Just picked up a set of tubular wheels on ebay for a decent price. Now I am contemplating what tubulars to get.
My two choices are narrowed down to the Challenge Grifo Cross or the Vittoria Cross tubulars.
I can get the vittoria for around $40 each in the 700x34 size or I can get the challenge for around $80 each. Needless to say the $40 each is quite attractive.
So, out of these two choices which would you pick and why? Don't even go down the Dugast route, I'm not that crazy for tires.
Are the Gifo's really worth twice as much as the Vittoria? I raced 2 years ago on the vittoria clinchers in a 700x32 and liked them. I raced last year on the Mud 2's and loved those.
Cross season is only 4 months away.

-Pete

I ran Grifo 34s on my primary wheels and Vittoria 32s on my back-up wheels last season. (I also had a set of Vittoria 34 clinchers set-up tubless with Stans as an experiment.)

The Grifos had the most volume and the supplest casing by far. That said, I was very satisfied with the Vittorias -- perhaps because that was my first season on tubulars. I think they are decent for the money.

If I had it to do over again, I would probably go with Vittoria 34Cs on one wheelset and 32C file-treads on another. By the time I rode those into the ground I might have developed enough feel for what a great tubular offers over a good tubular that I would appreciate the Grifos.

I haven't used the Vittoria's but I <3 the Grifo's. Contact e-ritchey-he can save you some $$ on them. They hook up well in everything but the nastiest mud and roll really well on hardpack. I have the 32's but if I had to do it again I'd get the 34's.

I hate the Vittorias; they aren't at all supple. The Grifos are great, and a Grifo 32 is the same or wider than a 34 Vittoria. Yes, I'd spend the extra money.

My personal opinion, unless you are racing indoors on carpet, the Vittorias don;t have enough air volume to dampen bumps etc... on the course. they are like a road tire with knobbies. either the 32 or 34 grifos would be my pick.

there will soon come a new vittoria with 290 tpi !


now the grifos are much better than vittoria .

they are like a wide road tire.YGBFKM.

The grifos are easy to rip on the sides if you race on courses with rocks and suchlike. 80 bucks is a godawful lot of money for a bike tire.

If $$ is a concern, go with the Vitorrias. They are a good tire. I'm of the opinion that much of the hullabaloo about tires is bunk. If we could perform some blind tests, riders would not be able to tell you what tire was underneath them. I did a lot of work on cross cornering this winter. I have on various wheel sets; Tufos Tubulars, Grifos Clinchers, Vitorria Tubulars and Grifo clincher semi-slicks - all 32mm. The only time I noticed any difference was with the semi-slick tire when there was some mud.

i've got some vittorias as well... not thrilled with them at all. the sidewalls are crazy stiff. I feel i can corner better on my mudd clinchers (even in dry conditions)

If we could perform some blind tests, riders would not be able to tell you what tire was underneath them.

I raced in a mud bath last season. The A bike had Challenge Griffo 32's. The B bike had Flexus 32's. I had to take a bike change because of a mechanical. I saw a noticeable loss of traction when I started using the Flexus.

Granted, this wasn't a blind test but the difference I experienced seemed to large to attribute to psychological factors. In fact, when I made the change, I thought that I'd have no problems because I ran the Flexus on lots of sloppy course the year previous.

And when I mean sloppy, I mean pancake batter covering submerged deep ruts over much of the course.

I got two seasons out of the Vittoria 34c tubulars I had. About 8-10 races per season. They were only used in races (no training). The sidewalls essentially rotted away. Never flatted, and I thought traction was acceptable in everything but peanut-butter thick mud. Not sure what life expectancy for tubbie is but I thought 2 seasons was kinda short.

This year I went on the cheap again and rode Tufo Pros. Not their top shelf rubber and a dated tread pattern (though same as Vittorias). Meanwhile, my buddy who stepped up to Grifos 3 seasons ago at the same I went with the Vittorias is still riding his Grifos.

Hope this helps.

I raced in a mud bath last season. The A bike had Challenge Griffo 32's. The B bike had Flexus 32's. I had to take a bike change because of a mechanical. I saw a noticeable loss of traction when I started using the Flexus.

Granted, this wasn't a blind test but the difference I experienced seemed to large to attribute to psychological factors. In fact, when I made the change, I thought that I'd have no problems because I ran the Flexus on lots of sloppy course the year previous.

And when I mean sloppy, I mean pancake batter covering submerged deep ruts over much of the course.The bolded part was his entire point. It also was a poorly controlled test; the course could have been slicker in the latter part of the race. You were also undoubtedly more tired.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that two tubular tires of similar size and tread pattern, on the same wheels, and inflated to the same pressures, would perform radically differently. But that's me.

The bolded part was his entire point. It also was a poorly controlled test; the course could have been slicker in the latter part of the race. You were also undoubtedly more tired.

The course was not appreciably more slick. I was in the last race of the day. The course had already seen about 2,000 rider laps or so.

I was certainly more tired -- but not significantly so since I noticed the difference within a lap.

The bikes were different. I find that Eddy (A bike) riders better than the Redline and that could have been a contributing factor. However, I've swapped bike before and since and haven't felt the difference that I did in that race.

