I'm putting together a racing wheelset and need to make the "tubular versus clincher" decision. Thus far, I've been a clincher (pro race/ light tubes) kind of guy for both racing and training, but I've never experienced tubulars. Is the small weight savings worth the few extra bucks and the hassel of flatting without a wheel-van around? Is there a noticable performance difference between the two? If tubulars are the way to go, what type of tire do you recommend for road racing?

If you want the best quality riding experience and can afford it tubulars are great. If you just want to go out and ride or race and the tire equivalent of audiophile equipment would be wasted on your sensibilities forget about it and leave it to the aesthetes like me (I have audiophile ears too).

For most people tubulars are not worth it. Do the best ones have a better road feel and better comfort than the best clinchers? Absolutely. Is the actual performance better? Probably not. Unless you are riding Paris-Roubaix or other poor road surface, or a slick descent where being able to run a tubular at 85 psi will be a big advantage performance is pretty equal and with only a couple exceptions the best clinchers have lower rolling resistance than the best tubulars.

Weight is quite a bit less for tubulars, cost quite a bit more (unless you repair the flats, but few of mine have ever been fixable due to large casing cuts). The glue hassle is frequently mentioned but I have never found tubulars any more troublesome than trying to get a Conti clincher on a rim, and usually less.

You might do a search on this, because it has been hashed out many times. The fact that there is serious disagreement about whether tubulars are substantially better than clinchers should be a clue that the advantages are minor, if any. See the current thread on Zip wheels. To quote Erik Zabel on the difference between clinchers and tubulars: "I can't tell the difference."

If you want the best quality riding experience and can afford it tubulars are great. If you just want to go out and ride or race and the tire equivalent of audiophile equipment would be wasted on your sensibilities forget about it and leave it to the aesthetes like me (I have audiophile ears too).

For most people tubulars are not worth it. Do the best ones have a better road feel and better comfort than the best clinchers? Absolutely. Is the actual performance better? Probably not. Unless you are riding Paris-Roubaix or other poor road surface, or a slick descent where being able to run a tubular at 85 psi will be a big advantage performance is pretty equal and with only a couple exceptions the best clinchers have lower rolling resistance than the best tubulars.


Oh, Please..... :rolleyes:

You might do a search on this, because it has been hashed out many times. The fact that there is serious disagreement about whether tubulars are substantially better than clinchers should be a clue that the advantages are minor, if any. See the current thread on Zip wheels. To quote Erik Zabel on the difference between clinchers and tubulars: "I can't tell the difference."

There are wildly different opinions on this from both informed and uninformed camps. That may mean that differences are, in fact minor, or it may mean that the differences mean more to some than to others. Or both. We can find pros who will only ride tubbies as well.

It's a little hard to predict what a stranger will make of the differences or the relative trouble of dealing with one or another. I think a veloflex crit is a darn nice tire and hard to match in a clincher--light, supple, and grippy--but it doesn't make me twice as fast (or even 1 mph faster) than a top clincher and if you say that you're not impressed (or not impressed with the value) then that's fine by me.

Certainly some carbon race wheels are only available in a tubular version and some come in both, but at different weights and prices (compare the really cheaper and really lighter Reynolds tubbies to their clincher versions). That doesnt' mean that anybody should necessarily want or need one or the other, and it's not as if anybody will move up a category by dropping half a pound or a pound from his or her wheelset, but they really might feel pretty different and the only way to know for sure is to try some. Heck, the poster could probably borrow a set for a couple of hours.

The fact that there is serious disagreement about whether tubulars are substantially better than clinchers should be a clue that the advantages are minor, if any.

I'm convinced that as a whole, tubulars are substantially INFERIOR to clinchers...and there's scientific data to back that up.

But, Shhhhh, don't tell my competition :cool:

Try the tubulars. It's not as earthshaking a decision as many posters would have you believe. Think of tubulars as the equivalent of a manual transmission on a car -- a little better performance & gas mileage offset by a little more bother. If you find the experience too expensive, or if you find you just don't cotton (or silk) to 'em, put 'em on ebay.

Try the tubulars. It's not as earthshaking a decision as many posters would have you believe. Think of tubulars as the equivalent of a manual transmission on a car -- a little better performance & gas mileage offset by a little more bother. If you find the experience too expensive, or if you find you just don't cotton (or silk) to 'em, put 'em on ebay.

I'm sad to inform you that your analogy is highly flawed. The truth of the matter is that for substantially more "bother" (and expense) you get possibly similar "performance" AND substantially worse "gas mileage".

Don't waste your time and money. Just go with the clinchers. Just remember, Michelin and Vittoria "good" - Conti "bad".

[QUOTE=tanhalt]I'm sad to inform you that your analogy is highly flawed. The truth of the matter is that for substantially more "bother" (and expense) you get possibly similar "performance" AND substantially worse "gas mileage"

As Socrates said, all analogies are limited. Every rider is different and beware of sweeping generalities about anything having to do with personal preferences. I rode Criterium Setas back in the late 70's as a junior in the Milwaukee area and I hated them, flatting all of the time, pain in the ass to fix, never did get them round again after sewing them together. 25 years of gradually better clinchers go by and two years ago I decide to try them again. At that point I was riding GP3000s and they were fine, but guys in my club were riding Veloflexes and damn, they weren't flatting every othe ride. I got a set of Conti Sprinters for 30.00 each (less than the GP's) and wore them out. I found a good deal on Competition 22's and... wore them out. No flats. Mileage was about the same, handling was better in turns (tubulars are actually round; look at the profile of a clincher when it's inflated) and the faster spinup, ie., lighter wheel, was noticeable in crits where we had 150 accelerations in a race.

