Up to a 55 according to the link posted after your post.
Seems an odd positioning, however…looks like they see it as a mud / adventure tire vs. a race tire. And as noted, no Black Chili compound option.
Just indicates to me that Conti doesn’t understand what makes the RK so desirable. It isn’t because it is a MTB tire, it is because it is fast. If they had used a RK carcass, Black Chili compound and then those new widths (even with the new tread design), it could have been a game changer.
According to bikerumor review there will be a new Terra Competition tyre too:
… In a 35, 40, 45 mm option. This is really disappointing.
This is driving me crazy. Was there some sort of tire industry agreement this year? Teravail, Specialized, Panaracer and probably others - have released their new tires in this size range, consolidating to smaller sizes.
How much demand is there for 35s or 40s right now? Is the lag for tires worse than frames? The demand for ~47s has been on the wall for a couple years, even if 50+ only really started gaining steam in June.
We needed more granularity at the big end 46-52. Anywhere in there would have been a lot better than what’s being shown so far. 35s? For what?
I think you’d be surprised. At least here (Northern Europe), I see way more gravel bikes with 35’s than I do with 45’s. At my last race, we were a handful of nerds people on 'Burts or Race Kings but everyone else seems to be stuck on 40’s. From what I hear, that’s changing though.
I still think the MTB tire / Dylan Johnson crowd is the vocal minority. A lot of ppl are running 40-45 based on the events I go to as that seems to be the best option if you CANNOT fit Thunderburts or Racekings which is a Majority of current frames.
I have talked /heard from to a few folks at the big companies and while don’t argue bigger is faster it seems like they aren’t ready to fully commit as it might be a trend.
For example - I’m just curious what happens if/when we finally test a 45mm gravel tire that is faster than the TB/RK! @jkarrasch on gravel. Will everyone just flip back to the faster/aero/lightweight “gravel” tire again?
For example - I’m just curious what happens if/when we finally test a 45mm gravel tire that is faster than the TB/RK! @jkarrasch on gravel. Will everyone just flip back to the faster/aero/lightweight “gravel” tire again?
It would have to not just be as fast but also be relatively durable. It’s already possible that a Rene Herse 44 or 48 extralight is faster than TB, but nobody really wants to risk it. The Caracal Race was almost faster, a 45mm Caracal could end up being faster if they make one.
Then again, it’s also possible that a 2.35 G-One Speed Pro is faster than either option and we ultimately end up going even bigger.
Yes it will have to be just as / more durable.
Anecdotal evidence but I haven’t flatted a gravel tire as long as I can remember. YMMV. I believe this is a combination of better tech in tires, wheels, and perhaps most importantly sealant. Also we have been getting smarter about ideal tire pressure.
IMO the puncture protection is mostly for the pros to worry about that are blindly bombing decents at 30+mph. As much as we hate to admit it that is not the majority of us.
Schwalbe makes their gravel tires in 50 mm. Both the G One RX (knobby for technical courses) and the G One RS (fast semi slick) are available in 50 mm. Now Conti has this new knobby in 50 mm, maybe their new fast tire will be in 50 mm as well… And, why even make 35 at all, or even 40s! My testing indicates 45s are better in every situation than a 40. Hopefully Black Chili and a fast casing. I agree it is frustrating, why is there no Race King 51 mm, Black Chili, for example… Maybe they the think they can do better with their new race tire… Videos from early European races this season show a lot of people riding with bigger tires, but it is true that there are still not a lot of frames that fit above a 50. But we do have: Mog, 3T, Ridley ASTR, Trek Checkpoint, Pivot Vault (fits a 2.1 Thunderburt, and will take a RK 2.2 up front), Giant Revolt, Felt, Parlee Taos, Stigmata, Mondraker… I am not convinced a 45 mm tire will ever be ideal, except, perhaps for courses with 50% or more of asphalt, but I do think 50-52 mm is enough for everything with the possible exception of the absolutely most technical courses, with lots of big rocks and twisty, steep technical descents. The Specialized Tracer, in 50 mm, looks like a fast tire to me as long as they used a decent casing… we’ll see. I really do not like the Pathfinder, as I feel the thick center tread makes it relatively stiff, and slower on off road surfaces.