My impressions were:

* Traction much poorer on off camber
* Cornering suffered slightly -- though not too bad
* Power traction seemed no different
* More slippage through the ruts -- when the tires slipped into the ruts, it was a more sudden move rather than a somewhat controlled slip

Since that time I've taken a look at the tier profiles and think that the extra rows on outboard knobs on the Griffos could go a long way to explaining my experiences.

I will readily admit that it wasn't a blind test. However, conditions weren't typical either.

[QUOTE=Gripped]

My impressions were:

* Traction much poorer on off camber
* Cornering suffered slightly -- though not too bad
* Power traction seemed no different
* More slippage through the ruts -- when the tires slipped into the ruts, it was a more sudden move rather than a somewhat controlled slip

[QUOTE]

All of these can be attributed to the significant differences in sidewalls; the Challenge is supple, and the Vittoria, well, it has the smoothness of a 300 lb. roadside Siberian transvestite hooker in January.

Sidewall/casing is a far bigger explanitory variable for ride quality and traction than is tread, atmo.

Sidewall/casing is a far bigger explanitory variable for ride quality and traction than is tread, atmo.

I was comparing Flexus and Griffo to say that I thought I could distinguish a difference between tires. I agree that the Griffo has a more supple sidewall than does the Flexus. But the Flexus ain't bad.

Ok, so the Vittoria "has the smoothness of a 300 lb. roadside Siberian transvestite hooker in January" and the Challenge has a "somewhat controlled slip." There's gonna be a lot of pent up frustration come September.

If $$ is a concern, go with the Vitorrias. They are a good tire. I'm of the opinion that much of the hullabaloo about tires is bunk. If we could perform some blind tests, riders would not be able to tell you what tire was underneath them. I did a lot of work on cross cornering this winter. I have on various wheel sets; Tufos Tubulars, Grifos Clinchers, Vitorria Tubulars and Grifo clincher semi-slicks - all 32mm. The only time I noticed any difference was with the semi-slick tire when there was some mud.

I notice you didnt test any Grifo tubulars. They ride much different than the clinchers you are comparing to the Vittorias.

I'm pretty certain I could tell the difference between the two (Grifo tubbie & Vittoria tubbie) in a blind test on some greasy NW off camber (day one at Portland right after the pavement comes to mind).

DP

I've been very happy with the Vittoria in 34mm. Even ride trails with them. It is possible they aren't as supple, but at my age and size "supple" is a relative term.

+1 for the Griffos. I got the new ones with the extra dot. Word on the street from the Challenge rep at NAHMBS is that they are coming out with a new mud tire.

I notice you didnt test any Grifo tubulars. They ride much different than the clinchers you are comparing to the Vittorias.

I'm pretty certain I could tell the difference between the two (Grifo tubbie & Vittoria tubbie) in a blind test on some greasy NW off camber (day one at Portland right after the pavement comes to mind).

DP

I'm pretty certain you couldn't.

So the Grifo Tubular with exact same tread and casing as the Grifo clincher is going to handle so much better/differently. I don't think so. My opinion, the only advantage for running tubulars is that they won't pinch flat.

There was an interesting study done recently. I think I saw the results in Time or Newsweek. They did wine tastings. The first time, the tasters could see the prices of the wines. The more expensive wines tasted better. Then they covered up the prices and did the same tastings, same wines. The second time through, wow! what do you know, many of the cheaper wines actually tasted better.

I feel people think their expensive tubulars ride better because they are expensive tubulars.

Everyweekend during cross season I see guys and gals in every category doing very well indeed on all types of tires that aren't Grifo or Dugast tubulars.

Everyweekend during cross season I see guys and gals in every category doing very well indeed on all types of tires that aren't Grifo or Dugast tubulars.

First off, where do you race?

Next, you are correct that fitness is the primary predictor of good results. That said ...

I ride tubulars because they don't pinch flat when raced at low pressure. I want to run them at low pressure because it gets me around the course faster. So a motivating factor for switching to tubulars is that they will help me go faster.

Let's move on to your wine allegory. I bet you're correct that the average cross racer isn't going to be able to tell much difference between one tubular and another. They are going to see the benefits of lower pressure no matter what tread and sidewall they select.

But with more experienced and faster racers, the minutiae of tread and sidewall will be more detectable. The same for wine tasting. People who are experienced wine devotees will know the difference.

I'm no super tire expert but I've noticed some specific differences between the tubulars I've raced. I started on the Tufo Elites and they were a revelation after clinchers. I moved on to the Tufo Flexus. I felt that both of the Tufo treads underperformed in the mud relative to the Michelin Mud and looked for an alternative. I tried out the Griffo and I'll be sticking to that tire. My experiences:

I like the Flexus for dry races. The lighter weight spins up fast and the beefier sidewall seem to stand up better in the fast corners. The tread hooks up well on dry to tacky courses.

I like the Griffos for muddy races. Heavy conditions mitigate the heavier weight of the tire. I find the very supple sidewalls (and tread?) help them hook up very well in sloppy corners.

I'm not going to get FMBs or DuGasts because I can't afford them. If I were going to race only one tire, I'd choose the Griffo.

My opinion, the only advantage for running tubulars is that they won't pinch flat.Um, that's the whole point, pretty much.

I'm pretty certain you couldn't.

So the Grifo Tubular with exact same tread and casing as the Grifo clincher is going to handle so much better/differently. I don't think so. My opinion, the only advantage for running tubulars is that they won't pinch flat.