So, I like them just fine. With one tire lever, I can change a tire. I have a spare loaded with Stan's sealant in case of a flat. I'm set.

But I'm just one data point.

chris

I have used tubulars for going on 20 years now. Always used them because I live where the roads are clean & they lasted 2000+ miles each.
As for the hassle of flatting I could change one in less than 4 minutes total & be on my way. Where as my riding partners when they flatted took much longer to wrestle their tires on & off find the offending glass shard or not if pinched & patch or install a tube.
Recently I sold my Look 386i with the Nucleons & Veloflex crits & bought a Cervello 2.5
It came with the Easton Vistas & the Vittoria Diamante Pro Lights.
They are not even close to as nice a ride as the tubbies.
The tires seem well made so I am attributing the harshness to the rims.
I actually would like to be ok with the clinchers. The prices of tires has gone up over the years although I still got Veloflex crits tubs for 45-50 each & as I said they did last 2k miles. So 200 a year for tires pretty much did it for me no problems.

Aside from the harsher ride they do not corner like tubulars. The fall into a turn & even that would be ok I guess. I am trying to like these & maybe I will but the thought of spening the dough for new wheels in clincher style then have this same ride...........hmmmm
I am undecided. For me the one benefit of a clincher is I do long rides at times & although it never happened I wondered about having more than one flat as I only carry one spare tubular.
But the ride is head & shoulders above the clinchers I am riding now.

To quote Erik Zabel on the difference between clinchers and tubulars: "I can't tell the difference."
nmnmnm

That quote could mean anything. You still always see him racing on tubulars as far as I can tell. He may not be able to tell the difference in tires, but he sure has wheel preferences.

I'm convinced that as a whole, tubulars are substantially INFERIOR to clinchers...and there's scientific data to back that up.

But, Shhhhh, don't tell my competition :cool:

6 posts and he's already an expert.......

6 posts and he's already an expert.......

Only 8 posts so far....HERE. But hey, if number of posts is your definition of "expert"...that says a lot. :D

It came with the Easton Vistas & the Vittoria Diamante Pro Lights.
They are not even close to as nice a ride as the tubbies.
The tires seem well made so I am attributing the harshness to the rims.
I actually would like to be ok with the clinchers. The prices of tires has gone up over the years although I still got Veloflex crits tubs for 45-50 each & as I said they did last 2k miles. So 200 a year for tires pretty much did it for me no problems.

Aside from the harsher ride they do not corner like tubulars. The fall into a turn & even that would be ok I guess. I am trying to like these & maybe I will but the thought of spening the dough for new wheels in clincher style then have this same ride...........hmmmm
I am undecided. For me the one benefit of a clincher is I do long rides at times & although it never happened I wondered about having more than one flat as I only carry one spare tubular.
But the ride is head & shoulders above the clinchers I am riding now.

Try some higher quality clinchers. Go with either a Michelin ProRace2 or Vittoria Open Corso Evo CX. To get a true "apples to apples" comparison, use Michelin latex tubes in them since the tubulars you're comparing to use latex tubes. They're more flexible and elastic than butyl and therefore give lower rolling resistance and are less likely to pinch flat. Don't use Vittoria latex tubes...they have "issues" and have a high probability of defects.

Then...if you don't have a powermeter, see if you can borrow one. Do a simple constant power hillclimb. See which set gets you to the top faster (assuming equal weight, of course). I have a feeling you'll be surprised ;)

Try some higher quality clinchers. Go with either a Michelin ProRace2 or Vittoria Open Corso Evo CX. To get a true "apples to apples" comparison, use Michelin latex tubes in them since the tubulars you're comparing to use latex tubes. They're more flexible and elastic than butyl and therefore give lower rolling resistance and are less likely to pinch flat. Don't use Vittoria latex tubes...they have "issues" and have a high probability of defects.

Then...if you don't have a powermeter, see if you can borrow one. Do a simple constant power hillclimb. See which set gets you to the top faster (assuming equal weight, of course). I have a feeling you'll be surprised ;)

So your thinking its the shoes more than the wheels? Since all my rides are climbs I thought maybe these semi areo wheels were causing the harsh ride. It is not terrible but they are more rigid than wheels I have used in the past.
As for a power meter.....none available but all my riding is climbing & decending. On a average year I get more than 300,000' of climbing so I have good logs with times going back years. I guess I could use that for comparision. But even with new tires I doubt these will approach the weights I am use to for wheels with tubulars eh?
Thanks

I have 2 pairs of tubular wheels and after reading some of the ignorant statements posted here the next one is going to be tubulars too............. :D

I have 2 pairs of tubular wheels and after reading some of the ignorant statements posted here the next one is going to be tubulars too............. :D

Actually I just realized I have a set in bags I forgot about.
Mavic rims Campy Chorus 10 hubs.
Not as light as the Nucleons at 1712 grs. the nucleons were 1550grs.
But it migth be an easy test to grab some tub tires & try ;)

So your thinking its the shoes more than the wheels? Since all my rides are climbs I thought maybe these semi areo wheels were causing the harsh ride. It is not terrible but they are more rigid than wheels I have used in the past.
As for a power meter.....none available but all my riding is climbing & decending. On a average year I get more than 300,000' of climbing so I have good logs with times going back years. I guess I could use that for comparision. But even with new tires I doubt these will approach the weights I am use to for wheels with tubulars eh?
Thanks

Yep...which do you think is the more flexible part of the wheel and tire structure? The wheel or the tire? Which do you think you'd notice more of a difference in?