No doubt that is a big factor…yes the trend is towards larger tires, but the actual demand, based on frame capability, is likely smaller than we realize. That said, wasting time developing anything new that is smaller than a 42 is just kinda bizarre.
I hear ya. IMO the 40 and below is for this ever evolving endurance/do it all category. Think Enve Fray, Roubiax, Domane, Giant Defy. From what I have heard this is really a high selling category for most folks (ie. non racers). So I am sure they want plenty of decent tire options for them. Just my 2 cents.
Having done Unbound in 2023 I think there will always be a place for 40 and 42. MUD!
Even Dylan Johnson said he would bring Pathfinder 42s to some races in case of severe mud. Doesn’t matter how fast a MTB tire is if it won’t spin.
Agreed for mud… But there is no need to develop new tires at 35-40 mm for that, there are already plenty of tires in that width available for mud use.
Here’s a bit more info from Paige Onweller on the new Continental tire and some of the nomenclature.
The Insta post is nice but the real tell will be when we see what she runs at Unbound.
The real tell will also be once some Chung or BRR tests are performed. If it’s a poor performer, I don’t think anyone in this thread will care too much about its other features.
For god’s sake, Conti…trim your damn tires before you do a photo shoot. Sheesh.
Nothing screams “we just splashed some mud on a brand new tire” like the release hairs still fully intact on the whole damn tire.
I’m happy to test and report on whatever tests fastest.
45 mm Terra speed was one of my favorites to ride and looks great on BRR results. I actually thought it would be faster than everything based on feel.
45 Caracal Race needs to happen in my opinion.
Re your later comment on importance of sub 40 mm market, very much agree.
I’m debating my tire setup for Unbound this year. Considering a Race King up front and Pathfinder Pro 47 rear if dry. I ran Pathfinder Pro 47’s F/R last year and Pathfinder Pro 42’s F/R in 2023, both with good results and no punctures. I know there are potentially faster tires than the Pathfinder, but I value durability on that course and have had good experience with them.
Anyway, today was a long endurance ride and it was a good opportunity to do some tire testing. I was planning 2 loops of a 54 mile course, so figured I’d do a loop with the race king up front and then a loop with the Pathfinder 47. Not super scientific, but it was a good day for it. Low winds, pretty flat course. ~2/3 of the course was mix of pavement and very tame dirt/gravel and the other ~1/3 was medium gravel (nothing crazy). I know based on prior testing that the race king is faster on chunk, so I was really interesting is how they compared on a tame course like this. Identical bike setup except front wheel/tire. Wheels same width and depth. Raceking at 23psi, pathfinder at 30psi. Tried my best to keep same position on bike, including predetermined sections where I used the aero bars.
Results - Exact same NP an AP on each lap and my time in each zone was within a couple minutes of each other. So yeah, I’m a bit of a robot when it comes to riding endurance… Race king was just over 2 minutes slower. And there was one section early I think the race king got a small advantage with wind being just slightly lower at the start (based on looking at data), so I’d probably say the race king was more like 2:15 slower. Which translates to about 7 watts at those speeds (a little over 18mph). But it was hotter (lower air density) on the second lap accounting for 2-3 watts. Assuming my logic is directionally correct, I’d guestimate that the Race king was ~5 watts slower today on a pretty tame gravel course. I assume that gap might grow a little at race speeds. Again, I know this isn’t the most scientific test, but feel that’s it’s directionally reasonable and thought it might be worth sharing. Apologies for this post being such a rambling mess, just too lazy to figure out how to present it better.
And I’m not bagging on the Race King based on this, I actually thought it might do worse with all the road/smooth sections. I’m seldom struggling for watts to stay with a group on the smooth sections and I’ll take an advantage on the technical and chunky sections all day if it doesn’t cost me too much elsewhere. I’m planning to do a bunch more comparison testing in late April when I’ll be in Kansas pre-riding and doing a gravel stage race. I’m also racing this Saturday and plan to run the race king up front.
What were the temps and air density (rho) values per lap? Both matter glad you thought of that.
