Can any one give me a review on these tires ? It will be use for everyday ride. Just wondering if its better to get the Corsa EVO KS or the Open Corsa CX.

Either Corsa will wear faster and more subject to punctures. I have both those Corsa's, Michelin Pro Race 2 (similar to the Rubinos), Michelin Krylion Carbon, and Vittoria Zaffiro's. The Zaffiro's I have about 6,000-7,000 miles on them and they are still going. I have a hard time believing that I've gotten such great mileage out of such a low price tire. The Krylion Carbon I haven't used yet, they are to replace the Zaffiro's for a long lasting tire.

So Rubino $20 is good for the money then ?

I've been told by different bike shops and several different manufacturers when I've written questions about tires last year that a wire bead tire rather than a folding tire has longer tire life while a folding tire rolls faster.

If that is the case, if you want tire life, go with the Rubino rather than the Rubino pro. Pro means the tire is folding. I was also told in October by an exclusive Vittoria tire distributor and an email sent to Vittoria that the Zaffiro has longer tire life than the Rubino. As I said, I have an awful lot of mileage on the Zaffiro and it's still going strong. Though I switch wheels, subsequently tires, especially in the winter, my Zaffiro's I used in the fall of 2005, all through 2006, all through 2007, 5,500 in 2007, 3,500 in 2006, 500 in 2005 on those tires. Now part of the 3,500 and 5,500 miles were on other tires and wheels. In the winter I've been switching to a Kenda 700x26 Kevlar tire that I though would be less puncture resistant. I didn't want a flat in the cold weather. Though I switch wheels/tires, the Zaffiro's have been my main tire as I'm trying to wear it out so I can put my new Michelin Krylion Carbon on those wheels and try them out. If I don't get the mileage out of the Krylion, when they wear out, I go back to the Zaffiros unless my fancy says to get something else that riders say last a long time to try. A tire isn't a lot of money and you can try different brands and have the experience.

I've also had great mileage from Zaffiro Pro's (3500mi+) & never flatted on 'em. Good winter/spring tire for the Midwest. Overall I like the Rubino Pro's better, though. Smoother ride, lower rolling resistance, & better handling while still having good durability (2000+mi for me). As lawrence said, Rubino & Rubino Pro are different tires. Rubino Pro is folding bead (much preferred) & 120 (vs 60) tpi casing (more supple for smoother more responsive ride). IMHO- Rubino Pro ($20 at Probikekit) is perhaps the best value in a good road tire right now.
BTW- The Corsa's are essentially race day tires- better handling, faster wearing, less durable, and more $$$ that Z's and R's.

guess Rubino Pro for weekend 30-50miles ride will do then.

My opinion, bike tires are relatively cheap (but outrageously expensive compared to the mileage and size for car tires). Listen to the advice here, buy what you want, ride them, wear them out, and then if you like them, buy the same tire or buy something different. Tires are always changing and new tires are always coming to market. Lots of good tires Hutchinson Fusion 2, Vredstein Fortezza. You'll find mixed opinions about all tires, you go with the more popular opinions. Unless you go with a race tire such as the Vittoria Corsa, you reallly can't make a mistake, and anyway it's not costly. I have a pair of Kenda, wide tires 700x26, my opinion, lot of rolling resistance, but I use them for a winter tire and for slow group rides during biking season. I get stronger when I use them. So even if you make a mistake, either switch wheels or switch tires and use them for winter riding or when you are riding by yourself and you aren't interested making time.

I have used both Zaffiro's & Rubino Pro, I like them both,tons of mileage. Zaffiro more of a training tire. I like Vittoria got them on Ebay on the cheap

I've tried the Rubino Pro Slick. Can't speak for anyone else, but I renamed them Rubino Pro Slip, I found them terrible in the wet, as bad as Continental Attack/Force.

I've had good experiences with Open Corsa Evo CX, Vredstein Fortezza Tri Comp, and Veloflex Blacks (good wet grip, but not very durable for our roads).

I've tried the Rubino Pro Slick. Can't speak for anyone else, but I renamed them Rubino Pro Slip, I found them terrible in the wet, as bad as Continental Attack/Force.


well, it is a slick... what were you expecting?



:confused:

I've been told by different bike shops and several different manufacturers when I've written questions about tires last year that a wire bead tire rather than a folding tire has longer tire life while a folding tire rolls faster.

There is nothing inherent about the bead that makes a tire last longer or roll faster. The real story is that manufacturers put kevlar beads in their high performance (low rolling resistance) tires, and put wire beads in their more durable tires.

well, it is a slick... what were you expecting?



:confused:


Are you implying that just because it has no tread pattern (slick) that it's not supposed to grip? Now I'm :confused: :rolleyes:

I was under the impression that tread pattern on a bicycle tire does nothing to improve grip.
I was just relating my experience with the tire, YMMV.

Are you implying that just because it has no tread pattern (slick) that it's not supposed to grip? Now I'm :confused: :rolleyes:

I was under the impression that tread pattern on a bicycle tire does nothing to improve grip.
I was just relating my experience with the tire, YMMV.