The point of using the powermeter is to have a known constant power output. I've done this test comparing a set of clincher Ritchey DS wheels with Michelin ProRace tires vs. Zipp 404 tubulars shod with Tufos (which, BTW, have been tested to be one of the worst rolling tires, tubular or clincher). Despite the Zipp wheelset being a full 1 lb lighter and more aero, they were slower up the hill.

The funny thing is, my impression during the test was that the Zipp/Tufo wheelset "felt" faster...but, the stopwatch doesn't lie.

I have 2 pairs of tubular wheels and after reading some of the ignorant statements posted here the next one is going to be tubulars too............. :D

My Corsa 01 with GL330's and Tufos....

Excellent! Not only are they tubulars, but they're shod with Tufos to boot. I'm hoping you used the Tufo tape to install them, right?

Hope to see you out on the race course ;)

Excellent! Not only are they tubulars, but they're shod with Tufos to boot. I'm hoping you used the Tufo tape to install them, right?

Hope to see you out on the race course ;)

NO tape bud, good old fashion glue.......nice............

Anyways I wouldn't use tape with the 330's....

Aside from the harsher ride they do not corner like tubulars. The fall into a turn & even that would be ok I guess.

I just realized...how do you know the cornering differences you're feeling aren't a function of different steering geometries on the 2 bikes?

NO tape bud, good old fashion glue....

Almost as "good"...unless you're talking about track glue, then that's "bad" (for me) ;)

I just realized...how do you know the cornering differences you're feeling aren't a function of different steering geometries on the 2 bikes?

Actually over the years I have tried briefly on different bikes. Some on my bikes with borrowed wheels & some bikes belonged to riding partners. It is not a big deal but different.
I guess the tubulars just have a rounder profile as compared to a more U shape on the clinchers.

Ultimately though if the ride was supple like tubulars I would be happy enough with that. Weight wise I see some impressive everyday clincher wheels now. Even those Zipp CSC Team clinchers look pretty nice. Also the American Classic Sprint 350's although I dont really dig the high flange hub.

I guess the tubulars just have a rounder profile as compared to a more U shape on the clinchers.

You might want to take a closer look at an inflated clincher. The tire is forced into a circular cross-section by the uniform air pressure of the tube. The only way it could not be circular is if the sidewall stiffness was greater than the air pressure and/or it has some kind of funky "peaked" tread glued or vulcanized on.

For example, a Vittoria Corso tubular and an Open Corso will have an identical circular profile in the part of the tire you actually ride on and flex.

Here's another way of looking at it, let's assume the glue holding your tubular in place is perfectly rigid (which it actually isn't, but close enough). In that case, the shape of the tire in the portion that's glued is determined by the rim to which it's glued. The tire in that section isnt' allowed to flex, and at the edge of the rim, this rigid attachment ends and the tire casing is allowed to take the shape determined by the air pressure inside and the flexibility of the casing. Naturally, the uniform air pressure, along with the bias directions of the casing, force the tire into a basically circular cross-section. Now, instead of gluing the tire onto the rim, let's imagine we can cut out the glued portion of the tire and merely hold onto the edges of the casing at the point the emerge from the edge of the rim. The shape of the inflated tire would be exactly the same, wouldn't it? Of course, what we're now describing is a clincher, or "open tubular".

Just because clinchers have a "useless" portion of the tire removed doesn't mean that they inflate into a "U" shape (Instead of the "O" shape of a tubular). They actual better letter description would be a "C" shape.

Yep...which do you think is the more flexible part of the wheel and tire structure? The wheel or the tire? Which do you think you'd notice more of a difference in?

The point of using the powermeter is to have a known constant power output. I've done this test comparing a set of clincher Ritchey DS wheels with Michelin ProRace tires vs. Zipp 404 tubulars shod with Tufos (which, BTW, have been tested to be one of the worst rolling tires, tubular or clincher). Despite the Zipp wheelset being a full 1 lb lighter and more aero, they were slower up the hill.

The funny thing is, my impression during the test was that the Zipp/Tufo wheelset "felt" faster...but, the stopwatch doesn't lie.

Invalid test since there's no way you could have held the appropriate variables constant--power output, exact pressure in tires, atmospheric conditions-- for the entire ride, each time. Variations, alone, in atmospheric conditions will cause variations in the results given the exact same power output. Humans are lousy test subjects for performance analysis, when considered on the individual level. To make the test valid, you'd have to do the climbs many times with many more riders so the resulting uncertainties could be minimized.

And as everyone else, absolute statements about such things--clincher vs. tubular--are stupid. It comes down to personal preference.

