Originally Posted by
Six jours
Several folks have now done on-road testing either with powermeters or simple roll-down tests. The most reputable of the lot probably is Bicycle Quarterly (
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/0...ance-of-tires/) but those tests are still not perfect, IMO. They are, though, probably more meaningful than wind trainer results.
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read. However, while the article describing and summarizing the tests mentioned all types of variables, it did not mention tubes at all.
I went and looked up the test from the 2006 Vol. 5 No. 1 issue, but couldn't find it in it's entirety, just a summary (
http://velochimp.com/2006/11/rolling-resistance/). I did find their follow up test online (
http://www.bikequarterly.com/images/BQ64TireTest.pdf), and while they tested tubes there, they did not do rolling resistance tests on them, rather just referring via footnote to an earlier finding of theirs, but the link was a dead-end and I was unable to find out what that earlier test was that indicated higher rolling resistance with latex tubes.
The Vol.5 No.1 summary did note them as saying, "
Tires rolled slightly slower with Michelin’s relatively thick latex tubes than with butyl tubes. Thinner latex tubes, like used in tubular tires, may offer better performance, but when used in clinchers they are more prone to punctures caused by friction between tire and tube. Latex tubes do improve comfort."
I'd like to know what their testing methodology was and see the data that led them to those conclusions; which latex tubes, which butyl tubes, which pressures, which tires, etc.
If all we have to go on are the editor's comments in that one reply to a question in the comments, then I think it's awfully hard to conclude those comments represent a more meaningful evaluation than the roller tests I linked to upthread; we'll need some more info (e.g. data and methodology) before we can get to that. Even Heine and Vande Kamp concede that thinner latex may perform better than the ones they tested.
The BikeTechReview is very meticulous, controlled and well-noted, and it would be great to see how the results from different testing methods compare.
Again, thanks for the link; I haven't seen or read that mag in many, many years (did it used to be called Vintage Bike Quarterly?), but I think I'll get a subscription and check it out more thoroughly, as they have many topics that sound really interesting to me!