Clinchers vs Tubulars information sought

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by 531Aussie
Can someone dumb down all that "rotating mass" tech talk for me, and sum it up in a couple of sentences?


I've said this a dozen times on a dozen forums, but......

When I first heard a guy talking about his 150g lighter rims spinning up faster, I though it he was joking, and all these years later, I still think it's a joke. I think I said something to him like: "they're not gunna be 'suddenly spinning up' anywhere, because the tyres are stuck on the road, being held down by all you're weight, which you've still got haul up the road. The wheels will be 'waiting' for you to eventually get all your weight moving along, so they might be able to spin at a good speed"

The only time external rotating rim/tyre mass makes a difference to accelerating a bike wheel is when the bike is on a stand, or a trainer with little resistance.

The fastest-feeling wheel I have are my 2.140kg DT RR 1.2s; I suspect because they're very stiff.

If extra external rotating mass did get to a point that it could make a tiny difference in accelerating a bike, then I figure the difference, if any, would be due to the extra weight adding to the total load that must be moved along, or up, the road.

Without more math thrown at this, keeping momentum is not an issue, but when accelerating from low to high speed every little bit helps. The thing to remember is that us poor normal mortals powered without EPO juice only push out around 300 watts, that is three light bulbs. In comparison to small motorcycle that is about 40 times less power. So, it follows that every little advantage adds up. For me a good set of wheels are actually much more important than the frame itself.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by 531Aussie

The fastest-feeling wheel I have are my 2.140kg DT RR 1.2s; I suspect because they're very stiff.

The slowest "feeling" wheels I've ridden in the last few years were the Zipp101's which is not surprising because they were also some of the noodliest feeling wheels I've come across, but ironic because supposedly they are 40 secs faster over 40k (in the windtunnel, as claimed by their manufacturer) than a pair of Mavic Ksyriums, of which the 1550gm variety actually felt like some of the faster wheels I've ridden, probably in part due to their stiffness.

 

[swampy1970]

If having wheels that "spin up faster" was so important, you'd have every track sprinter on the planet using them. Fact is, every track sprinter uses disk wheels that "seem" to accelerate about as quick as dog turd fails to accelerate off the bottom of your shoe. Seems - such a painfully subjective word. Aero trumps weight by several orders of magnitude and unless you have long climbs over 7% that make up the majority of the ride I'd go aero every time. "Seems" can be delt with by the use of a powermeter. Ozman could probably use 40 hole Mavic ma2's from back in the day laced upto Campag gran sport hubs (and given his shed full of spares I'd reckon he'd be able to make up such a wheel) and not notice any difference cause he's putting out the power of Zeus.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by swampy1970

If having wheels that "spin up faster" was so important, you'd have every track sprinter on the planet using them. Fact is, every track sprinter uses disk wheels that "seem" to accelerate about as quick as dog turd fails to accelerate off the bottom of your shoe.

Seems - such a painfully subjective word. Aero trumps weight by several orders of magnitude and unless you have long climbs over 7% that make up the majority of the ride I'd go aero every time. "Seems" can be delt with by the use of a powermeter.

Ozman could probably use 40 hole Mavic ma2's from back in the day laced upto Campag gran sport hubs (and given his shed full of spares I'd reckon he'd be able to make up such a wheel) and not notice any difference cause he's putting out the power of Zeus.

Correct aerodynamics will trump weight, unless two aerodynamically similar wheels have a weight difference.

Point your google here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance and scroll down to advantages of light wheels.

 

[swampy1970]

Do a real world test. Take a bike, a powermeter and two sets of wheels of similar design but different weights - something like a alloy v shaped clincher and a Zipp 202. Use the same tires, tubes and pressures if possible. Go ride up a long hill with at least an 8% average grade and ride just below threshold power. Do several runs on each wheel and be prepared to be underwhelmed when your expected massive gains on the zipps just doesn't happen. When racing the difference between 1st and 2nd can be inches and a good set of wheels on a steep, long hill might get you that but don't expect to be a 1/4 mile up the road on a long hill. I don't care what wiki says - half of the stuff on the interwebz is based on myth and bench racing. Design a test, carry out the test and let the results speak for themselves.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Do a real world test. Take a bike, a powermeter and two sets of wheels of similar design but different weights - something like a alloy v shaped clincher and a Zipp 202. Use the same tires, tubes and pressures if possible. Go ride up a long hill with at least an 8% average grade and ride just below threshold power. Do several runs on each wheel and be prepared to be underwhelmed when your expected massive gains on the zipps just doesn't happen.

When racing the difference between 1st and 2nd can be inches and a good set of wheels on a steep, long hill might get you that but don't expect to be a 1/4 mile up the road on a long hill.

I don't care what wiki says - half of the stuff on the interwebz is based on myth and bench racing. Design a test, carry out the test and let the results speak for themselves.

I know for a fact, that every time after cleaning my bike nice and shiny, it goes at least 1mph faster.