You might want to take a closer look at an inflated clincher. The tire is forced into a circular cross-section by the uniform air pressure of the tube. The only way it could not be circular is if the sidewall stiffness was greater than the air pressure and/or it has some kind of funky "peaked" tread glued or vulcanized on.


Tire manufacturers can and do construct their clincher tires to yield a certain cross-sectional shape to perform in the desired fashion. They do it in motorcycle tires as well as bike tires.

You should learn about tires before making such statements.

Invalid test since there's no way you could have held the appropriate variables constant--power output, exact pressure in tires, atmospheric conditions-- for the entire ride, each time. Variations, alone, in atmospheric conditions will cause variations in the results given the exact same power output. Humans are lousy test subjects for performance analysis, when considered on the individual level. To make the test valid, you'd have to do the climbs many times with many more riders so the resulting uncertainties could be minimized.

Aaahh, but I did do multiple runs. The test hill I used is a dead straight constant grade in a rural area that takes approximately 8 minutes to climb. The tire pressures were identical. In fact, I even used the same cassette on both wheelsets and the same cog on that same cassette. Total weight was also measured for both configurations. The tests were performed on an overcast, calm day over the span of approximately 1.5 hrs at mid-day. Also, the entire climb is sheltered by trees on both sides and there was zero traffic.

I used a constant power level as a goal (and did pretty well hitting it too, I might add) but for the actual power difference calculation I used analyticcycling.com to predict the power required for the time and weight of each individual run assuming a constant Crr. The prediction was then compared to the actual average power of the run.

Even at the slow speed of this test (remember, rolling resistance is proportional to speed) the difference in power between the 2 wheelsets was almost 10W!

Besides, I didn't do the test to try to publish it in a scientific article. I merely did it to convince myself (and a few riding buddies) that the effect is real. For that purpose, I merely tried to control as many variables as possible. IMHO, I did a pretty reasonably rigorous attempt. If you look around on the net, you'll find at least 3 other cases of people doing the same or similar "field tests" and the results are consistent. Couple this with controlled rolling resistance tests done on lab fixtures (like the ones recently performed by the german Tour magazine at the Continental factory), and the conclusion is pretty clear.

And as everyone else, absolute statements about such things--clincher vs. tubular--are stupid. It comes down to personal preference.

...and my preference is to use the data available to logically guide my equipment selection. I find this to be better than relying on "word of mouth" and "feelings". I'm at a loss trying to figure out how FACTS can be "stupid".... :rolleyes:

Anyway...I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this...the more I say, the more likely my racing competition may "get it" and minimize any advantages I may have from mere tire selection.

Tire manufacturers can and do construct their clincher tires to yield a certain cross-sectional shape to perform in the desired fashion. They do it in motorcycle tires as well as bike tires.

You should learn about tires before making such statements.

So...then why would they do it in a way to be a detriment to the handling of the tire?

If the ideal shape is the "round" shape of the tubular, why wouldn't they just make it "round"? If they're intentionally making it some other shape, they must be doing it for a performance reason, right?

You can't have it both ways...

Aaahh, but I did do multiple runs. The test hill I used is a dead straight constant grade in a rural area that takes approximately 8 minutes to climb. The tire pressures were identical. In fact, I even used the same cassette on both wheelsets and the same cog on that same cassette. Total weight was also measured for both configurations. The tests were performed on an overcast, calm day over the span of approximately 1.5 hrs at mid-day. Also, the entire climb is sheltered by trees on both sides and there was zero traffic...blah....blah.....blah.....Anyway...I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this...the more I say, the more likely my racing competition may "get it" and minimize any advantages I may have from mere tire selection.

So, did you do a blind test? Did you quantify the uncertainty in each test run? Did you quantify how the uncertainty varied over the set of tests? Is the response of the power meter linear? Does it show any drift? How did you quantify atmospheric conditions...by holding a wet finger in the air? It's not easy to set up a test, such as this, that is resistant to poorly controlled variables. You liked the results...good for you, but that's hardly proof of anything empirical. Intelligent Design loonies provide all sorts of non-empirical "proofs" too.

As for your competition, I suspect they'll continue to beat you no matter what tire your on. If there were such a huge performance gain to be had from a particular tire, then I'm sure the pro's would have seen it and been clamoring for that tire.....sponsors be damned.

So, did you do a blind test? Did you quantify the uncertainty in each test run? Did you quantify how the uncertainty varied over the set of tests? Is the response of the power meter linear? Does it show any drift? How did you quantify atmospheric conditions...by holding a wet finger in the air? It's not easy to set up a test, such as this, that is resistant to poorly controlled variables.

As I explained before, I did this test to satisfy my own curiosity and to see if I could get a "field test" that matches lab data where the variables ARE tightly controlled. Of course, for the true tubular "believers" those tests aren't any good because they're done on a smooth drum. But then, "field tests" aren't any good either because the variables aren't controlled to the Nth degree. You just can't win.

If you'd stop and think for a bit, you'd see that the way I performed the test and analyzed the results, making it "blind" wasn't necessary.

Guess what, the difference is so large and so consistent, I'm confident that if I did do the error analysis as you seem to require, there'd still be a statistically significant difference to a very high probability.

You liked the results...good for you, but that's hardly proof of anything empirical. Intelligent Design loonies provide all sorts of non-empirical "proofs" too..

