Continental Aero 111

[dsveddy]

I'm honestly surprised they haven't made this tire sooner. Way back in 2018 I was talking to a friend who worked at HED, who revealed that their testing found the GP4000s brought substantial aero gains for the same reason--the tread pattern generates vortices that keep airflow attached longer.

Independent testing has already shown this for the GP5000 as well:
https://www.swissside.com/en-us/blogs/a ... e-choice-1
https://www.aero-coach.co.uk/aerodynami ... cing-tyres

Given how well established the importance of tire aero is, I really think it's a no-brainer to go for these Aero 111 tires if you can afford them.

[chrisw91]

Given how well established the importance of tire aero is, I really think it's a no-brainer to go for these Aero 111 tires if you can afford them.

Maybe. If I look at the published charts then it seems like all the aero benefits only kick in above or below +10 or -10 degrees of yaw. We know that this is quite rare especially in race scenarios so if you choose this tire then you could be giving up some watts in rolling resistance. It clearly isn't any faster in Crr terms than the standard GP5k otherwise Conti would recommend using it on the rear wheel as well. And we know that the GP5k is already somewhat slower than something like the Corsa Pro Speed.

For me the real benefit of this tire will be the improvement in handling stability only. If Conti can delay the stall angle to something far wider then this delays the point at which a tire and wheel become twitchy with its handling.

But I don't buy all these "save 18Watts" clickbait headlines that you see in the media

[dsveddy]

Maybe. If I look at the published charts then it seems like all the aero benefits only kick in above or below +10 or -10 degrees of yaw. We know that this is quite rare especially in race scenarios so if you choose this tire then you could be giving up some watts in rolling resistance. It clearly isn't any faster in Crr terms than the standard GP5k otherwise Conti would recommend using it on the rear wheel as well. And we know that the GP5k is already somewhat slower than something like the Corsa Pro Speed.

For me the real benefit of this tire will be the improvement in handling stability only. If Conti can delay the stall angle to something far wider then this delays the point at which a tire and wheel become twitchy with its handling.

But I don't buy all these "save 18Watts" clickbait headlines that you see in the media

A few points:

(1) For me a big draw is being able to run wider tires on relatively narrower rims, and still not suffer from flow separation. All of these charts showing gains at angles of 10deg+ are for the 25mm tire. Swissside's wheels were optimized around 25mm tires so it's unsurprising that they have decent flow attachment across a wider range of angles, even with the control-tire. The more-telling chart is the one for the 29mm Aero111 at 30kph on the DB45. It outperforms GP5000 around 7.5deg, which is probably the more likely scenario for us common people. What's interesting is that the external width of the DB45 is 28.5mm--narrower than 29mm, meaning they have managed to keep airflow attached under conditions that are particularly challenging to airflow attachment, and on the tire-width that is popular (as opposed to one that is essentially obsolete). To me, this implies that if you are riding a rim that is optimized for 28s (i.e. Roval, Enve, ZIPP, HED, HUNT), these tires wont be as beneficial. But for those riding a 28mm+ tire on a narrower rim--in the league of 28-29mm width external (like I am)--these tires could drive very significant aero gains across a wider range of wind angles.

(2) Swissside's charts are comparing the Aero111 to the GP5000--a tire that is already very aero--as opposed to competitors' "rubber-on-carcass" design tires. One of the main points my friend from HED made was that "rubber-on-carcass" tires (i.e. vittoria corsa, specialized turbo cotton) performed the worst in their testing, and cost a substantial number of watts (I want to say 5 ish?), probably because the step-down transition from rubber to carcass promotes airflow separation. This phenomonenon is unfortunately not illustrated in the Aerocoach study I cited--which is for a disc wheel, which is not going to be as severely impacted by flow-separation, since the volume over which flow normally separates, is filled in on a disc. There used to be a study by FLO that was more comprehensive, but it looks like they took it down. All that being said--sure, an 18W improvement over the GP5000 maybe represents the most-oversold story, but I think it might not be unreasonable to generally expect a 5-10W improvement over a tire like Vittoria Corsa.