There was an interesting study done recently. I think I saw the results in Time or Newsweek. They did wine tastings. The first time, the tasters could see the prices of the wines. The more expensive wines tasted better. Then they covered up the prices and did the same tastings, same wines. The second time through, wow! what do you know, many of the cheaper wines actually tasted better.

I feel people think their expensive tubulars ride better because they are expensive tubulars.

Everyweekend during cross season I see guys and gals in every category doing very well indeed on all types of tires that aren't Grifo or Dugast tubulars.

Question for you, do you run tubulars & if so what kind? This kind of response is typical for people who dont run tubbies, its been beat to death on this forum.

My personal experience comes from nasty races where I've taken a bike change every lap or half lap. This usually happens at the Portland GPs (Alpenrose & PIR) or Nats (in Portland) & the difference is considerably noticable. I've had well worn Grifo tubbies (old tread pattern) that have out performed brand new Muds. Day one in Portland this past year it was Grifo tubbies, Dugast Rhino's & Grifo clinchers (run close to the same pressure as the tubbies). Yes, there was a difference.

Just because tubbies are less likley to pinch flat is not the only reason they out perform clinchers, its ride quality as well. I'm sure many on here will back me up on this. It would be easier to do a search on the subject since its been discussed a few times on here. I see people every weekend doing just fine on clinchers as well but I'm sure some of them would go much faster with a good set of tubbies. I don't really have a comment on the wine to tire analogy.

DP

Just because tubbies are less likley to pinch flat is not the only reason they out perform clinchers, its ride quality as well. I'm sure many on here will back me up on this. It would be easier to do a search on the subject since its been discussed a few times on here.

I'm pretty sure that the sidewalls of the Griffo clinchers are different than the sidewalls of the tubular versions since the clinchers have to hold the rim bead. Where's kajukembo when you need him?

Okay, being that I am the one who started this thread, I just wanted to comment on Gripped most recent posts.
He hit the nail on the head for me. I'm a category 4/35+ (B) racer. I'm not that good at cross yet and mostly do it because it is fun and keeps me in shape longer into the year.
That being said, there really is no way I can justify spending $80 per tire for my skill level. I figure I will try the vittoria 34mm size and see how they go. $40 is a good price to start at in my mind. Am I going to go from 15th to 1st because I ride Grifos? NOPE. I was very happy with the tread pattern in my vittoria clinchers, but felt that they claimed 700x32 was far from accurate. The Michelin Muds performed great all year in all types of courses that I did. However I want to try tubulars and see how they go. I got my tubular wheelset off ebay for $135. Qty of 2 @ $40 each for tires seems a better choice given my skill level as opposed to buying two tires that will end up costing more then the whole wheelset.
Thanks for all the responses.
-Pete

Question for you, do you run tubulars & if so what kind? This kind of response is typical for people who dont run tubbies, its been beat to death on this forum.

My personal experience comes from nasty races where I've taken a bike change every lap or half lap. This usually happens at the Portland GPs (Alpenrose & PIR) or Nats (in Portland) & the difference is considerably noticable. I've had well worn Grifo tubbies (old tread pattern) that have out performed brand new Muds. Day one in Portland this past year it was Grifo tubbies, Dugast Rhino's & Grifo clinchers (run close to the same pressure as the tubbies). Yes, there was a difference.I've run Vittorias and Grifos and even the clincher version of the Vitorria set up tubeless, all on the same courses, often on the same day. Based on that, for the most part, I agree with VeldrijdenAddict. And yes, I race.

There is a marked difference in the way the sidewall feels to the touch, but that does not translate to a marked difference in the way they ride. Concievably, someone could claim that the difference is only apparent to more experienced tubular users and/or elite racers. But that puts the "lets hear your bona fides" shoe is on the other foot.

You can search the board all day for a coherent definition of "ride quality", but you aren't going to find anything that doesn't boil down to running lower PSI without risking damage to the tire and rim.

I like the Flexus for dry races. The lighter weight spins up fast and the beefier sidewall seem to stand up better in the fast corners. The tread hooks up well on dry to tacky courses.

I like the Griffos for muddy races. Heavy conditions mitigate the heavier weight of the tire. I find the very supple sidewalls (and tread?) help them hook up very well in sloppy corners.Your reasoning strikes me as counterintuitive in both cases.

I associate dry courses with bumps, hard ruts and rocks. That is where a more supple sidewall will benefit the most, since it will iron out these momentum sucking irregularities better than a stiff tire. Granged, this is still where many tubular users will reach for the stiffer tires, but because they are afraid that supple casings are more vulnerable to damage from rocks, not because the stiff tires roll better.

On a muddy course, the ground is putting up less resistance. This means fewer bumps, which means less need for sidewall suppleness. Here is where a stiffer sidewall will better compact the terrain into something it can grab. And heavy conditions mitigate the weight of a heavier tire? :confused:

Your reasoning strikes me as counterintuitive in both cases.


I can run the Flexus at a lower PSI than I can the Griffos. If I go too low on the Griffos, they fold over in the corners and I haven't been able to get over the barks and slide. I like the Flexus for the dry solely for the confidence they give me on fast, dry corners. It helps that they are lighter too.

Okay, so my thoughts ...

Flexus: Lighter than Griffo, feel better for fast cornering in dry conditions. Can run lower pressure than the Griffos.

Griffos: Feel better cornering in the slop. Heavier.

