[ogaz]

Do you have a preference?

I like them both, but for different reasons.

Grip on the 3 encourages me to lean the bike over and dive through corners, but I've had noticeably more punctures on the 3s I'm running right now than the 2s. Is this a result of a softer compound?

The 2s are less grippy, but I like the firm, rolling feel they give. They feel harder and ready to roll. I've bought a batch for training on, whereas the 3s seem well suited to races.

Just my random opinion, YMMV.

G

 

[Michelin Bicycle Tech]

Do you have a preference?

I like them both, but for different reasons.

Grip on the 3 encourages me to lean the bike over and dive through corners, but I've had noticeably more punctures on the 3s I'm running right now than the 2s. Is this a result of a softer compound?

The 2s are less grippy, but I like the firm, rolling feel they give. They feel harder and ready to roll. I've bought a batch for training on, whereas the 3s seem well suited to races.

Just my random opinion, YMMV.

G

The preference at this point would have to be towards the Pro3, simply because the Pro2 is no longer available.

For the punctures, I would have to just say bad luck? The compound on the sides of the tire (or the tread) isn't softer, but made differently. To make the tires have more grip, we reworked the co-extruded silica and that is what gave us the ability to increase the grip. Gotta love the the fact that we can use the R&D from all of Michelin (Moto GP, F1 and all the other racing we do) and put it all into a bike tire.

 

[Ronman]

My experience with the Pro3s has been the opposite, ogaz. The Pro3s are much less prone to cuts and flatting than the Pro2s. And everyone in our group who currently run the Pro3s has the same opinion. We love 'em.
They also handle better on descents, provide more traction and seem to deflect less over bumps than the Pro2s. Pro2s were great, but the 3s are better. Longevity is still undetermined, but our verdict is these are great tires all around.