Same with my motorcycles, feels much faster after cleaned and polished.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

"Losing 1 kg on a 7% grade would be worth 0.04 m/s (90 kg bike + rider) to 0.07 m/s (65 kg bike + rider). If one climbed for 1 hour, saving 1 lb would gain between 225 and 350 feet (107 m)"

Hmmm? Sounds like the 'old days' clincher and sew-up wheel assembly weight difference.

I don't need an SRM, i5s or Android tablet to prove less weight is better than more weight.


"half of the stuff on the interwebz is based on myth and bench racing."

You mean...like what we're doing now?

We need a 'dead horse' smilie.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
"Losing 1 kg on a 7% grade would be worth 0.04 m/s (90 kg bike + rider) to 0.07 m/s (65 kg bike + rider). If one climbed for 1 hour, saving 1 lb would gain between 225 and 350 feet (107 m)"

Hmmm? Sounds like the 'old days' clincher and sew-up wheel assembly weight difference.

I don't need an SRM, i5s or Android tablet to prove less weight is better than more weight.


"half of the stuff on the interwebz is based on myth and bench racing."

You mean...like what we're doing now?

We need a 'dead horse' smilie.

You just made my day, cause I lost 18 lbs since beginning September. Means in my first April race I will be climbing hills on only one bike instead of carrying a spare bike all around me.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

The hills get easier the lighter the rider becomes!. And the bike. And the wheels. Congratulations on your loss of mass!

 

[alienator]

Can someone dumb down all that "rotating mass" tech talk for me, and sum it up in a couple of sentences?   I've said this a dozen times on a dozen forums, but......   When I first heard a guy talking about his 150g lighter rims spinning up faster, I though it he was joking, and all these years later, I still think it's a joke.   I think I said something to him like: "they're not gunna be 'suddenly spinning up' anywhere, because the tyres are stuck on the road, being held down by all you're weight, which you've still got haul up the road. The wheels will be 'waiting' for you to eventually get all your weight moving along, so they might be able to spin at a good speed"   The only time external rotating rim/tyre mass makes a difference to accelerating a bike wheel is when the bike is on a stand, or a trainer with little resistance.      The fastest-feeling wheel I have are my 2.140kg DT RR 1.2s; I suspect because they're very stiff.   If extra external rotating mass did get to a point that it could make a tiny difference in accelerating a bike, then I figure the difference, if any, would be due to the extra weight adding to the total load that must be moved along, or up, the road.   

People claim it makes a big difference. Sadly, the science and math don't say as much. An analysis I linked to earlier, a guy looked at the acceleration difference between wheel sets weighing 0kg, 5kg, and 10kg, and the difference in acceleration was really small. Really small. If the difference in acceleration between a 0kg and 5kg set is small, it's pretty safe to assume that the acceleration difference between a wheel set that weights 1.5kg and another weighing 1kg is very small indeed. Is it measurable? Sure, with the right instruments. Can someone tell the difference? I've not seen a single bit of evidence that indicates someone can. If money or other greatness is on the line, then it might make sense to minimize the moment of inertia of all rotating bits, but you'll note that the sprinters and the climbers aren't all on the lightest kit. Hell, a lot of pro riders aren't even on the lightest bikes (There's a site somewhere that shows that some of the bikes in recent TdF's weighed up to and around 17lbs). It just reinforces the fact that there are many more factors than moment of inertia and weight, so many in fact that if a guy or girl crosses the line first, there's no way to say what about the bike, if anything, made the difference that allowed victory. I think the take away is that it's a personal decision. Go with what feels good (Remember, it was Chopper who said, "If it feels good, do it!"), but don't count on that make a meaningful difference in performance.

 

[ambal]

Originally Posted by alienator

People claim it makes a big difference. Sadly, the science and math don't say as much. An analysis I linked to earlier, a guy looked at the acceleration difference between wheel sets weighing 0kg, 5kg, and 10kg, and the difference in acceleration was really small. Really small. If the difference in acceleration between a 0kg and 5kg set is small, it's pretty safe to assume that the acceleration difference between a wheel set that weights 1.5kg and another weighing 1kg is very small indeed. Is it measurable? Sure, with the right instruments. Can someone tell the difference? I've not seen a single bit of evidence that indicates someone can.

If money or other greatness is on the line, then it might make sense to minimize the moment of inertia of all rotating bits, but you'll note that the sprinters and the climbers aren't all on the lightest kit. Hell, a lot of pro riders aren't even on the lightest bikes (There's a site somewhere that shows that some of the bikes in recent TdF's weighed up to and around 17lbs). It just reinforces the fact that there are many more factors than moment of inertia and weight, so many in fact that if a guy or girl crosses the line first, there's no way to say what about the bike, if anything, made the difference that allowed victory. I think the take away is that it's a personal decision. Go with what feels good (Remember, it was Chopper who said, "If it feels good, do it!"), but don't count on that make a meaningful difference in performance.