Careful...a sure sign of someone who's on the losing end of an argument is when the ad hominem attacks start flying... ;)


As for your competition, I suspect they'll continue to beat you no matter what tire your on.

You're making the assumption that I'm the one being beaten... :)


If there were such a huge performance gain to be had from a particular tire, then I'm sure the pro's would have seen it and been clamoring for that tire.....sponsors be damned.

Ah yes...the old "If clinchers are so great how come the majority of Pros use tubulars?" argument. Just like in training methods, you have to be careful when copying what Pros do. You never know if they're fast because of or inspite of what they do. Additionally, they have different requirements and access to different support than the typical amateur racer.

Personally, I think the vast majority of them use tubulars because they "think" that's what they should use. There's still a lot of mythology common in Pro racing (and here too, it appears). I still chuckle at the thought of the scene in "The Science of Lance Armstrong" where they show his crusty old Belgian mechanic and his "aging cellar" for tubular tires :rolleyes:

BTW, you do realize that there have been some VERY important pro races that have been won on clinchers, don't you? I recall at least 1 World Championship.

OK...I have a challenge for you. Let's take one part (and a very important one) of tire performance, namely rolling resistance. If you're convinced that a tubular tire and rim structure have inherently better rolling resistance than clinchers (of equal materials), describe the physical mechanism how this is possible.

As I explained before, I did this test to satisfy my own curiosity and to see if I could get a "field test" that matches lab data where the variables ARE tightly controlled. Of course, for the true tubular "believers" those tests aren't any good because they're done on a smooth drum. But then, "field tests" aren't any good either because the variables aren't controlled to the Nth degree. You just can't win.

I put no special stock in either experiments done in the lab or outside. What is important is the design of the "experiment."

If you'd stop and think for a bit, you'd see that the way I performed the test and analyzed the results, making it "blind" wasn't necessary.

That you held constant the relevant variables is not evident. Sorry. It's fine if the test....let's face it: it wasn't a proper experiment....was done to satisfy your own curiosity or needs, but that doesn't mean there's any empirical truth in what you found.


Guess what, the difference is so large and so consistent, I'm confident that if I did do the error analysis as you seem to require, there'd still be a statistically significant difference to a very high probability.

Actually, the large difference would more than likely hint at an error in your test and/or analysis. As a researcher, I would have repeated my experiment many times if I found that I got a result that was so full of revelation. I would have asked someone to check my work and my setup. Have you written anything out on this? What calculations have you done? Did you analyze how changes in constant variables might effect your results? Did you analyze how errors in a given measuement or in constant might propagate through the calculations to the result?

Careful...a sure sign of someone who's on the losing end of an argument is when the ad hominem attacks start flying... ;)

Which ad hominem attacks would those be? I've not made any. It's perfectly valid to question someone's "scientific method"? It's how scientific theories are fleshed out: people submit work to referreed journals; that work is reviewed by peers; that work is repeated by peers; then that work is either verified or criticized.



You're making the assumption that I'm the one being beaten... :)

Well, you must be a stud muffin....I mean you do claim as much.


Ah yes...the old "If clinchers are so great how come the majority of Pros use tubulars?" argument. Just like in training methods, you have to be careful when copying what Pros do. You never know if they're fast because of or inspite of what they do. Additionally, they have different requirements and access to different support than the typical amateur racer.

Personally, I think the vast majority of them use tubulars because they "think" that's what they should use. There's still a lot of mythology common in Pro racing (and here too, it appears). I still chuckle at the thought of the scene in "The Science of Lance Armstrong" where they show his crusty old Belgian mechanic and his "aging cellar" for tubular tires

Sorry, mine was no such argument. I implied that if there were some magical tire that was so much more efficient...as you claim you found....that racers would be beating down doors to get it. Again, there's no such thing as a magic bullet.

BTW, you do realize that there have been some VERY important pro races that have been won on clinchers, don't you? I recall at least 1 World Championship.

Who said I was arguing against clinchers? I ride them, always have. Have never had the chance to ride a tubular tire. I'm arguing against such stupid generalizations and snake-oil salesman type claims.

OK...I have a challenge for you. Let's take one part (and a very important one) of tire performance, namely rolling resistance. If you're convinced that a tubular tire and rim structure have inherently better rolling resistance than clinchers (of equal materials), describe the physical mechanism how this is possible.

Well, to do that, I'd have to be convinced of that. I'm not so stupid to believe that tire type is the only part of the rolling resistance equation.

Actually, the large difference would more than likely hint at an error in your test and/or analysis. As a researcher, I would have repeated my experiment many times if I found that I got a result that was so full of revelation. I would have asked someone to check my work and my setup. Have you written anything out on this? What calculations have you done? Did you analyze how changes in constant variables might effect your results? Did you analyze how errors in a given measuement or in constant might propagate through the calculations to the result?.

Huh? The little test I did wasn't "so full of revelation". It merely confirmed (for me at least) the results of numerous controlled tests and repeated the results of others. The results may be a revelation to you, but it wasn't so much of a revelation to me.

So...the difference in the measurement was so large, it must be measurement error? Do you use this same excuse when your bathroom scale says you've gained 5 lbs? :rolleyes:



Which ad hominem attacks would those be? I've not made any.