I can live with running the Griffos a little heavier in dry conditions when my pair of Flexus wear out.

I can run the Flexus at a lower PSI than I can the Griffos. If I go too low on the Griffos, they fold over in the corners and I haven't been able to get over the barks and slide.I have had similar experience, and to me this is where the more-supple-is-more-better argument itself folds over.

I race Tufo Elite 32mm tubulars. I get a good deal on them. I don't want to pinch flat. I've only flatted twice in cross racing, once a piece of glass and the other a shard of metal.

My opinions come from personal experience and what I witness others doing, or others telling me.

Some thoughts about pressure. I have two friends with extensive road and mountain bike experience (one has a lot of motocross and downhill experience as well). They race cross occasionally now but have in the past raced quite a bit more with a fair amount of success. Both run clinchers at about 50/60psi. They corner the crap out of their machines. Really can handle their bikes. One race last year, with mostly dry conditions but with 4 or 5 corners with some greasy mud, one ran 80 psi front and rear. Before the race I asked him. Are you sure? " I don't buy all that really low pressure crap ". Was basically his response. After, he said he didn't loose anything in the corners but did admit that he was a little beat up. Why 80? It was what was in his tires from the week of riding on the many dirt roads near his house.

I was working the pits one-day at a muddy/snowy UCI race in New England. One of the top guys (has at least 1 Stars & Stripes that I can recall right now) was getting his bike ready. His pit crew was asking him about tire pressure. He grabbed a wheel or two and gave them a squeeze. Highly scientific I know! "Yeah whatever, They're fine." - "You sure?" asked the pit crew member. " They're fine. It doesn't matter anyway..." And he rode off to the start.

What about that guy Curley? He runs those Tufo diamond treads a lot and they only come in 28 or 30mm. And they have no side knobs. Nothing. Basically a fat road tire. They don't seem to slow down his multi-national championship butt one little bit.

OK so two guys you know run high pressures. If their opinion is so important to you, why don't you run high pressures?

OK so two guys you know run high pressures. If their opinion is so important to you, why don't you run high pressures?I took the point to be that there are probably no hard and fast rules about pressure (no pun intended). Some are fine with high pressure. Some with low. For some a quick squeeze is good enough. Others will pack up and go home if they realize they forgot their digital meter (blatant exaggeration).

If you focus on tires and PSI to the exclusion of all other factors they can seem important and the difference between 25, 45 and 85 PSI can seem monumental. But if you throw in everything about the rider and the conditions, tire stuff isn't the be-all-end-all.

So while tubulars at low pressure may be good, that does not mean that high PSI or stiff clinchers will make a fast rider slow.

Both run clinchers at about 50/60psi. They corner the crap out of their machines. Really can handle their bikes. One race last year, with mostly dry conditions but with 4 or 5 corners with some greasy mud, one ran 80 psi front and rear. Before the race I asked him. Are you sure? " I don't buy all that really low pressure crap ". Was basically his response. After, he said he didn't loose anything in the corners but did admit that he was a little beat up. Why 80? It was what was in his tires from the week of riding on the many dirt roads near his house.

The low pressure isn't for cornering. It provides the suspension. Just like riding a rigid mountain bike will be a competitive disadvantage, so will riding a cross bike with high pressure. Are there guys who can rip your legs off with a rigid mountain bike? Yeah. Are there guys who can rip your legs off running high pressure on a cross bike? Yeah.

It all boils down to what kind of competitive advantage you want to spend your money on.

And as an aside to PBB regarding suppleness ... tradeoffs. A more supple tire is going to roll better and soak up the bumps nicely but it might fold a bit in the corners. If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I'd have a wide variety of wheels with tires to fit all conditions. I don't. So I live with the tradeoffs.

It all boils down to what kind of competitive advantage you want to spend your money on.How many seconds of competitive advantage per 60 min. race do you get by spending twice as much on tires? Ballpark is fine.

How many seconds of competitive advantage per 60 min. race do you get by spending twice as much on tires?Now you are sounding like a triathlete.

(BTW I think you could actually quantify the benefits from doing a measurement of rolling resistance of various tires and pressures over different kinds of terrain. In fact, it would be an interesting experiment. You couldn't, however, account for riders having different skill at being able to ride smoothly over rough terrain, think Tom Boonen riding cobblestones.)

Now you are sounding like a triathlete.Which should give us a idea about how seriously to take this debate.

(BTW I think you could actually quantify the benefits from doing a measurement of rolling resistance of various tires and pressures over different kinds of terrain. In fact, it would be an interesting experiment. You couldn't, however, account for riders having different skill at being able to ride smoothly over rough terrain, think Tom Boonen riding cobblestones.)I would like to see such a measurement too. Especially regarding whether a comparatively stiff sidewall at lower pressure is faster than a more supple sidewall at higher pressure.

Another factor you can't account for is rider psychology. If riders are so afraid of damaging their $150 uber-supple casings that they ride more conservatively, then the tires are effectively slower.

How many seconds of competitive advantage per 60 min. race do you get by spending twice as much on tires? Ballpark is fine.

Take a course with several 90-180 deg turns like StarCrossed for instance (especially the muddy version we had a few years ago) & you could gain a lot of time. Say you go through a greasy corner .5 second faster than the other guy, multiply that by how many corners you are gaining time on & it adds up. I'm no math whiz but last I checked if you are one second faster than the guy next to you.....