I found them terrible in the wet, as bad as Continental Attack/Force.


your right- in dry conditions, a tread pattern actually works against "grippiness" as it puts less of a footprint on the road. more rubber contact patch on the road means more adhesion, no? when it's raining, when there is no tread pattern on the tire, there is no place for water to move, no sipes or tread pattern on the contact patch means that there is no place to channel water- you will hydroplane much more easily on a slick than on a tire with tread pattern. but this is common knowledge gleaned from everyday driving (cars) and motorcycles, no? it's even more obvious in racing- F1 and Moto GP.

maybe i've got it all wrong when it comes to bicycles, but it makes sense that the same principles apply in each discipline.


:cool:

your right- in dry conditions, a tread pattern actually works against "grippiness" as it puts less of a footprint on the road. more rubber contact patch on the road means more adhesion, no? when it's raining, when there is no tread pattern on the tire, there is no place for water to move, no sipes or tread pattern on the contact patch means that there is no place to channel water- you will hydroplane much more easily on a slick than on a tire with tread pattern. but this is common knowledge gleaned from everyday driving (cars) and motorcycles, no? it's even more obvious in racing- F1 and Moto GP.

maybe i've got it all wrong when it comes to bicycles, but it makes sense that the same principles apply in each discipline.


:cool:
I agree that it seems to make sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Bike tires are so skinny that to hydroplane with them, you'd have to go well over 70 mph. There's such a small area contacting the ground, that treads would make no difference at all, even if the surface was slick. Motorcycle tires are also (relatively) narrow, but consider the hugh forces they are subject to, e.g., 100+ HP, much higher speeds & G forces, etc.

IMO - The Rubino Pro is a freakin' b$tch to get on and off your rim. The bead is way to tight.

Shirley you can't be serious---

This myth has been debunked countless times, so your common knowledge argument doesn't "hold water."

your right- in dry conditions, a tread pattern actually works against "grippiness" as it puts less of a footprint on the road. more rubber contact patch on the road means more adhesion, no? when it's raining, when there is no tread pattern on the tire, there is no place for water to move, no sipes or tread pattern on the contact patch means that there is no place to channel water- you will hydroplane much more easily on a slick than on a tire with tread pattern. but this is common knowledge gleaned from everyday driving (cars) and motorcycles, no? it's even more obvious in racing- F1 and Moto GP.

maybe i've got it all wrong when it comes to bicycles, but it makes sense that the same principles apply in each discipline.


:cool:

well, it wasn't a "common knowledge" argument. i come from a motorcycle roadracing backround and i am relatively new to the technicalities of cycling (not a new rider though), and a "slick wet tire tread" goes against everything i've been taught on a racetrack. i was merely applying what i learned from racing motorcycles to bicycling, apparently, wrongly. :blush2:


if this is true, and some googling bears that hydroplaning for bikes does not exist under 90mph, why on earth would any bicycle road tires be made with tread patterns if they aren't used to channel water? it would seem counterproductive for a company to make a tread on a tire that does not hydroplane, and is not being used in the dirt.

having said that, for me it just feels so wrong to have a slick in the wet!

It is marketing that they have "tread." How much of a contact patch does a road bike have anyway (when compared to a car or motorcycle)? There simply is not enough contact area to hydroplane.

I have raced countless crits in the rain-- riding slick tires. Never had a problem. I agree that it defies "common sense" to ride slicks in the rain -- but it simply works. The worst thing I ever encounter is wet painted lines or wet steel sewer covers, but having "tread" won't help out in those situations.

well, it wasn't a "common knowledge" argument. i come from a motorcycle roadracing backround and i am relatively new to the technicalities of cycling (not a new rider though), and a "slick wet tire tread" goes against everything i've been taught on a racetrack. i was merely applying what i learned from racing motorcycles to bicycling, apparently, wrongly. :blush2:


if this is true, and some googling bears that hydroplaning for bikes does not exist under 90mph, why on earth would any bicycle road tires be made with tread patterns if they aren't used to channel water? it would seem counterproductive for a company to make a tread on a tire that does not hydroplane, and is not being used in the dirt.

having said that, for me it just feels so wrong to have a slick in the wet!

so tread on a bike tire is purely marketing? why would anyone who "knows" buy a tire with "less" grip?

it makes no sense to me that tire companies would even make a treaded tire knowing that it will not perform as well as a slick purely for marketing reasons. if all road tires were slick, wouldn't the average joe just "figure it out" at some point? after all, this is what led me to believe that tire treads on a bike tire actually helped. if all road tires came slick, i might have been inspired to ask or would just have known by now that they didn't make a difference.

I used to flat on every ride, which really pissed me off. Then I got the Rubino Pro's. In over 700 miles not one flat. When I first got them I did get one pinch flat, because the tires are extremely tight and I pinched the tube. You need to be very careful not to pinch the tube when installing the tires. When they wear out, I'll get another set. Good roll, good traction, great tire. Highly recommended.