Hmmm....I guess I was just imagining references to statements that are "stupid" and comparisons to "Intelligent Design loonies".


It's perfectly valid to question someone's "scientific method"? It's how scientific theories are fleshed out: people submit work to referreed journals; that work is reviewed by peers; that work is repeated by peers; then that work is either verified or criticized.

My congratulations to the roadbikereview.com crew for making this forum a peer reviewed and referreed journal...Bravo!



Well, you must be a stud muffin....I mean you do claim as much.

Why, thank you for the compliment...but once again, you're making assumptions...



Sorry, mine was no such argument. I implied that if there were some magical tire that was so much more efficient...as you claim you found....that racers would be beating down doors to get it. Again, there's no such thing as a magic bullet..

In regards to this very question, I have been told by a former pro racer and team director that, even at the HIGHEST levels, in his experience the order of influence for equipment selection are "sponsorship issues, subjective perception, and solid information...even with solid information, if the rider doesn't believe it to be faster, or have confidence in the gear, it doesn't matter how compelling the solid information is."


Who said I was arguing against clinchers? I ride them, always have. Have never had the chance to ride a tubular tire. I'm arguing against such stupid generalizations and snake-oil salesman type claims.

Well, then I'm shocked you aren't railing against the supporters of tubular tires who make claims of "magical" ride qualities and superior "handling" and "performance" with literally NO data to back it up. Talk about your snake oil and magic bullets.



Well, to do that, I'd have to be convinced of that. I'm not so stupid to believe that tire type is the only part of the rolling resistance equation.

Huh? I guess I didn't make it simple enough. Take a Vittoria Corso Evo CX tire (a tubular) and a Vittoria Open Corso Evo CX clincher. The tires are identical except for that fact that on the tubular the casing is wrapped and sewn around a tube and on the clincher, the edges of the casing have beads sewn in. If you mount the clincher on a rim and use a similar latex tube, these 2 tires are basically identical save for how they are attached to the rim.

First, under equal conditions, tell me which one will have lower rolling resistance. Second, if you say the tubie is lower RR, explain the mechanism how that can be. ;)

I ride tubulars. I have tried a number of hight quality clinchers on high quality rims and have not found a combo that would make me want to give up tublars. I do not race and I don't gve a rats @$$ if I go a little slower than I would with clinchers. Tubulars *feel* better to me. I don't mind the hassle of gluing tires to the rim or repairing flatted ones while watching tv. Plus, I love the sound a tubular makes @ 170psi on the road.

Shawn

Hell I didn't know there was any difference on my LEW's. I felt faster because I was riding stupid light carbon tubular wheels, but other than that, felt the same.

K

I ride tubulars. I have tried a number of hight quality clinchers on high quality rims and have not found a combo that would make me want to give up tublars. I do not race and I don't gve a rats @$$ if I go a little slower than I would with clinchers. Tubulars *feel* better to me. I don't mind the hassle of gluing tires to the rim or repairing flatted ones while watching tv. Plus, I love the sound a tubular makes @ 170psi on the road.
That's great...and you're perfectly free to do whatever you wish. BTW, @170 psi on normal roads, that sound you're hearing isn't the tires...it's your fillings rattling loose :D

But, I think getting lost in all this is the original poster's questions. He was thinking of switching from clinchers to tubulars for a RACE wheelset.

I'm putting together a racing wheelset and need to make the "tubular versus clincher" decision. Thus far, I've been a clincher (pro race/ light tubes) kind of guy for both racing and training, but I've never experienced tubulars. Is the small weight savings worth the few extra bucks and the hassel of flatting without a wheel-van around?
In a word..no. Stick with the Pro Race tires. You've got a good thing going already. You may want to try some Michelin latex tubes to reduce your rolling resistance even further and to give an extra measure of pinch flat protection. They leak down faster than butyl, but that shouldn't be a big deal for a race wheelset, and wouldn't be any different that a high quality tubular setup (which also have latex tubes.)


Is there a noticable performance difference between the two?
Yes...but based on actual measurements, not in the direction you'd think ;)


If tubulars are the way to go, what type of tire do you recommend for road racing?
A good clincher. :D

I just LOVE a religious argument...

I have both tubulars AND clinchers. Like em both. LOVE the ride of a box section tubular rim and nice tire combo, but don't train on them as much any more. Clinchers are easier to deal with out in the boonies when you've had your third flat.

When I race I race track and cross. The last 2 holdouts of tubulars out there.

M

That's great...and you're perfectly free to do whatever you wish. BTW, @170 psi on normal roads, that sound you're hearing isn't the tires...it's your fillings rattling loose :D

But, I think getting lost in all this is the original poster's questions. He was thinking of switching from clinchers to tubulars for a RACE wheelset.


In a word..no. Stick with the Pro Race tires. You've got a good thing going already. You may want to try some Michelin latex tubes to reduce your rolling resistance even further and to give an extra measure of pinch flat protection. They leak down faster than butyl, but that shouldn't be a big deal for a race wheelset, and wouldn't be any different that a high quality tubular setup (which also have latex tubes.)



Yes...but based on actual measurements, not in the direction you'd think ;)



A good clincher. :D


somewhere around your 10th or 12th post in this thread it came to me ... you're recommending clinchers.