As far as spending twice as much on tires, this depends on how serious you care to get. I started off about 6 years ago racing on Tufo Prestiges & thought they were the sh**. I still use them on dry,dusty late summer cross races at South SeaTac, mainly because I don't want to tear any Grifo's or Dugasts. I also think the Vittorias are great way to get started using tubulars. Someone said it earlier in the thread, get the Vittoria's, ride the crap out of them & when it comes time to replace them you can always try something different. Well put.

The part about this whole debate that irritates me is when people say tire A is just as good as tire B but its a whole lot cheaper & there is no difference in ride quality. This is total BS. I've never heard of someone racing on Grifo's,Dugast's or FMB's then trying out a Tufo or Vittoria & saying that. There is nothing wrong with Tufo's or Vittoria's but it just gets old hearing people bad mouth the nice stuff. If the spendy tires are not in your budget then don't even consider them. However, everyone on here deep down wishes they could run what the pro's run. That's half the fun of racing cross, the technical side of it. If you disagree then why are you on this forum & why are you still reading this??

How many seconds of competitive advantage per 60 min. race do you get by spending twice as much on tires? Ballpark is fine.

I've settled on Griffos now. I'll spend about $70 per tire which is roughly twice the cost of a Michelin Mud. I buy tubular wheels used -- at least until recently they have been a disposable commodity item. I've been paying about $175 per set for 1600 gram wheelsets.

I bet over a dry course I could be as much as ten seconds per lap faster. Let's say 5. At about 8 laps a race, that means 40 seconds a race. That can mean a couple places -- maybe more.

As long as I don't rip the tire, I'll use them for a couple of seasons at least, replacing them as I need them. At a dozen races a year, that's like $12 per race for my swank tires. With Muds it's probably $5 a race (since you can usually buy them for about $30 each).

Now, I was 15th in my local series last year -- but I missed some races and didn't accrue as many points as I should have. Anyway, if I can make it into the top ten in the series, then I can get a callup to the Portland USGP in the 35+ race. Spending a few bucks for some tires that might be the difference between a place or two is worth it for me if it helps me to start near the front at those big races.

If I had money to spend, I'd probably try out some FMBs. In face, if I really had some money, I'd spring for the Racing Ralph treads on FMB casings that I've seen around. Will they make me faster? Dunno but you can't discount the placebo effect. Plus, everyone would totally geek out over my tires at the races..

1st) The gain in time can add up quickly. For example a lot of times here we have something like a turn and a short climb right after. So if you get around that corner well, you will make it over that climb on your bike. If not, you have to run. That's not 1 second but rather like 5 or 10 seconds gained per lap just on that one spot already - and there's more of those spots around the course.

2nd) Most of the people here do not depend on good results, so something else has to be considered. Does it add to my fun to have a great ride on a great but expensive tire?
Some people might say, well, not really, I might have as much fun on a cheaper tire trying to get the best out of it - which can be a lot. Money still can't buy time in a race, and a great technique can do so much more.

I've been switching and testing tires a lot recently, it's fun to see the (great) differences - and I really can't believe someone wouldn't feel it. I answered MY questions with getting me some Dugasts for the next season (easier and less expensive to get on this side of the ocean, sorry :wink: ), because it just adds to my experience of a great ride. It will certainly not make me a winner - more time for training and maybe being younger would help there... :) - but it makes it more fun.
A race-only tire can make it a couple of seasons, so that can justify spending a bit more on it as well. After all, it's the most important part on a cross bike I'd say, it deserves spending a good part of what you spend on your bike on it.

"The low pressure isn't for cornering. It provides the suspension..."

Really? So on the hard, dry courses, you run lower pressure? And on muddy soft courses you run high pressure?

I guess my whole point to all this - if there can actaully be a point behind forum postings and discussions - was, often times, pereception is a long way from reality. I responded to the orinigal post, becuase I actually did spent my winter practicing cyclocross cornering on 4 types of tires. (2 of the types were the specific tires asked about). Over and over and over again on a varariety of different turns and conditions. The same park, the same corners, different conditions. The place is just up the street so it was easy to carry the spare set of wheels. I surprised myself. The only time I absolutely could tell the difference was when the conditions were on the muddy side and I used the Grifo semi-slicks. No surprise there. I feel this type of test is a better guage than picking out corners from a race. How many times, even with warm-up laps, do any of us tackle a given corner from a race course? During my "tests" I did corners, 20, 30, 40 times in one day. Isn't that a better sampling? I couldn't tell the difference between the tires.

I'm not saying don't by expensive tires. I'm not "bad mouthing them". As ejpres said, having Dugast (or whatever) is part of the fun. I get that. Look, you are talking to a guy with lots of equipment hanging in the basement. That said, going back to the oringinal post, I certainly don't feel that spending the extra money - and that was the concern if I recall correctly - is going to change the way he races cross. And as the discussion progressed I thought more about what I've seen and heard and experienced, and I've come to the conculsion, that it really doesn't matter what tires you run, if you finish 6th on Dugast you will finish 6th on Kenda wire bead clinchers.

Addicted,

PS - For the sake of disclosure, as some seem to want to know one's resume. I'm a Cat 2. I've won road races, crits and TTs. If it wasn't for a time penalty (yellow line violation!) I would have a stage race win too. I finish in the top 10 at cross races many times per season and on the podium a handful of times. No wins yet. I currently race the "Elite Masters" as they are calling the category these days.