(3) Unless we're explicitly talking about TT setup, it's not really fair to compare the CRR of the GP5000 to the Corsa Pro Speed and similar TT tires with reduced tread and no puncture protection, that aren't really usable for regular riding and racing. Nearly all Vittoria-sponsered riders at the TDF are riding the regular Corsa Pro. If we ignore TT/track tires on BRR, we can see that GP5000S TR is still pretty much the fastest "regular tire" on test, basically on par with Michelin PC

[TobinHatesYou]

GP5K TT TR is quite usable as an everyday tire IMO.

[Mocs123]

GP5K TT TR is quite is usable as an everyday tire IMO.

I agree completely, as I have 3,200km on my GP5K TT TR's (28mm) and it's been a supurb tire. One puncture that sealed without me knowing it, and I know a lot of it is luck, but I've had as good of luck with it as I have with GP5KS-TR's or regular GP5K's. I may not get as many kilometers, but I've certainly gotten enough to think of them as more than just "race day" tires such as the Corsa Speeds.

[208]

kind of wish these came in a 31mm for the comfort and may synergise better with the wider rims around today... as good as swiss side may appear to be, their wheels all have a narrow internal, moderate external and are all designed for a 25mm tyre. that's old school these days and with the roads i ride on ... yeah nah

[alanyu]

SwissSide/DT Swiss, as swiss brands, I totally agree if they test on their local roads, 25 mm, or even 23 mm will be faster....

[GaBa]

GP5K TT TR is quite usable as an everyday tire IMO.

Mohorič ran it at Milan-San Remo. Without liners and they've put sealant in, spun it and then took it out. One of things they did to shed weight from his bike (500g all together).

They also set his position, cut seat tube at the frame and glued it.

Weighed all frames in his size at service course and picked the lightest one.

There was more but I should go back and listen to that talk. And its more appropriate for Pro thread anyways, so sorry all for off topic.

Edit: they've cut seat post, not seat tube

[Lakal]

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

[alanyu]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

Is the total width the same as 5K (I suppose it's 28c?), or 1 mm wider?

[Lakal]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

Is the total width the same as 5K (I suppose it's 28c?), or 1 mm wider?

I just installed the tire on a 69mm Polaris rim (IW 23mm). Right now the 111 is about 1mm smaller than the 28mm GP5000S TR it has replaced.

[208]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

Is the total width the same as 5K (I suppose it's 28c?), or 1 mm wider?

I just installed the tire on a 69mm Polaris rim (IW 23mm). Right now the 111 is about 1mm smaller than the 28mm GP5000S TR it has replaced.

what are the measurements?

they'll prob blow up another 1mm in a few days i'm guessing.

i always figured these were pretty much 28mm tyres with slight spec modification to satisfy the updated etrto requirements and also need to be labelled 29mm.

i'd like a wider version, personally.

[Kevin7767]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

Is the total width the same as 5K (I suppose it's 28c?), or 1 mm wider?

I just installed the tire on a 69mm Polaris rim (IW 23mm). Right now the 111 is about 1mm smaller than the 28mm GP5000S TR it has replaced.

what are the measurements?

they'll prob blow up another 1mm in a few days i'm guessing.

i always figured these were pretty much 28mm tyres with slight spec modification to satisfy the updated etrto requirements and also need to be labelled 29mm.

i'd like a wider version, personally.

I just installed the 29mm 111 on a Roval CLX (21mm internal, 34 or 35mm external) and it measured at 28.4mm. About 1 year ago when I installed a 28mm GP5000 (original version, not the S TR) that measured at 27.8mm. I forgot to measure the 28mm GP5000 before taking it off.

[Lakal]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

Is the total width the same as 5K (I suppose it's 28c?), or 1 mm wider?

I just installed the tire on a 69mm Polaris rim (IW 23mm). Right now the 111 is about 1mm smaller than the 28mm GP5000S TR it has replaced.

what are the measurements?

they'll prob blow up another 1mm in a few days i'm guessing.

i always figured these were pretty much 28mm tyres with slight spec modification to satisfy the updated etrto requirements and also need to be labelled 29mm.

i'd like a wider version, personally.

Just a bit more than 29mm for the 111. 29.3mm maybe.

[cajer]

IMG_8306 (1).jpg

Just received the 29mm version.
Compared to a GP5000 clincher, the surface is a lot more smooth.

What's the weight of the two tires?