Nice response, thanks for taking the effort to explain it so clearly.

 

[swampy1970]

Does anyone have the build spec on the 0kg wheel set?

 

[Eichers]

Originally Posted by swampy1970

Does anyone have the build spec on the 0kg wheel set?

Hi swampy1970, yes, they are floating, no rotation mass, anti weight wheels that don't need to rotate

Hi OP, you can run Tubulars at a lower pressure and their construction (tyre/tube are glued to the round inner rim and pull inwards, not outwards, because the tube is contained in the tyre) allows them to be lighter, stronger, and deeper for the same rim weight.

The wide 23/24/25mm clincher have caught up to the narrower Tubular rims because you can run the lower tyre pressure, but the wide clincher rims (at this time) are generally heavier. Is this a bad thing, well you don't see (that I have noticed) pro teams using wide clincher rims even though they could use latex tubes (although not with CF clincher rims, it would appear) with excellent clincher tyres.

If you wanted to use clincher rims for training and racing then you could use a rear wide 23/24/25mm clincher rim and a narrower front 20/21mm clincher rims (for lower wheelset weight) and run Conti Attack/Force (22/24mm) tyres or any 20/21/22/23mm front tyre and any 23/24/25/28mm rear tyre (respectively or mix). This will allow you to run lower rear tyre pressure for comfort and corner grip and have agile front steering. A nice compromise...

thanks KL

 

[alienator]

Does anyone have the build spec on the 0kg wheel set?

I can't say exactly without violating signed agreements, but I can say it's expensive and doesn't interact with the Higgs field.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by Eichers

If you wanted to use clincher rims for training and racing then you could use a rear wide 23/24/25mm clincher rim and a narrower front 20/21mm clincher rims (for lower wheelset weight) and run Conti Attack/Force (22/24mm) tyres or any 20/21/22/23mm front tyre and any 23/24/25/28mm rear tyre (respectively or mix). This will allow you to run lower rear tyre pressure for comfort and corner grip and have agile front steering. A nice compromise...

My advice would be to avoid the narrow clincher tires. The benefit is so miniscule and tradeoff in ride quality not worth it imo. If you were hell bent on riding a 19 or 21mm front tire I'd suggest a tubular, where a narrow tire doesn't feel as harsh, or as dead (or whatever the opposite of 'lively' is). Even the Attack suffers in ride quality compared to a 23mm Grand Prix. But what's a mm between friends?

If we're talking mass start and we're thinking we got a shot at the podium, my money's on the guy going to bed dreaming of eating balls for breakfast, the balls of his competition, not the guy fretting 20 grams or 2mm. There are forces beyond mere statistics that propel one man past another as the finish line rushes in. By all means go to battle prepared, but remember what really matters.

 

[alienator]

My advice would be to avoid the narrow clincher tires. The benefit is so miniscule and tradeoff in ride quality not worth it imo. If you were hell bent on riding a 19 or 21mm front tire I'd suggest a tubular, where a narrow tire doesn't feel as harsh, or as dead (or whatever the opposite of 'lively' is). Even the Attack suffers in ride quality compared to a 23mm Grand Prix. But what's a mm between friends? If we're talking mass start and we're thinking we got a shot at the podium, my money's on the guy going to bed dreaming of eating balls for breakfast, the balls of his competition, not the guy fretting 20 grams or 2mm. There are forces beyond mere statistics that propel one man past another as the finish line rushes in. By all means go to battle prepared, but remember what really matters.

Well said.

 

[Eichers]

Originally Posted by danfoz
My advice would be to avoid the narrow clincher tires. The benefit is so miniscule and tradeoff in ride quality not worth it imo. If you were hell bent on riding a 19 or 21mm front tire I'd suggest a tubular, where a narrow tire doesn't feel as harsh, or as dead (or whatever the opposite of 'lively' is). Even the Attack suffers in ride quality compared to a 23mm Grand Prix. But what's a mm between friends?

Hi danfoz, no worries ...

Hi OP, I run Conti Attack 22mm fronts (with R-Air tubes) and run them at the same tyre pressure (95psi) that I run Michelin Pro3 23mm fronts (on 20mm wide front rim). I like them, they are about the same size as the Pro3's. I can't remember your weight but I am not light. It is nice to have options and this is a clincher option for training and racing (road only)

thanks KL

 

[swampy1970]

I can't say exactly without violating signed agreements, but I can say it's expensive and doesn't interact with the Higgs field.

Ah, the infamous Campag Boson wheels?

 

[alienator]

Ah, the infamous Campag Boson wheels?

That's between me and Valentino.

 

[Eichers]

Originally Posted by swampy1970


Ah, the infamous Campag Boson wheels?

Hey CAMPYBOB, what do you reckon about CampagNOlNO Boson wheels?

Sounds like they need tying and soldering ... mate, that's a job for you as it needs to be specialist of the art, what do you reckon

thanks KL