The low pressure is most of all for the grip, as much in cornering as in going forward. The lower the pressure, the more of the thread touches the ground, the more grip you have. Not that complicated.

So basically most of the time you want to have the pressure as low as you can - the bumpier the ground (like sometimes dry ground, stones, roots...) the higher you have to run the pressure not to pinch-flat and/or damage the rim.
Only if it's like a road race dry and the ground is mostly even, you might want to run much higher pressure to have a lower rolling resistance - but I haven't had such a race here in Europe yet - I'm hearing some races in the US are like that.

And as an aside to PBB regarding suppleness ... tradeoffs. A more supple tire is going to roll better and soak up the bumps nicely but it might fold a bit in the corners. If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I'd have a wide variety of wheels with tires to fit all conditions. I don't. So I live with the tradeoffs.

A tire with a more rigid sidewall will fold, a tire with a supple sidewall will roll off sideways more smoothly and controllable.

Take a course with several 90-180 deg turns like StarCrossed for instance (especially the muddy version we had a few years ago) & you could gain a lot of time. Say you go through a greasy corner .5 second faster than the other guy, multiply that by how many corners you are gaining time on & it adds up. I'm no math whiz but last I checked if you are one second faster than the guy next to you.....That doesn't even begin to answer the question I actually asked. Its no revelation that if you are faster in every corner, you are faster overall. Tell me how an $80 tire is .5 seconds faster through every corner than a $40 tire. :skep:

As far as spending twice as much on tires, this depends on how serious you care to get.Define serious. The fastest guys I have riddend with, and I am talking about Nat. caliber amateurs, regularly race on clinchers. If by serious you mean year round training, dominating local series, top 10 Elite Men Nats, top 15 SSCXWC riders, then they are serious. They do not race on high-dollar tubulars (or tubuars at all in one case).

If you mean serious as in people who are serious about cyclocross as a "lifestyle" then its a whole different perspective. (And I fall in this category).

The part about this whole debate that irritates me is when people say tire A is just as good as tire B but its a whole lot cheaper & there is no difference in ride quality. This is total BS. I've never heard of someone racing on Grifo's,Dugast's or FMB's then trying out a Tufo or Vittoria & saying that.
Scroll up. That is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread and in other threads. This whole thread has been trying to find a basis for your assertion that it is total BS, and you've got nothing other than the usual appeal to elitism that says "hey if you have to settle for cheap tires then they are fine but those of use who don't just know that they are better."

I've settled on Griffos now. I'll spend about $70 per tire which is roughly twice the cost of a Michelin Mud. I buy tubular wheels used -- at least until recently they have been a disposable commodity item. I've been paying about $175 per set for 1600 gram wheelsets.

I bet over a dry course I could be as much as ten seconds per lap faster. Let's say 5. At about 8 laps a race, that means 40 seconds a race. That can mean a couple places -- maybe more.

As long as I don't rip the tire, I'll use them for a couple of seasons at least, replacing them as I need them. At a dozen races a year, that's like $12 per race for my swank tires. With Muds it's probably $5 a race (since you can usually buy them for about $30 each).You are comparing Griffos to clinchers (Muds). I asked about Griffos compared to Vittoria tubulars.

That doesn't even begin to answer the question I actually asked. Its no revelation that if you are faster in every corner, you are faster overall. Tell me how an $80 tire is .5 seconds faster through every corner than a $40 tire. :skep:

Define serious. The fastest guys I have riddend with, and I am talking about Nat. caliber amateurs, regularly race on clinchers. If by serious you mean year round training, dominating local series, top 10 Elite Men Nats, top 15 SSCXWC riders, then they are serious. They do not race on high-dollar tubulars (or tubuars at all in one case).

If you mean serious as in people who are serious about cyclocross as a "lifestyle" then its a whole different perspective. (And I fall in this category).


Scroll up. That is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread and in other threads. This whole thread has been trying to find a basis for your assertion that it is total BS, and you've got nothing other than the usual appeal to elitism that says "hey if you have to settle for cheap tires then they are fine but those of use who don't just know that they are better."

That doesn't even begin to answer the question I actually asked .How does this not answer your question? My answer was an estimate, .5 second per corner. If you would like me to calculate how many corners & how many laps I could, then you would have your ballpark estimate. I figured you would get my point but I guess I was wrong. I can tell you, without a doubt, that I corner faster & in more control on my Rhino's than I do on my Tufo's in slippery conditions. Anyone who has ridden those tires in greasy conditions will back me on this.

Define serious. I understand this completely. I ride & race with several National Champions & they all use different set ups. One uses clinchers & the others use tubbies. A good rider can ride anything & do well.

If you mean serious as in people who are serious about cyclocross as a "lifestyle" then its a whole different perspective. (And I fall in this category). This is exactly what I meant, passion for the sport.

Not sure what to make of your last point. What I was trying to get at (but didn’t word it right) was that I have never heard anyone who races on these so called "elitist" tires trying out a pair of less expensive clinchers (or tubbies) & saying, "wow, these work just as well as my handmade, ultra supple, uber expensive tubbies". The reason is because the expensive tires flat out ride & feel better. That is just MY opinion on them. I buy them because it’s worth it to me & cross is my passion (& families passion for that matter).

