.
But it is very odd that the findings do not appear to be in line but controversial.

Just one remark for your information:
I tested Continental, Michelin clinchers and Veloflex and Challenge open tubulars thoroughly together with a few racers in a team I do sponsor. This was not to satisfy my curiosity this time, but mainly to advise team about which tyres they should race on. The team recently switched from tubular to clincher type/open tubular.

Our testing was not only riding experience but also real life tests with SRM on a classic Tacx Rollertrack. For the clincher tyres Michelin performed better that was on Dutch roads as well as on German Roads in Eiffel and Belgium Ardennes (where the tarmac is bad).

That is just what my findings are nothing more and nothing less.

@ theremery;

While sipping a glass of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc (from the Antinori venture in NZ called “Mount Nelson” actually a very very good drop) I did read your comment Actually I like it…. Spot on!

Just one comment:
For testing rolling resistance I have to start somewhere.
So if a tyre runs with less rolling resistance on curved rollertrack (which is almost the most ideal condition you can think of) then it certainly will run lighter on a real road. The differences can be multiplied……
But that only counts if you do several tests on this the rollertrack in several different tyre pressures and same tyre temperature.
Otherwise on this classic rollertrack a bad and pumped to the full (lets asume16bar) tyre from Chen Sin could even beat the best supple tyres.

@ Pezzie;

Well if we talk about personal preference then for me no other tyre is a better ride then Veloflex Black at 300tpi, Chalenge Criterium at 300tpi, Chalenge Mac Slick at 260tpi and the Vitoria and DEDA tre open tubulars.

I do and did ride these open tubular tyres in mainly dry condition (Mostly Veloflex and Challenge the rest I did try for a while). The rubber on the threads of these open tubulars is different from the compounds that are used in modern clinchers and it cuts easy when it is wet (water act as a lubricant for the sharp pieces on the roads)

For Clincher type on bad weather days I do Prefer Michelin Pro3Race and Schwalbe Ultremo actually I gave the Schwalbe Ultremo a second change and really start to like these!

But that is just personal preference.

I started the thread because I do disagree with the outcome of the test TOUR performed.
I would specifically like to hear opinions from people that did ride both Continental 4000s and Michelin Pro3Race.

And indeed both the Continental 4000s and the Michelin pro3Race are very good clincher tyres …. There is no question about that (Michelin saves you about 20 gram compared to the Continental…. That should be mentioned since this is weight-weenies).
My bike is Italian so it is Nervosa and of course has Anorexia I like them thin!
GIOS "New" Carbon Ultra 2006 Campa Record+Special parts.
GIOS "New" A90 2008 Campa Record+Special parts. My winter and vacation bike.

fdegrove
Tubbie Guru
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Belgium

by fdegrove

Hi,

For Clincher type on bad weather days I do Prefer Michelin Pro3Race and Schwalbe Ultremo actually I gave the Schwalbe Ultremo a second change and really start to like these!


Hmmm....
Is the Schwalbe Ultremo tyre a clincher or an open tubular?
Would that then make their tubular version a sewed up clincher?
IOW, I'm trying to find out how to precisely define one or the other as it sounds more like a marketing gimmick to me than anything else.

Did you run the testing with latex or butyl inner tubes, BTW?

Ciao, :wink:
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

alexedge
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:52 pm

by alexedge

nexusheli wrote:
alexedge wrote:
STARNUT wrote:We need our resident SkEpTiC to come over and tell us why ad dollars directly translate to good tests. Paging..........

Starnut


I love how everyone really believes this. As a professional journalist for some years now, I can say with certainty that this is very, very rare except possibly among small, start-up mags from no-name publishers that hire no-name journalists and simply create what we call an "ad book".

From personal experience, I can tell you if I am running, say, a Kawasaki ad, and a Kawasaki wins a shootout, I will get more than 1000 emails calling me a shill and damning me for selling my soul. None of these 1000 people notice that (example again) Kawasaki was running the same ad, and was already the largest advertiser, when they finished last in three shootouts in a row....

I could say much more on this topic, but it's late and I'm tired. I'll probably come back to this thread tomorrow.....


The key here is that in most magazines and television shows, ad dollars DO equate to favorable reviews. An advertiser may not "WIN" a shoot-out style test, but they certainly don't get hammered for the negatives of their product.


I don't want to start an argument here, but how do you KNOW? You put this out there as a bald statement of fact - "ad dollars DO equate to favorable reviews [in most mags/tv shows]".

Anywhere other than the internet, such a statement would need to be backed up with facts before anyone believed it. Do you have some statistical data indicating a correlation between ad dollars spent and favorable reviews received? Or is this just based on your opinion? Because if it's strictly an opinion, you should make that clear.

The real truth is, writing to please your advertisers is a losing proposition. Since most major cycling mags have ads from almost every big bike maker at some point during the year, and these ads are scheduled months in advance to get them into the mag, that would mean they could basically never write a bad/negative review. This would quickly become really obvious to readers.

I do agree that some magazines seem to have a policy of minimizing the attention they pay to a bike's faults, across the board.

But in the end, as a journalist, it makes more sense, business-wise and ethically as well, to simply write what you think and let the chips fall where they may. I have written negative reviews of some big products from several major motorcycle OEMs, and I've never had their PR guys get mad, or their ad people threaten to pull ads. Only feedback I received was from engineers pissed that I trashed their design and wanting to argue my conclusions, which is cool!

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5514
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

fdegrove wrote:Is the Schwalbe Ultremo tyre a clincher or an open tubular?
Would that then make their tubular version a sewed up clincher?
IOW, I'm trying to find out how to precisely define one or the other as it sounds more like a marketing gimmick to me than anything else.

