Sunday 21 January 2024

Testing Schwalbe's Super Ground versus Super Race tyre versions

Last month I posted the results of the tyre rolling resistance testing I did, in which I compared the Schwalbe's Thunder Burt Super Race against the Continental Race King Protection.

Both are fast tyres, but the Super Race version of the Thunder Burt has never been tested by BRR (BicyleRollingResistance.com). Only the more robust Super Ground version of the Thunder Burt has been tested (see here).  Nevertheless, that Super Ground version of the Schwalbe Thunder Burt is so far the fasted MTB tyre tested by BRR, marginally faster than the Continental Race King Protection. 

In principle, the thinner carcass of the Super Race version of the Thunder Burt should be faster than the Super Ground version.  This is at least what Schwalbe claims.  However, some tests on BRR in the past gave some unexpected results, with the Super Ground version of the Racing Ralph testing a few Watts faster than the Super Race version.  This showed that it's not guaranteed that the Super Race version should be faster tyre, which is what motivated me to do this test.


Test details

For this test I was fortunate to have two new 2.35" Schwalbe tyres, that were brand new and unused until this test.  I had bought both the Super Ground and Super Race tyres in late 2023, so there was minimal uncertainty coming from the effect of any tyre ageing.

I tested the tyres using the same protocol used previously, which I explained in a previous post here.  As for my most recent test though, I used my MTB with its Power2Max spider-mounted power meter which measures total power.  As a consequence, this was one of the best executed and best controlled tests I've done.

I tested the two tyres in an A-B-A-B manner, so both tyres had a repeated test.  In addition, I also test my older 2022 Schwalbe Thunder Burt Super Race tyre first, to check that it gave similar results to last week.


Results

The results are shown again below.  The results are fairly conclusive, showing the Super Race version of the tyre (plotted with purple symbols/lines) being faster than the Super Ground version (plotted in red).








10 comments:

  1. This is one of my favourite tests and well done it getting those results. It takes time, money and lots of patience. I'm also very impressed your other half allows you to use your bike and rollers in the house. Or have you got a man-cave? :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, I have a man cave on the back of the garage, so that helps :-) Still, knobbly tyres on rollers make a hell of a racket, and Sarah had to put up with that drone for 2-3 hours at a time. Thanks, it tested my patience doing that testing and I was starting to lose the will to live when doing all the repeated runs, despite telling myself it all useful base training. The tyres will go to good use, and it won't be wasted money. I'll still be happy to run that Super Ground version of the tyre, because I reckon the extra puncture protection it provides compensates for the small penalty in rolling resistance.

      Delete
  2. BBR also tested the Super Race: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/mtb-reviews/schwalbe-thunder-burt-super-race
    Strangely contradictory results. Any idea how to explain this? Schwalbe itself also claims that the Super Race is faster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I just read BRR's review. I was waiting with interest for that test to be done by BRR, especially because their older Racing Ralph Super Ground versus Super Race test gave an unexpected ranking between those two casings. I can't explain it. It's strange that BRR's results are different to mine and, as you said, also different what Schwalbe says is their fastest rolling casing. I would expect that Schwalbe performs their own drum testing to verify which of their tyre models is fastest. I'd be surprised if they didn't do that.

      Delete
    2. For what it's worth I think BRR messed up by not testing consistent tire widths the way you did. Both of their Super Ground tests (Thunder Burt and Racing Ralph) were wider than their Super Races (2.25 vs 2.10 and 2.35 vs 2.25 respectively). Anecdotally, I find wider tires to roll faster.

      Delete
    3. I think BRR messed up by testing different widths between Super Race and Super Ground. You did it right by testing the different compounds with the same width.

      Delete
    4. I think you did it right using identical widths. BRR used narrower widths for Super Race and I think that threw off their results.

      Delete
    5. That's a really good point. I hadn't noticed that previously, that both of those BRR tests were done with the Super Ground versions having a larger width than their respective Super Race versions. BRR's own GP5000 testing shows that at equal pressures the wider version on the same tyre has a lower CRR. I think that might explain why their Super Race versus Super Ground testing threw up some strange results.

      I'm the same as you, I find that for real-life off-road riding wider tyres are usually faster. I haven't done any tests to prove it, but their are other factors that affect rolling resistance in real life, in addition to the tyre hysteresis losses that are measured by drum testing, that would give wider tyres an advantage when riding off-road.

      Delete
    6. Have you ever considered a rough-terrain rolldown test? I used to blindly follow BRR but I'm starting to doubt him for MTB stuff. Glad I found this post because I thought I was having cognitive dissonance. My 2.35" Thunder Burt Super Race feel noticeably faster than my 2.2" Race Kings. I need to locate a good rough-terrain hill for rolldown testing myself. Have you seen Bontrager's uneven terrain treadmill? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYaWetHzejQ

      Delete
    7. I hadn't seen that Bontrager treadmill until now. That looks brilliant. I like that they can test tyres with a rider on the bike. Doing that will pick up the suspension losses that occur (also called impedance by some people), in addition to the tyre hysteresis losses that drum and roller testing picks up. I still think drum testing like BRR's tests are useful, but it doesn't capture everything. For example the way CRR varies with pressure on drum test is not representative of real life. I still believe it has some value though, for comparing one tyre against another (if they have equal pressure and widths!).

      I've haven't tried doing an off-road rolldown test, but I'd like to give it a go some time. So far I've only ever done virtual elevation testing. Rolldown testing has the benefit over VE testing that you don't need accurate power measurements. I have the same problem as you though, finding a good test location reasonably close to home. Any good stretches of off-road trail normally has lots of dog walkers getting in the way!

      Delete