DP

What I was trying to get at (but didn’t word it right) was that I have never heard anyone who races on these so called "elitist" tires trying out a pair of less expensive clinchers (or tubbies) & saying, "wow, these work just as well as my handmade, ultra supple, uber expensive tubbies".My asnwer to that that point is that I have raced Griffos and Vittorias and, wow, the Vittorias work just as well. That's just my opinion, but now you can't say you have never heard it. :D

You are comparing Griffos to clinchers (Muds). I asked about Griffos compared to Vittoria tubulars.

I have never raced on Vittoria so have no frame of reference.

My asnwer to that that point is that I have raced Griffos and Vittorias and, wow, the Vittorias work just as well. That's just my opinion, but now you can't say you have never heard it. :D

Well, you got me there. Now I can at least say I've heard it once. :D

I have never raced on Vittoria so have no frame of reference.

Grifos on good courses(34's or 34front 32rear)

on bad courses where I'm worried about side wall damage Tufo T-34s

As long as nobody writes that switching to Dugasts "was like lifting a veil off the loudspeakers".

Wait, wrong forum....

I've ran both and they both have their differences.

Vittorias - They have a firmer feeling casing than the Grifos. If you race like a bmx rider and crank your turns super hard, then this would be a plus for you. It would be nice if the top of the casing was a little more supple, but for the most part they work pretty well. Mine weren't the straightest, but were acceptable. The tread works fine, though the rubber compound feels a bit hard. It lasts forever, though. My base tape started to peel from the casing after one fairly dry season. Nothing a little barge cement won't fix in the off season. All in all great, tires when considering the cost to performance ratio. There isn't a better tire for the money out there. Just make certain you get the 34c version. The 32's are tiny.

Grifos - These are much more supple. If you don't square your corners in an aggro manner, then having a more supple casing equals more traction, everywhere. Especially in mud. The old belief that a harder tire will cut to the firm and give more traction doesn't work. There is a reason that at nationals, everyone was running super low pressures. Many times you can't see the ground under the goop and pick the good line. Having a tire that will conform to the hidden ruts and bumps and not bounce and slide all over is faster and easier to ride. As far as durability, I've had nothing but good things to say about the Grifo's. Two seasons on them and the sidewalls look dirty, but not scuffed or torn. They also have removable valve stems, allowing you to run Tufo valve extenders (the best type) and inject Stan's sealant. This tire all around rocks. It's the Ultegra SL or Campy Chorus of tubulars. If you can find a deal on these, do it. Besides, the tan sidewall looks the classiest.

Don't get me started on Dugast and FMB. The lust for those transcends logic for most mortals. I love mine and I'm glad I only have to justify their purchase to myself, because I don't think I could sell it to any one else. They are a bit like cross, in that you can't explain it, but once you try it your hooked.

Okay, being that I am the one who started this thread, I just wanted to comment on Gripped most recent posts.
He hit the nail on the head for me. I'm a category 4/35+ (B) racer. I'm not that good at cross yet and mostly do it because it is fun and keeps me in shape longer into the year.
That being said, there really is no way I can justify spending $80 per tire for my skill level. I figure I will try the vittoria 34mm size and see how they go. $40 is a good price to start at in my mind. Am I going to go from 15th to 1st because I ride Grifos? NOPE. I was very happy with the tread pattern in my vittoria clinchers, but felt that they claimed 700x32 was far from accurate. The Michelin Muds performed great all year in all types of courses that I did. However I want to try tubulars and see how they go. I got my tubular wheelset off ebay for $135. Qty of 2 @ $40 each for tires seems a better choice given my skill level as opposed to buying two tires that will end up costing more then the whole wheelset.
Thanks for all the responses.
-Pete




What kind of components are you running? Tires are the most important part of your bike. Way more important than derailleurs, bars, cranks, maybe even the freakin frame. Good Tubulars will transform your ride.

What kind of components are you running? Tires are the most important part of your bike. Way more important than derailleurs, bars, cranks, maybe even the freakin frame. Good Tubulars will transform your ride.

I run a Soma Crosscheck with Veloce 10 speed rear shifter and rear derailleur. 42 front ring on an FSA SLK crank. The swankiest parts on my whole bike are the Thomson post and Aspide saddle.
I understand your comment about tires being very important, but is the Grifo really twice as good as the Vittoria? If I can get the Grifo for around $60 each I might consider it. I just lost out on a pair on ebay that went for $117. When it comes down to August though and if I have not scored what I consider a deal, then I will pony up the $80 (for 2 tires) for the Vittorias from Excel.
I'm far from a beginner racer in general. I've raced road and mtn bikes for almost 20 years now and I have dabbled in cross a few times, but last year was my first year of actually attempting to race as opposed to ride the cross races.
After all the responses posted here, and obviously from very strong opinions, I think that I have formed the following conclusion:
Grifos are great. If I have the $ go for it. However, they don't appear to be twice as good as the Vittorias and I have not heard horror stories about the Vittorias.
A friend of mine told me this weekend that he too had problems with the base tape pulling away on a Vittoria tire, but he said they weren't bad. That is the biggest gripe I have heard.
I'm going to keep my eye out for a deal on Grifos, but being were my skill level is at this point and the fact that $80 is a lot for one tire in my opinion, I don't feel like I HAVE to have the grifos after all the responses I have seen here.
I'd say the cross community tends to be a little more fanatical and obsessive about their equipment. It is a cult sport, even in cycling. Some of the beliefs seem to me to be steeped in myth more then hard data. I think there tends to be the mentallity of "If the Belgians do it, then it must be right" :D
I'm not saying that it wrong. I originally started this whole thread to hear comparisons of the two tires and it has totally started a different topic/argument at times.
Unoveloce has given me one of the most coherent of replies because he has tried both tires and can comment on both tires with what appeared to me to be some subjective answers.
Thanks,
-Pete