That's fine with me. I have a couple of wheelsets with clinchers myself, and I'm so radically antisocial that I don't even care if I'm riding different tires than my friends, let alone strangers.

You might, however, set down the watch and step away from the idea that you're doing any real scientific testing here, power meter or no power meter. We could go on and on about what's missing, but all sorts of particulars might be tedious and, for most, besides the point. Supposing you're right that the particular tubbies you tested (ones you don't even seem to like) have a slightly higher rolling resistance than some top quality clinchers (entirely possible, for various reasons), that resistance shouldn't be sufficiently great to explain significant gaps in your cross-wheel time comparisons. What's more, folks who tout tubular feel most frequently seem to focus on the way that their preferred tire/wheel combinations behave when cornering. Heck, independent of signficant differences in pressure and profile, anybody might lose the sense of what the heck tire they are riding on some given quarter mile of straight pavement. Most of the time, I just don't notice all that much. Sometimes, however, I do feel that I notice and cornering--especially fast or otherwise challenging cornering--is one of those times. Now we can generate several propositions that would, in fact, be hard to test in any sort of meaningful way. Maybe it's easier for folks to stick with what they like, and, one-in-a-while, to try something different just for the heck of it.

You might, however, set down the watch and step away from the idea that you're doing any real scientific testing here, power meter or no power meter. We could go on and on about what's missing, but all sorts of particulars might be tedious and, for most, besides the point.

I think I've been very clear that my field test wasn't designed or performed to pure scientific rigor. It was just that, like you, I was skeptical that the differences were as profound as they've been reported and tested to be. But, with differences that large, it's not unreasonable to be able to detect them in a field test. Care to guess the difference in Crr between the 2 tires I used that have been reported from lab tests?


Supposing you're right that the particular tubbies you tested (ones you don't even seem to like) have a slightly higher rolling resistance than some top quality clinchers (entirely possible, for various reasons), that resistance shouldn't be sufficiently great to explain significant gaps in your cross-wheel time comparisons.

OK...I'll answer the question above. I was looking at a Crr value almost DOUBLE between the 2 tires. That's right, a set of Tufos has almost TWICE the rolling resistance as Michelin ProRace clinchers. Do you still don't think that could be detected with a simple field test and a power meter? I saw the lab test data and didn't believe it could be that large. I did my field test, and guess what difference was in Crr I observed?

It convinced me...but, then again I had to see it myself before I understood. Perhaps that's the problem here... ;)

Tan, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Keep riding your Michelin's....
Don't worry about us...

"Tufo's have TWICE the rolling resistance of a Michelin Clincher"..
I wonder how they stay in business...BTW what Tufo tubular did you use?

I have forgotten why but I always steered clear of Tufo.
For tubulars I always ran Vittoria Corsa CX & CG then when they sold the company & started making them elswhere I started using Veloflex Crits.
Great tires!

I have forgotten why but I always steered clear of Tufo.
For tubulars I always ran Vittoria Corsa CX & CG then when they sold the company & started making them elswhere I started using Veloflex Crits.
Great tires!
Just a guess, but I'm guessing that you had issues with the Tufo 'no tubes' thing. Not fixable once flatted.

Personally, I like em, but then again, when you get a deal on them, what's not to like?

I never really had good luck with Vittorias. Must be a personal thing.

M

Tan, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Keep riding your Michelin's....
Don't worry about us...

"Tufo's have TWICE the rolling resistance of a Michelin Clincher"..
I wonder how they stay in business...BTW what Tufo tubular did you use?

As tested by Tour magazine:

Tufo Elite Jet - Crr = .0073
Micheline Pro2Race - Crr = 0042

I said ALMOST twice the rolling resistance, but I think 1.7x is close enough ;)

BTW, if you want to figure out how much power each tire takes, just multiply:

Power = Crr * speed * mass * g

Where, Power is in watts, speed in m/s, mass in kg, and g=9.81 m/s^2

Who's "clueless?" :rolleyes:

I have forgotten why but I always steered clear of Tufo.
For tubulars I always ran Vittoria Corsa CX & CG then when they sold the company & started making them elswhere I started using Veloflex Crits.
Great tires!

A few more Crr's of note:

Veloflex Carbon Tubular = .0049
Vittoria Corso Evo CX Tubular = .0054

It appears you have good judgement in tubulars ;)

But still, by comparison,
Vittoria Open Corso Evo CX clincher = .0039

In this case (Corso vs. Open Corso), the clincher version of identical tires has 28% less rolling resistance.

But...what do I know? I'm just a clueless, stupid, snake-oil vending, newbie savant :cool:

Just a guess, but I'm guessing that you had issues with the Tufo 'no tubes' thing. Not fixable once flatted.

I never really had good luck with Vittorias. Must be a personal thing.

M

Ah yes I think that was it. Vittorias I had luck with was the old company not the newer made in Thailand stuff.
Although the Vittoria Diamante Pro lights seem ok in the clinchers I have now. But the ride as I said seem harsher to me than my old tubulars which were on campy wheels.

A few more Crr's of note:

Veloflex Carbon Tubular = .0049
Vittoria Corso Evo CX Tubular = .0054

It appears you have good judgement in tubulars ;)

But still, by comparison,
Vittoria Open Corso Evo CX clincher = .0039

In this case (Corso vs. Open Corso), the clincher version of identical tires has 28% less rolling resistance.


