Clinchers vs Tubulars information sought

[CAMPYBOB]

What do I reckon?

I reckon people are ****ing idiots.

Once upon a time (the dark ages of the mid-1980's, to be exact), this abortion was Scientist-Approved (not to be confused with Schwinn Approved...Ignatz & Arnold were far brighter than the scientists).





Any deluded douche nozzle with sufficient funds and insufficient brains could actually weight up an already tank weight (970 grams) wheel 130 to 780 MORE grams by adding the supplied steel weights to the 12 cavities in the perimeter of the scientifically proven to increase rider speed device.

Sadly...albeit predictably...the scientists were incorrect yet again and users today must now resort to home made abortions involving lead wheel weights stolen from the double deuces on ghetto rat Escalades since even the loony tunes physicists had to admit their ultimate fail and relegate the product to the scientific black hole known as the trash compactor.

The Comete ± ...'fashion statement' science strikes again.

 

[swampy1970]

That's between me and Valentino.

Valentino doesn't have the same ethereal way of utilizing physics as Tullio did and only Mr Campagnolo senior could have pulled of a joint venture with Higgs and team to develop such a wheel... ... Valentino, he just farms **** out to some numpties in the eastern block with some jelly molds and an pie oven.

 

[alienator]

Valentino doesn't have the same ethereal way of utilizing physics as Tullio did and only Mr Campagnolo senior could have pulled of a joint venture with Higgs and team to develop such a wheel... ... Valentino, he just farms **** out to some numpties in the eastern block with some jelly molds and an pie oven.

All Valentino needed was a train ticket to CERN, aka Nirvana.

 

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by danfoz
my money's on the guy going to bed dreaming of eating balls for breakfast, the balls of his competition

Eh... I'm pretty sure I can take that guy.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

I don't think Andy Schleck ever went to bed dreaming of anything other than ponies.

 

[litespeedguy]

CampyBob,

I must say I enjoyed reading your post above , #41 and you undeniably have a way with words

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Thank you!

 

[swampy1970]

Before you two start tugging on each others tadgers, consider the fact that Sosenka tested various rim weights prior to his hour record and discovered that heavier was slightly better on his way to beating the Merckx and Boardman (on a traditional bike) record.

 

[WillemJM]

Originally Posted by swampy1970
Before you two start tugging on each others tadgers, consider the fact that Sosenka tested various rim weights prior to his hour record and discovered that heavier was slightly better on his way to beating the Merckx and Boardman (on a traditional bike) record.

We do the same in the auto design industry. If you only have two legs, (two cylinder engine) and you are only concerned about constant speed, we put a nice big flywheel onto the motor to even out the power strokes. On the other hand, when we go to the drag strip for the 1/4 mile we cut the flywheel and even the crank to remove weight wherever possible, no worries about the rough idle at 2,000 rpm then.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

Would this be the same "Sosenka" that failed hematocrit tests AND was busted for methamphetamines? Probably didn't care if his wheel was made from dried oatmeal. And probably couldn't tell...if you believe the 'scientist'. Same with those 190 MM crank arms...more than likely he never even knew they were on the bike.

Yeah, Eddy did 49.431 Km on a 5.5 Kg total weight bike.

The other drugaholic did 49.7 Km on his 3 Kg wheel.

Can we compare the more aero position with the more aero thin air?

Sosenka was steady and dropping speed at the end as the flywheel effect v. energy input faded.


He could have probably gone 51.151 with a lighter wheel and some fresh blood. Wait...wrong doper! My bad!

I think that if Eddy was in his prime and someone told him he had to back out on the boards and do 300 more meters, he would have lathe turned .5 grams off the top of his seat post and done it. Hell, if we could have tossed that hairnet in the trash and given him an aero helmet he could probably have smoked Francesco!

I will defend Moser's 51.840...outstanding effort for an old fart and I was hoping to see Lance crush it even if he used the wheel off a dump truck.

 

[swampy1970]

Would this be the same "Sosenka" that failed hematocrit tests AND was busted for methamphetamines? Probably didn't care if his wheel was made from dried oatmeal. And probably couldn't tell...if you believe the 'scientist'. Same with those 190 MM crank arms...more than likely he never even knew they were on the bike. Yeah, Eddy did 49.431 Km on a 5.5 Kg total weight bike. The other drugaholic did 49.7 Km on his 3 Kg wheel. Can we compare the more aero position with the more aero thin air? Sosenka was steady and dropping speed at the end as the flywheel effect v. energy input faded. He could have probably gone 51.151 with a lighter wheel and some fresh blood. Wait...wrong doper! My bad!

Yeah that Guy - meth ain't really the performance enhancer that one normally uses though... But he did beat that doper that took the hour record at altitude back in Mexico that lasted for many years.

 

[CAMPYBOB]

I know some strippers that use meth to enhance their...performance.

 

[Timmbits]

Originally Posted by kisertn
First, I am aware this is a well-worn topic. I have spent the last hour combing through posts to see if I could find what I was seeking. And that's after more time spent this past weekend doing the same. No luck however.

I am after something specific and so I hope this will be a bit more targeted.

First:
- I have no problems with any differences in handling a tubular flat or a clincher flat - non-issue for me (in my mind anyway
- I have no issues over cost differentials between clinchers and tubulars
- I have no problem changing my brake pads as I switch from one type of rim to the other if needed.

In the end, I know clinchers (don't we all), but I do not know tubulars. I am contemplating tubulars ONLY because of the impression I have that they may be more performant than clinchers in race conditions. My perceptions are not based on the tire itself, but rather on the lighter weight, and in particular the fact that clinchers have their additional weight at the rim. The specific performance gain being the ability to accelerate more quickly (or at least with lessened effort) during a race.

If I were to be convinced that tubulars offered me no appreciable performance gains then I would see no reason to consider them. So my question goes out to those who race with tubulars: do you feel that tubulars give a noticeable and significant performance advantage over clinchers in a race? (in particular criteriums).

Thank you for any feedback,
-Neil

You don't just fix flats on tubulars. You have to cut them open, repair the flat with very thin special patch, and sew them back up. If you sew too tight or too loose (which is probable, because you are neither experienced nor a calibrated machine) you will have a thinner or thicker section, which, aside from being annoying as it goes bump bump bump as you ride, will rob you of a little bit of energy.

Yes, tubulars are faster and handle better. Since you don't care about money, have a set of wheels for racing, and a set with clinchers for training and long rides - just the probability of flats on the road with tubulars is sufficient reason to train on clinchers.

 

[swampy1970]

Timmbits,

Provide actual data to say that tubulars are faster. Not myth, not lore, not math that 'suggest' that they 'should' be faster - cold, hard, verifiable and repeatable numbers.

I used to race on tubulars back when there was more of a difference (mid 80's to late 90's) but now, there's really nothing in it at all. In fact there's data to suggest that using clinchers for TT's is the way to go.

A few years ago I did some tests with my PowerTap on a long steep hill with some interesting gradient variations en route. It was a very informal test where I'd rode up part of the hill 6 times for 15 minutes and (a) see how far I got and (b) checked power data afterwards. The front wheel in question where old school by todays standards but still demonstrated the point well enough: 28 spoke Mavic GEL 280 with Corsa CX tubular glued on with 4 coats of Mastik 1 and Mavic hubs with AM Classic titanium QR and the heavy wheels where 36 spoke Campag chorus hubs (circa 1987) on Campag Lambda V strada rims on Conti Attack 22mm tires. The weight difference was somewhat significant - just under 350 grams. The lighter front wheel made the bike 'feel' faster. The actual difference - sweet FA. I did my damnedest to ride at an even 300 watts on the hill but the heavy wheels took the furthest distance (just). Any difference in performance was less than my ability to pace.

One would assume that lighter wheels climb better. One would assume that lighter tires climb better. I would assume both to be true yet when I try and ride the same power out in the "real world" the results never pointed conclusively to the lighter wheel despite extended gradients of 12%+

On flat roads, it's easy to see that aero wheels trump a 36 spoke wheel from days of old but on the hills I haven't seen the data with my own eyes. I was expecting the result to be just as obvious and repeatable as it was when replacing the rear 32 spoke powertap wheel with a Zipp Sub 9 disk but alas no.

Tony Martin apparently still rides clinchers and kills everyone in TT's. I'm fairly sure that Tony may have done a bit of testing with the aid of the folks from Specialized. Clinchers seem to lend themselves to better airflow over the side of the tire and onto the rim.

Cornering. I haven't ridden a tire that out hustles a Conti GP4000S clincher around corners.

 

[Timmbits]

Reply to post 54 by Swampy, where he says: "Provide actual data to say that tubulars are faster. Not myth, not lore, not math that 'suggest' that they 'should' be faster - cold, hard, verifiable and repeatable numbers."

I think your methodology is flawed.
With a lighter wheelset, your accelerations are faster. Simple fact. Once you have cruising speed, no difference.
With a lighter wheelset, your handling is better - if you raced, you already know this.
It is that simple.

Oh, one more thing - although this is not numerically verifiable - I live in Montreal, and back in the days I was racing, I used to spring downhill on Mount-Royal (where the international Cycling Grand Prix makes a stop every year). One of my training days, I was sprinting down at over 100km/h in a 52/11. A guy on a Suzuki Katana was about to pass me before we went into a curve, and he couldn't follow at the speed I was taking it. I know, because coming out of the curve, he passed me, honking his horn and gesturing me to pull over. So I did, ready to put up a fist fight to defend my rights as a cyclist, who also has a right to the road. After a long braking period, where my pads smelled of melted rubber, I turned around and went back up to where he was stopped (yeah, it took me a while to stop), he takes off his helmet, and starts yelling at me: "are you crazy! you could have killed yourself! I was going 95 in that curve and couldn't follow you!". A couple of years before, I took a wipe out in the same curve... the rubber had peeled off of my clinchers, from the force they were subjected to.

So after that, I always trained on tubulars, and could turn tight, at high speeds, like I could never dream of doing on clinchers, let alone safely or with confidence. Of course, I was always pushing the edge... if at the time those clinchers gave way we didn't have the cement barrier that tore off my entire right side's skin when I slid into it and along it, I would have gone over the edge of the mountain, and would probably not be here to tell the tale.

So if you ask me, there is absolutely no doubt that tubulars are better. If you have the recklessness to push the envelope, and not to at a grandma's pace looking at some computer readout, you will know too. That is not to say I encourage people to use tubulars. I think they are expensive as hell to ride on - I used to go through a couple of flats a day riding over 100 per day. Today I ride clinchers exclusively. But then, I don't race anymore. But I'd go back to them to race. For sure.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by Timmbits
With a lighter wheelset, your accelerations are faster. Simple fact. Once you have cruising speed, no difference.
With a lighter wheelset, your handling is better - if you raced, you already know this.

I raced in the 80's (on clinchers and tubulars - I raced the first gen of <20mm clincher, the 19c Wolber and those did indeed handle and roll like ****... tubulars were no doubt better in all respects for racing purposes).
I raced in the 90's (clinchers and tubulars - faster rolling clinchers were slowly emerging and the performance gap was starting to close but I still chose my tubular wheels for A races).
After three recent seasons of racing I'm getting ready for my fourth of the decade, with my next and first race of the season on April 5th of this year (On a pair of clinchers over latex innies on 23mm wide rims that roll just as fast and handle just a well as any tubular I've ridden).

Yes, most of the pro peleton still ride tubulars but it's something like 80/20, and plenty of high profile races have been won on clinchers in recent years. Nothing like a support van handing you a fresh wheel with a securely glued tire when you flat.

Tubbies used to roll faster. These days a pair of good clinchers with latex innies roll just as fast... or faster: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/rolling-resistance/475-roller-data

Tubbies used to handle better. These days anyone riding on the new generation of wider 23mm clincher rims sees handling on par to the best tubulars... without the fear of rolling a tire. That said there are crappy handling clinchers and there were/are crappy handling tubulars.

Less weight "feels" faster but unless you are handling repeated switchbacks on alpine gradients, a set of aero wheels is way more important... loosing 3lbs off the bike on a flat course will net you 3-5 seconds over a flat 40k. Adding a set of deep section wheels will net you 50-80 seconds, whether they are clinchers or tubulars. And now we see deep section (heavier) wheels getting hauled up into the Alps and the Pyranees during the grand tours because what goes up, must come down, and charge the line.

Match sprinters use aero wheels, and occasionally solid discs, despite the need to accelerate from track stand speeds because once the wheel is rolling weight simply isn't that important (as you mention) and the coefficient of aerodynamic drag quickly exceeds inertial loss.

Lore runs deep.

 

[Timmbits]

Originally Posted by danfoz

I raced in the 80's (on clinchers and tubulars - I rode the first gen of <20mm clincher, the 19c Wolber and those did indeed handle a roll like ****... tubulars were no doubt better in all respects for racing purposes).
I raced in the 90's (clinchers and tubulars - faster rolling clinchers were slowly emerging and the performance gap was starting to close but I still chose my tubular wheels to race on).
After three recent seasons of racing I'm getting ready for my fourth, with my next and first race of the season on April 5th of this year (On a pair of clinchers over latex innies on 23mm wide rims that roll just as fast and handle just a well as any tubular I've ridden).

Yes, most of the pro peleton still ride tubulars but it's something like 80/20, and plenty of high profile races have been won on clinchers in recent years. Nothing like a support van handing you a fresh wheel with a securely glued tire when you flat.

Tubbies used to roll faster. These days a pair of good clinchers with latex innies roll just as fast... or faster: http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/rolling-resistance/475-roller-data

Tubbies used to handle better. These days anyone riding on the new generation of wider 23mm clincher rims sees handling on par to the best tubulars... without the fear of rolling a tire. That said there are crappy handling clinchers and there were/are crappy handling tubulars.

Less weight "feels" faster but unless you are handling repeated switchbacks on alpine gradients, a set of aero wheels is way more important... loosing 3lbs on a flat course will net you 3-5 seconds over a flat 40k. Adding a set of deep section wheels will net you 50-80 seconds, whether they are clinchers or tubulars. And now we see deep section (heavier) wheels getting hauled up into the Alps and the Pyranees during the grand tours because what goes up, must come down, and charge the line.

Match sprinters use aero wheels, and occasionally solid discs, despite the need to accelerate from track stand speeds because once the wheel is rolling weight simply isn't that important and the coefficient of aerodynamic drag quickly exceeds inertial loss.

Lore runs deep.

Come one, you can't be serious! Races aren't just time trials (those are more the exception than the rule). Over a 40K flat time trial distance, ANYTHING can give (or take) 3-5 seconds: a gust of wind in your back, better seating, less chafing, better hydration, a coffee in the morning... literally anything - heck, rolling in a straighter line will gain you more than that! HOW do you measure a 5 seconds advantage over a 40K distance? Just the margin of error in the tests is more than that. There are far too many variables. In the end, it's the rider that wins races, not his equipment! Sure you can start naming a bunch of factors that will affect performance. But the topic here isn't where is the best weight savings for the dollar. It is tubulars versus clinchers. Rolling resistance has a lot to do with the rubber compound that is used, thread design, envelope materials and weaving, and tire pressure. Of course, those technologies can be used in both, they are not exclusive to one tire style. And rolling resistance isn't the only thing we care about in a race! A harder rubber compound will always give you a lower rolling resistance... but do you want it at all costs? Do you ever race criteriums? If you do, I would certainly hope that you look beyond rolling resistance tests done on a roller! And guess what: tests on rollers aren't conclusive. Why? well, just as tire design, curvature, materials, can react differently, and be optimized for rolling resistance and cornering, and that each design will react differently... would it not be logical to argue that various tire designs will react differently when put on a roller, which presses into the tire more than a flat surface like the road? So you see, you can't even rely on the roller tests. Some tires will react similarly, some better, some worse. So if you're hair-splitting numbers, you're doomed for relying on a flawed test. That is not to say it's impossible they give you a general idea of rolling resistance... but you can't nit-pick and get precise, because you have that cylinder curvature pressing into the tires as flat surfaces do not. Tires are designed and optimized for flat surfaces, not rollers. So, you want good RACE performance? Efficiency AND corner grip? Then you can't rely on hard-rubber tire tests. With equal materials, we are left with tubular versus clincher.
So which is better, with today's materials technology: a tubular or a clincher? Same rim, same rim and wheel weight, but different tires: tubular versus clinchers. In order to compare, to evaluate, ALL other variables have to be constant (the same) - not all different as you suggested in your text.

My best guess would be that the best tubular would edge out the best clincher in a race. But if I was still racing, I'd be telling you there is no difference... and propagate that idea... just so I have a competitive edge. ;-)


Can we perhaps ALL agree that tubulars are at the very least marginally better than clinchers?
I mean of course, the world's best tubular versus the world's best clincher, on similar rims. Not cheap tubulars versus the best clinchers. No cheating allowed. ;-)

PS: Not tele-tubbies! tubies!

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by Timmbits
Come one, you can't be serious! Over a 40K distance, ANYTHING can give (or take) 3-5 seconds! A gust of wind in your back, better seating, less chafing, better hydration, a coffee in the morning... literally anything - heck, rolling in a straighter line will gain you more than that! HOW do you measure a 5 seconds advantage over a 40K distance? Quote reviews if you like, it's impossible to narrow down to one variable, because there are far too many variables. In the end, it's the rider that wins races, not his equipment! 5 seconds is meaningless. Are you certain you're just not arguing to be right? Because in the same breath, you are making one statement, and adding that it will be so if certain conditions are met, or that you would rather meet other conditions to make up for a less favorable characteristic... and you get into a debate as to where you should add weight or take some away, and what gives you the best bang for the weight. That isn't even the topic here. We are not comparing aero wheels with deep wheels, etc. That's aerodynamics. This isn't a debate on where you should put your weight savings, nor is it a debate on whether you can find a sew-up that is worse than the best clincher (OF COURSE THERE IS!!! DUH!). As for rolling resistance, that has nothing to do with tubular or clincher - that has everything to do with the rubber compound that is used, thread design, materials, tire pressure. Of course, those technologies can be used in both, they are not exclusive to one tire style. We are left with tubular versus clincher.

How about we just stick to topic. Which is better, with today's technology: a tubular or a clincher.
Same rim, same rim and wheel weight, but different tires: tubular versus clinchers. In order to compare, to evaluate, ALL other variables have to be constant (the same).

My best guess would be that the best tubular would edge out the best clincher.

I'm right on topic. Weight is negligible. You proved my point. The savings are so slim they need to be calculated by mathematical expression which is why an argument of weight to claim one is better than the other is ridiculous. I will give you that my introduction of wheel aerodynamics serves no purpose but to further illustrate that weight is not the factor that requires primary consideration when choosing wheels.

To compare the two you are looking at nothing but maybe a net loss of 200 grams per wheelset. If you are indeed doing an apples to apples comparison (which tubulars and clinchers are not) you'll need to run your clinchers with latex inner tubes (like tubulars), and you'll need to run them on the current generation of wider clincher rims, which lay the tire profile out more similary to a tubular, not some outdated 19mm narrow wheel design from the last milenia. Of that 20% of pro's running clinchers I can guarantee you they are all on wider rims. I'd hazard a guess, since the floor is apparently open to subjectivity, that even if we got more apple-orangey that a modern clincher could be even be run on an outdated 19mm rim with a latex inner tube and perform just as well (in fact, I believe those rolling resistance test were conducted on 19mm rims).

Maybe if I cut and paste from the late Sheldon Brown:

Tubulars used to be fairly common on high-performance bicycles, but these days they are an endangered species.
Tubular Pros: Tubular Cons:

• Tubulars are a bit lighter than comparable clinchers, due to the absence of the beads. The development of Kevlar® beads has considerably reduced this advantage.
• Tubular rims are lighter than clincher rims, since they don't need the flanges that hold the bead of the tire in place.
• Tubulars are less prone to pinch flats than clinchers, since the rims don't present the sharp edges of the clincher flanges.
• Many riders believe that tubulars provide a more comfortable ride and better traction than clinchers.
• If you get a flat on a tubular, you can install a spare tubular faster than you can change an inner tube in a clincher.

• Tubulars are considerably more expensive than clinchers of comparable performance.
• Tubulars are very much harder to repair once punctured. Most people just throw them away.
• You need to carry a complete spare tubular in case you get a flat. This negates the weight advantage over clinchers, unless you have a team car following you with spare wheels.
• Improperly glued tubulars can roll off the rim. This almost always causes a serious crash.If you replace a tubular on the road, you cannot corner safely at high speeds until you go home and re-glue the tire. For safe high-speed cornering, the glue needs to dry for at least several hours.
• Tubulars have higher rolling resistance than the best clinchers.
• Tubulars are rarely as true and round as clinchers.

Your argument of clinchers vs. tubulars seems based on memories of yesteryear. But you are correct that races are won by riders, not equipment. Welcome to the forum.

 

[danfoz]

Originally Posted by Timmbits

Rolling resistance has a lot to do with the rubber compound that is used, thread design, envelope materials and weaving, and tire pressure. Of course, those technologies can be used in both, they are not exclusive to one tire style. And rolling resistance isn't the only thing we care about in a race! A harder rubber compound will always give you a lower rolling resistance... but do you want it at all costs? Do you ever race criteriums? If you do, I would certainly hope that you look beyond rolling resistance tests done on a roller!

I'm from NYC, I've raced criteriums. A harder rubber compound will give a lower rolling resistance? Not a shot. The faster tires run higher thread counts and more supple casings. It's the reason latex runs faster than butyl. And the reason bullet proof tires roll like bricks. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions how folks you've hardly interacted with formulate their opinions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmbits .
Can we perhaps ALL agree that tubulars are at the very least marginally better than clinchers? I mean of course, the world's best tubular versus the world's best clincher, on similar rims. Not cheap tubulars versus the best clinchers. No cheating allowed. ;-)

PS: Not tele-tubbies! tubies!


I was giving you some leeway, ya know admitting that both have the capacity to run well... and also like ****.

The fastest clinchers run "just about" as fast a the fastest tubulars (+/-.00001), all other things considered I would probably only go back to tubulars to satisfy some nostalgic curiosity to which I'd probably be cursing by the side of the road when I got my first flat at the fact I had to take the corners extra gingerly on the way home so as not to roll the spare tire.

Btw, a few years ago I ran a set of Vittoria open CX's at 55mph+ down a long hill with no problem. It was confidence inspiring enough for me to forget I was the asshole who wasn't wearing a helmet. Yes, I am a product of 1980's bicycle racing

 

[Timmbits]

if we go back a few posts, you'll notice that I mentioned lower weight will make a difference in acceleration, and handling.

I don't think weight makes a difference at a constant speed on flat terrain in a straight line. (actually, I'm sure of it).

Like I said, harder rubber means lower rolling resistance, but poor grip. That is why racing tires are better for racing, and touring tires mislabeled by the marketing department as racing clinchers, best used for training and sport riding.

Also, as I mentioned (but you may have overlooked, because I admit my text was longer than optimal), a wheel being pressed on a roller is not the same as a wheel being pressed onto a flat surface. If those folks wanted to do a scientifically accurate test, they would put the bike onto one of those jogging mats, and then compare. Because some tire designs will react more adversely than others, to a small diameter cylinder pushing into it rather than a flat depression. The test data is flawed and meaningless. I'd much rather rely on racers' experience than faulty test data.