Open tubular = fancy (i.e., marketing) name for an expensive clincher.
Asbestos suit on awaiting rebuttals.

User avatar
Kraaf
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Netherlands

by Kraaf

theremery wrote:Re the tests being stupid....whichever MORON decided that running all tyres at the same pressure was a good idea is simply a dickhead*. Run them at the manufacturers recommended pressures....
:wink:


Tour tested the RR at different pressures.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________

User avatar
nexusheli
Posts: 1918
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

by nexusheli

alexedge wrote:I don't want to start an argument here, but how do you KNOW? You put this out there as a bald statement of fact - "ad dollars DO equate to favorable reviews [in most mags/tv shows]".

Anywhere other than the internet, such a statement would need to be backed up with facts before anyone believed it. Do you have some statistical data indicating a correlation between ad dollars spent and favorable reviews received? Or is this just based on your opinion? Because if it's strictly an opinion, you should make that clear.

The real truth is, writing to please your advertisers is a losing proposition. Since most major cycling mags have ads from almost every big bike maker at some point during the year, and these ads are scheduled months in advance to get them into the mag, that would mean they could basically never write a bad/negative review. This would quickly become really obvious to readers.

I do agree that some magazines seem to have a policy of minimizing the attention they pay to a bike's faults, across the board.

But in the end, as a journalist, it makes more sense, business-wise and ethically as well, to simply write what you think and let the chips fall where they may. I have written negative reviews of some big products from several major motorcycle OEMs, and I've never had their PR guys get mad, or their ad people threaten to pull ads. Only feedback I received was from engineers pissed that I trashed their design and wanting to argue my conclusions, which is cool!


It's not an argument, it is fact. Journalists in general are so lost on what it means to be a writer these days, it's really sad. There is so much editorial spin on everything, especially in the newspapers and magazines because they're all struggling so hard to keep their ad revenue up. That's why much of my news and reading these days comes from independent media and (mostly) the BBC, which is pretty odd for a born and raised American.

I know from two parts of my life;
1) My internship as a journalist 12 years ago
2) My current job selling product.

I really can't go into it much deeper than that without getting myself in trouble.
View before posting!
Pegoretti Love #3: It's here!!!

User avatar
theremery
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:56 am
Location: New Zealand

by theremery

Kraaf...have you got a link to the tour test or a scan?
I assume it's not the one I saw with only a few tests done at higher pressure?? I've seen one of many tyres done at 120 PSI nd a few samples done above and below....that's really no good at all.
I really DO want the data!!
Amadeus...nope wasn't meaning your tests...I was referring to the mags that used unrealistic sims. For us mortals.....rollers etc are gonna be the best we can realistically do. A pro level test should be able to be better.
-Peace :)
Updated: Racing again! Thought this was unlikely! Eventually, I may even have a decent race!
Edit: 2015: darn near won the best South Island series (got second in age
-group)..woo hoo Racy Theremery is back!!

sawyer
Posts: 4513
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

[/quote]


The real truth is, writing to please your advertisers is a losing proposition. Since most major cycling mags have ads from almost every big bike maker at some point during the year, and these ads are scheduled months in advance to get them into the mag, that would mean they could basically never write a bad/negative review. This would quickly become really obvious to readers.

I do agree that some magazines seem to have a policy of minimizing the attention they pay to a bike's faults, across the board.

[/quote]

Have you ever read a British publication called "Cycling Plus"? They are famous for giving 8 or more out of 10 to nearly every product they review. The odd lousy review helps maintain credibility. The watchword is "don't pi55 off the important clients".

Leloby
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: UK

by Leloby

Not so sure about our very own 'comic' either. Some of the front page attention grabbers are a bit suspect. Like 'Focus on Training' when inside there is a crappy review of a 'Focus' bike from Wiggle.

Wiggle always advertise inside but is it 'Cycling Weekly' or 'Wiggle Weekly'. Or even 'Cycling Wiggle'. We just don't know.

Rodrego Hernandez
Posts: 1229
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:11 pm
Location: Out there

by Rodrego Hernandez

Leloby wrote:Not so sure about our very own 'comic' either. Some of the front page attention grabbers are a bit suspect. Like 'Focus on Training' when inside there is a crappy review of a 'Focus' bike from Wiggle.

Wiggle always advertise inside but is it 'Cycling Weekly' or 'Wiggle Weekly'. Or even 'Cycling Wiggle'. We just don't know.


I think you're getting a little carried away here. Use of the word focus has been around longer than the bike brand!

clouchi
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:46 pm

by clouchi

I'm not all that bothered about the michelin vs conti debate - for the record i use gp4000s tyres, but my next tyres may be vredesteins as i was very impressed by my last tricomps, but thats another story - but I just want to point out that while I have not seen the latest tyre test and do not read tour - but the proof you have for saying the michelin is faster and gripper comes from:

1. subjective judgements made by you while riding both tyres - but did you actually ride these tyres to the point that they completely wiped out while cornering in a way that was both measurable and repeatable? or is it just the perceived grip you are talking about. if you were doing a controlled test on the tyres then fair enough, but if for example you have a silent tyre and one which squeaked while cornering, the silent one would probably be perceived as grippier.

2. by putting them on a trainer and measuring power etc, is a very good measure of RR on a trainer, but not on a road - this is the same if it is done by a magazine or by yourself.

maybe the michelin is a faster better tyre, maybe it is not - i have not ridden it, but does it sounds as though it is a very good tyre - but whilst i appreciate Amadeus' efforts to test tyres, I cant quite feel that truly fair testing has been achieved here.

I hope this does not come over as negative, but I just wanted to point it out... :D

by Weenie


Post Reply