Well actually I had been using Veloflex Crits for the most recent years because as I said the Vittorias from Thailand never seemed as good.

I am curious now that I am looking at more clinchers. You say the Vittoris Corsa Evo CX is better than the Vittoria Diamante Pro Lights I am running now. I was looking at the adverts for both & see the Corsa cost 5 buck more but is heavier & treaded versus the smooth lighter Pro Lights.
228grams versus 173 grams. I wondered why you like the Evo's better?
Are all your Crr numbers from Tour magazine? Do you have a Crr for the Diamante?
Also thinking back to wheels isn't a box section for instance always more compliant than a Aero Vee type rim? These Vista's are 19mmx30mm

I have a section of road that is fast & I always used it as a gauge for how a bike felt in regards to comfort. This one is a Cervelo R2.5 all carbon with the Vista's shod with the Diamante pro lights.
My last bike a Look 386i was shod with Campy Nucleons Tubulars with the Veloflex Crits
There is quite a difference. I know they are different bikes & teh Look has laid up their carbon to be more compliant in direction & layers but still I cannot help but wonde how much of it is the wheels.
It is not critical & I could be happy as is but was more curious about it all.
I must say for the tubulars I miss the handling a bit on high speed curvy decents but this is not far off. Also the comfort I mentioned which may or may not be entirely the wheels fault.
But I do not miss dealing with the glue or the fear of a multiple flat. Although in 20 years it only happened once. ( the multiple flats in one day) Ended my ride but some tourist were kind enough to pick me up & give me a ride home ;)

I am curious now that I am looking at more clinchers. You say the Vittoris Corsa Evo CX is better than the Vittoria Diamante Pro Lights I am running now. I was looking at the adverts for both & see the Corsa cost 5 buck more but is heavier & treaded versus the smooth lighter Pro Lights.
228grams versus 173 grams. I wondered why you like the Evo's better?
Are all your Crr numbers from Tour magazine? Do you have a Crr for the Diamante?
Also thinking back to wheels isn't a box section for instance always more compliant than a Aero Vee type rim? These Vista's are 19mmx30mm


The Corsas have a 290 tpi casing vs. the Diamontes' 220 tpi casing. Typically, the higher the thread count, the lighter and more flexible the casing. Be careful though, you need to make sure it's the "true" thread count. Some manufacturers like to report they have high thread count, but all they do is have low thread count plys and add the numbers up...talk about "snake oil" :rolleyes:

The only Crr number they have for a Diamonte is the Pro Rain at .0044, which is pretty good. It appears the tread is thicker on that tire as compared to the Pro Light, so I'd expect the Pro Rain to have a slightly lower Crr.

If you want a smooth tread in the Corsa line, you can try the Evo KS. But, it sounds like you're almost there with the Diamontes. Throw a couple of latex tubes in there (not Vittoria one's though, they have "issues", I'd recommend Michelin) and see how you like them then. :)

As tested by Tour magazine:

Tufo Elite Jet - Crr = .0073
Micheline Pro2Race - Crr = 0042

I said ALMOST twice the rolling resistance, but I think 1.7x is close enough ;)

BTW, if you want to figure out how much power each tire takes, just multiply:

Power = Crr * speed * mass * g

Where, Power is in watts, speed in m/s, mass in kg, and g=9.81 m/s^2

Who's "clueless?" :rolleyes:
You are clueless...

So if we go out to ride you riding Michelins and me riding Tufo you will ride twice as fast as me?

Yeah sure......
I can tell how much you ride bud, step away from the keyboard and get on your bike.
Maybe Ullrich should have ridden Michelins clinchers??


:confused:

You are clueless...

So if we go out to ride you riding Michelins and me riding Tufo you will ride twice as fast as me?

Yeah sure......
I can tell how much you ride bud, step away from the keyboard and get on your bike.
Maybe Ullrich should have ridden Michelins clinchers??


:confused:

If he rides twice faster than you, then HE IS twice faster than you no matter what he is riding.. :rolleyes:
To the other posters, it is also foolish to measure one's knowledge in cycling by the number of posts he has in this forum. You guys should know better than this..

You are clueless...

Are you sure about that? You might want to think this through a little... ;)


So if we go out to ride you riding Michelins and me riding Tufo you will ride twice as fast as me?

Maybe...but it won't be because my tires have half the rolling resistance :D

It might be a good excercise for you to review the forces impeding forward motion during cycling, of which, rolling resistance is just one :rolleyes:


Yeah sure......
I can tell how much you ride bud, step away from the keyboard and get on your bike.
Maybe Ullrich should have ridden Michelins clinchers??

I think he first needs to figure out how to make sure his front wheel doesn't get put on backwards :D

Are you sure about that? You might want to think this through a little... ;)




Maybe...but it won't be because my tires have half the rolling resistance :D

It might be a good excercise for you to review the forces impeding forward motion during cycling, of which, rolling resistance is just one :rolleyes:




I think he first needs to figure out how to make sure his front wheel doesn't get put on backwards :D


????

I don't need to worry about the crap you seem to worry about.
It may be a good exercise for you to actually get on a bike foo............ :p