What's wrong with Conti Attack & Force tires?
 

My lbs switched my Attack & Force tires out to Michelin Lithons. I noticed all our lbs have stopped carrying the Attack & Force. Carry everything else in the Continental line just not those 2 tires. I found a place that was closing them out at half price but I'm somewhat skeptical about ordering them now. Anyone have any thoughts on why these tires don't seem to be held in high regard anymore? Wardie

i'm guessing it may have to do with the fact that the Force (rear tire) doesn't last long at all, it usually starts to show belts after less than 1000 miles, and for the same (original) price you can get better tires that last much longer...

the Attack is good, and it lasts much longer, but the Force is the weak link.

Just buy GP 4000's and be done with it. I wouldn't try to save money on close-out tires.

I ride them on a couple of bikes and I like them quite a bit. I've always picked them up on some kind of discount though. I suspect the reason they are on closeout now is that Conti has decided to discontinue them just like the GP3000. I also doubt they ever really caught on and I'd suspect their sales were low. Just like every other product they have a lifetime.

At the prices I'm seeing ($49 per pair) I think they a pretty good deal.

Most places only sell them in pairs, which becomes a problem when one is damaged and needs replaced.


Also some of the rolling ressitence tests floating around haven't been kind to them.

http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/0/...her-specs.html

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html




Deda Tre Giro d'Italia..........................26.4 Watts
Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX................27.1 Watts
Michelin Pro2 Race..............................29.2 Watts
Vittoria Diamante Pro Rain..................30.6 Watts
Michelin Megamium 2..........................32.7 Watts
Pariba Revolution...............................33.4 Watts
Michelin Carbon..................................34.7 Watts
Panaracer Stradius Pro.......................35.4 Watts
Schwalbe Stelvio Plus.........................36.1 Watts
Schwalbe Stelvio Ev. Front/Rear *......39.3 Watts*
Hutchinson Fusion...............................39.6 Watts
Continental Ultra Gator Skin................40.3 Watts
Ritchey WCS Race Slick........................40.3 Watts
Schwalbe Stelvio.................................41.0 Watts
Specialized S-Works Mondo.................42.4 Watts
Continental GP Attack/Force *...........44.5 Watts*
Continental GP 3000...........................46.6 Watts
Hutchinson Top Speed........................47.9 Watts

Hmm...Interestingly the Attack tire has the highest coefficient of rolling resistance but not the best grip value, wonder how that grip value was calculated...

I'd also question pumping the tires to 101psi...they are rated to 120psi. In addition, as the author states, tires with widths smaller than 23mm only benefit from decreased rolling resistance when pumped to higher pressure than their 23mm+ counterparts. Therefore, I do not believe the comparison between a 22mm Attack to the 24mm Deda is accurate. If you look at the chart, you'll see that tires with wider profiles (23mm+) are found at the top of the chart.

And wasn't the Attack/Force designed to wear together? Attack very fast wear, Force moderate wear so that they can be replaced together? I haven't tried my pair yet so I can't speak from experience.

so what?!?!? just because they're rated at 120 psi, doesn't mean they need to be inflated to 120psi, and higher pressure doesn't necessarily mean faster when you take normal road conditions into consideration...

Force wears out pretty quickly, Attack lasts longer.
I was disappointed with mine, I could really feel the difference in RR compared to my Pro-Races and Race X Lites. First time I put them on, I turned back to recheck the pressures... they felt half flat and very sluggish.

On this note. if you look at the list above, the Vittorias are basically the fastest tire of the bunch. What they fail to list is it's predecessor, which has virtually the same coefficient. I read an article, that if you want a good, reliable, fast rolling tire on the cheap....

Vittoria Rubino Pros.

I got a rear one cheap because the shop guy had split a pair for a customer and wanted to get rid of it. Because they are fast-wearing, I put it on the front to try it out, and I couldn't believe how crap it was!! I also thought mine was flat. I dunno how 'bad' it is to have the rear on the front, but it even effected the handling of my bike -- it wouldn't steer/track properly. It was like having a garden hose on my wheel! :)

Huh...I guess I shouldn't be surprised at all the negative experiences cited here (these *are* experiences, right guys, not just rumor and conjecture?) seeing as for any given product one endorses heartily the internet always seems to come back with 10 folks who swear it's pure crap.

But I'm on my second set of Conti Attack/Force tires, and never found any noticeable shortcomings as far as rolling resistance or fast wear goes. I got 3000 miles on the previous set and probably could have gotten more. That's almost twice as much mileage as I got from the Hutchinson Fusions I was riding previously.

If I can find 'em for $49/pair I'll buy a five year supply!

I've used them for a few years, and never felt any differnece in rolling resistence. Now I've seen the chart though, the power of suggestion makes me think they're slow.

Haven't noticed excessive wear, but I have had problems with destroying one before the other. Fortunately my LBS is good about splitting a pair.

May be due to the fact that the rear tire is designed to be used on the rear wheel?

Have had good service with these tires, no flat or excessive wear problems.

As I said, if you read the article, low width tires need to be pumped up to higher PSI compared to high width tires to attain any reduction in rolling resistance. Comparing a low width attack tire and a 24mm tire is unfair at the same PSI making the chart's results less than solid.

I would take all the info on that chart with a significant grain of salt, especially without a better description of test conditions and rationale for them.