Just jinxed myself on never flatting a Zaffiro Pro. During a cold 20mi ride in the rain yesterday my worn front ZP (over 2500mi) met with some metal road debris. Multiple 1-2mm cuts with one penetrating the kevlar belt causing a slow leak. Still think ZP's are durable tires- 1 flat in many thousands of miles around my area is great.

Never say "Never" or "Always"- It's bad juju!!!!!

Per the late, great Sheldon Brown:

"Tread for on-road use

Bicycle tires for on-road use have no need of any sort of tread features; in fact, the best road tires are perfectly smooth, with no tread at all!

Unfortunately, most people assume that a smooth tire will be slippery, so this type of tire is difficult to sell to unsophisticated cyclists. Most tire makers cater to this by putting a very fine pattern on their tires, mainly for cosmetic and marketing reasons. If you examine a section of asphalt or concrete, you'll see that the texture of the road itself is much "knobbier" than the tread features of a good quality road tire. Since the tire is flexible, even a slick tire deforms as it comes into contact with the pavement, acquiring the shape of the pavement texture, only while incontact with the road.

People ask, "But don't slick tires get slippery on wet roads, or worse yet, wet metal features such as expansion joints, paint stripes, or railroad tracks?" The answer is, yes, they do. So do tires with tread. All tires are slippery in these conditions. Tread features make no improvement in this."


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html


so tread on a bike tire is purely marketing? why would anyone who "knows" buy a tire with "less" grip?

it makes no sense to me that tire companies would even make a treaded tire knowing that it will not perform as well as a slick purely for marketing reasons. if all road tires were slick, wouldn't the average joe just "figure it out" at some point? after all, this is what led me to believe that tire treads on a bike tire actually helped. if all road tires came slick, i might have been inspired to ask or would just have known by now that they didn't make a difference.

maybe you misunderstand me filter. what i'm saying is that it seems silly for the tire manufacturers to perpetuate the myth that a tread helps wet traction when it doesn't. i'm curious as to why they don't just make slicks exclusively and educate the consumer?


R.I.P Sheldon Brown

i'm curious as to why they don't just make slicks exclusively and educate the consumer?

Because, you know, it's their job to make money, and not educate consumers.

I actually think -- and this is just my personal, unscientific theory -- that light "file patterns" help deflect little cuts and nicks from rocks, glass, etc, a bit better than pure slicks. This is just comparing wear on many of both.

To the OP, I find the Rubino Pro to be a fine tire, great for fast training or basic racing, not super-racy like an (open) Corsa. Decent wear.

The non-folding, non-Pro version of the Rubino is half the price, wire bead, but also has half the tire casing thread count. This makes them less supple and ride a little "harder." I used Vittoria tires exclusively for a season and preferred the ride qualities of the Pro, but used the non-Pro in most everyday training rides.

If they were the same price, I'd take a Michelin Pro2 Race over a Rubino Pro, but not by a huge margin.

If they were the same price, I'd take a Michelin Pro2 Race over a Rubino Pro, but not by a huge margin.

Just curious- In what ways do you prefer the Pro2 Race? I just bought a set of P2R's but looks like the Midwest weather will keep me from trying them for a while.

I decided to try P2R's on the recommendation of another rider in my club. He loves their ride & handling but does not seem to get as much mileage as I get from RP's. Then again, he's a bit heavier than me.

Good read and information from all you guys - I decided to try and order the Rubino Pro from Probikekit which I think is a good set of tires for $40. I'm a heavy guy 220 and will be using it on weekend rides only. No racing and also Vittoria has white color tires, just one aesthetic reason in making my decision. Thanks All

Funny- I prefer the Rubino Pro Slick. I find they grip and better--- but that is just one opinion.

Because, you know, it's their job to make money, and not educate consumers.

I actually think -- and this is just my personal, unscientific theory -- that light "file patterns" help deflect little cuts and nicks from rocks, glass, etc, a bit better than pure slicks. This is just comparing wear on many of both.

To the OP, I find the Rubino Pro to be a fine tire, great for fast training or basic racing, not super-racy like an (open) Corsa. Decent wear.

The non-folding, non-Pro version of the Rubino is half the price, wire bead, but also has half the tire casing thread count. This makes them less supple and ride a little "harder." I used Vittoria tires exclusively for a season and preferred the ride qualities of the Pro, but used the non-Pro in most everyday training rides.

If they were the same price, I'd take a Michelin Pro2 Race over a Rubino Pro, but not by a huge margin.

Because, you know, it's their job to make money, and not educate consumers.


that's the most astonishing thing i've ever heard- that a company would intentionally make a tire with sipes and treads to reduce the contact patch and theoretically give less grip (unless i'm mistaken again and larger contact patches don't necessarily mean more grip as it does in motorcycle racing) instead of just making the "better" product.

i'm dumbfounded.

btw- those white rubino-pros at PBK went quickly- gone in less than 6 hours... doh!




:mad2: