Hi all, Thanks for the responses. Yes, this is a trike. The limiting factor so far is FEAR of a
tubular rolling off. Wouldn't expect an inherent advantage in traction for either type. May just
take the conservative route and build clincher wheels. Thanks again, Kerry
Werehatrack wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:45:50 GMT, "Kerry Montgomery" <
[email protected]> may have said:
>
>>Hi all, Is there a significant difference in the amount of side load that can be applied to a
>>tubular tire and a clincher tire prior to failure? Have
access
>>to a vehicle with 3 wheels perpendicular to the pavement; currently tubulars. Am wondering if
>>changing to clinchers would allow higher
lateral
>>forces/cornering speed?
>
>Since tubulars use glue to retain the tire, their mounting method is subject to cumulative stress
>failure; the failure can be incremental as well, with a little of the glue failing today and a
>little more later until it rolls off. Clinchers will leave the rim only if the side force is great
>enough to break the bead loose and allow the tube to blow out. So, while a fully-glued tubular
>*may* withstand a higher side load on a single event test, the clincher has a more predictable set
>of characteristics in the long run since its behavior is solely a function of load and inflation,
>not glue deterioration or fractional peel.
>
>I would put only clinchers on a trike, if that's where you're headed with your question. But
>that's me.
>
>In any event, unless you're having problems with the tubulars rolling off the rims, no, changing to
>clinchers won't automatically allow higher cornering forces; you have to directly compare the
>actual traction characteristics of the candidate tires to determine which will perform better in
>that regard.
>
>--
>My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
>don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
>contains nuts.