Does anyone think Wertz won the race because of his tire selection, or was his win due to the right timing of his attack and the ensuing tactics of the chase group?
I’d be willing to bet that he would have won no matter if he was running his Rene Herse tires or a 2.2 Race King…he went, everyone looked at everyone else just long enough for him to get his gap and that was all she wrote.
In case anyone is wondering, he ran Rene Herse Snoqualmie Pass in the Endurance casing.
Who cares about tactics and skill? I want something to buy so I can post it on the ‘gram.
I was comparing the geo of the Checkpoint SLR to the Lauf Seigla’s. With both in Large, it’s surprisingly close, especially in terms of stack and reach. The Lauf being a little slacker but then having shorter chainstays. The higher bottom bracket does stand out.
My Trek shop said they had a lot of returns with the Checkpoint SLR with people not liking how long the reach was on it.
1.1cm difference is significant…massive, IMO.
And the Front Center (though not listed on the Trek is around 610-612mm) which is notably shorter than the Lauf. Won’t matter to everyone, but that is not negligible either.
Considering how far bike technology has come in recent decades, it’s kind of crazy we’re still using a chain-driven system that first came about in (quick Google search) 1885.
It doesn’t make sense to pick one thing and divorce it from the whole in an attempt to show how little it matters. Many factors go into a win, tires are a significant one.
Wertz ran Rene Herse tires at Unbound and suffered immensely due to flats. His day, at that event, would have been significantly different with different tires.
A racer needs to be in the proper place to exhibit their skills, to engage in tactics to win. Tires, maybe more than any other equipment choice, affect the ability to get to those places.
Bit OT, but the lack of wide ranging options (pun intended) is not for lack of trying. As a hobby from college, I dug into alternatives and have keep moderate tabs on the options over the many decades of bike drivetrains.
Long story short, a chain remains because it is superior to the alternatives for a number of reasons even though it’s ancient in essence and remains flawed in some ways.
Well, I guess it is good thing I didn’t do that then. 
Pointing out that his winning move was likely not based on his tire choice doesn’t negate everything that happened before it.
As I think it has been brought up in this thread… it probably matters less than we think it does. But in the end it is best just to run what gives you the most confidence.
I do think a narrower, slick tire is faster on the pavement. You just got to make it to the pavement first.
The mechanical efficiency of a chain remains unmatched for bicycle systems…efficient, versatile and durable.
Sometimes you just get it right early. 
He won because of his tire choice.
good thing you aren’t singling one thing out and divorcing it from all the others. 
3mm of clearance is not enough
Also having a 54 tooth big ring and a 500 watt ftp doesnt hurt for fast downhill finish
Incredible picture
One of these things is not like the others…
That’s an important observation. Down sizing to a Medium and then tweaking fit with bar/stem/spacers may make for a litlte more lively handling bike.
Chain drives are incredibly efficient and versatile, with great durability and modularity. the roller chain is a really great invention.