I run a Soma Crosscheck with Veloce 10 speed rear shifter and rear derailleur. 42 front ring on an FSA SLK crank. The swankiest parts on my whole bike are the Thomson post and Aspide saddle.
I understand your comment about tires being very important, but is the Grifo really twice as good as the Vittoria? If I can get the Grifo for around $60 each I might consider it. I just lost out on a pair on ebay that went for $117. When it comes down to August though and if I have not scored what I consider a deal, then I will pony up the $80 (for 2 tires) for the Vittorias from Excel.
I'm far from a beginner racer in general. I've raced road and mtn bikes for almost 20 years now and I have dabbled in cross a few times, but last year was my first year of actually attempting to race as opposed to ride the cross races.
After all the responses posted here, and obviously from very strong opinions, I think that I have formed the following conclusion:
Grifos are great. If I have the $ go for it. However, they don't appear to be twice as good as the Vittorias and I have not heard horror stories about the Vittorias.
A friend of mine told me this weekend that he too had problems with the base tape pulling away on a Vittoria tire, but he said they weren't bad. That is the biggest gripe I have heard.
I'm going to keep my eye out for a deal on Grifos, but being were my skill level is at this point and the fact that $80 is a lot for one tire in my opinion, I don't feel like I HAVE to have the grifos after all the responses I have seen here.
I'd say the cross community tends to be a little more fanatical and obsessive about their equipment. It is a cult sport, even in cycling. Some of the beliefs seem to me to be steeped in myth more then hard data. I think there tends to be the mentallity of "If the Belgians do it, then it must be right" :D
I'm not saying that it wrong. I originally started this whole thread to hear comparisons of the two tires and it has totally started a different topic/argument at times.
Unoveloce has given me one of the most coherent of replies because he has tried both tires and can comment on both tires with what appeared to me to be some subjective answers.
Thanks,
-Pete

Well, with cross still 4-5 months away, we need something to talk/debate about on here. I guess thank you is in order onrhodes for giving us this opportunity. :thumbsup:

We should start up another disc vs canti vs v-brake thread. That might kill another week or so. :D

DP

FWIW Unoveloce's response was probably the best on here.

Well, with cross still 4-5 months away, we need something to talk/debate about on here. I guess thank you is in order onrhodes for giving us this opportunity. :thumbsup:

We should start up another disc vs canti vs v-brake thread. That might kill another week or so. :D

DP

FWIW Unoveloce's response was probably the best on here.

+1 (on both counts)

Here are my points presented as a random stream of consciousness, but first, please don't blindfold me and then ask me to test tires because I'll crash.

1. I can distinctly tell the difference between the old Grifo tread and the new Grifo tread. No, it's not in my head. Those two tires have subtle differences in their respective tread patterns, but behave quite differently. Spacing the cleats slightly farther apart and adding an extra row of dots makes an enormous difference. I would say that the new Grifo is the best tire for the $. They can be had for $65 per. Not cheap, but not FMB/Dugast prices as well. The Grifo clincher has completely different sidewall compared to the tubular.
2. I’ve found that the new Grifo tread works better in most mud compared to the Mud2 because it clears far better and doesn’t pack up. The Mud2 holds off camber grass better than any tire I’ve tried. I do not own nor have I tried the Dugast Ryno.
3. The old Tufo tread pattern, as found on the Pro and Prestige, is perhaps the worst tread ever on wet grass. However, they are stout, work really well in dry conditions and are priced nicely.
4. The Flexus is really disappointing in muddy conditions. They also are easy to puncture and are expensive to-boot. I had great hope when they first came out, but will not use them anymore.
5. The FMBs are light, yet robust due to the quality of the casing and have a good all around tread pattern, but doesn’t work as well as the new Grifo tread on really slick courses. When I was at CX worlds in Feb. The Belgian guys went on and on about how they felt the quality of the Dugasts had gone downhill and that they’d become fragile. They all coveted the FMB for the quality of the casing and overall construction. The Belgians also talked about how Lars Boom could ride the “slower” Rhinos to hold the corners better because he’s clearly stronger than everyone else in the sport. The rest of the guys were using Typhoons, Gifos, FMBs.
6. If you are going to go through the trouble of gluing tires, glue on good ones.

6. If you are going to go through the trouble of gluing tires, glue on good ones.
Amen. While glueing on tires isn't rocket science, it isn't something that you want to do and then in your 1st race realize that "OMG, these tires suck."

Amen. While glueing on tires isn't rocket science, it isn't something that you want to do and then in your 1st race realize that "OMG, these tires suck."
And after you bought an extra set of tubular wheels for some good money (even if it was a bargain), it doesn't really make sense to start being cheap for the last $20 on the tires and not get the best result and so make the whole idea way less worthy anyhow.