Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 109
  1. #51
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    10,870
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    Tubeless systems may save 5W but, considering the lack of tire choices, do you know what they are giving up in rolling resistance? I honestly don't know. Are the tubeless tires out there equal to clinchers? I was under the impression that tubeless tire choices are limited compared to clincher and therefore a disadvantage. Tires are king to me. Best upgrade for the money imo and for some reason one of the most overlooked by the average rider. jmo/e
    Quality tubeless tires outperform most clinchers. And some tubular.

    #1 on the list is tubeless.
    https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  2. #52
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Quality tubeless tires outperform most clinchers. And some tubular.

    #1 on the list is tubeless.
    https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews
    Have to be careful with blanket statements about a given genre of tire outperforming another. In what capacity? How about ease of installation for the average bike rider?...or rolling resistance...or flatting tendency. Puncture resistance tests are largely bogus in the grand scheme of flatting potential out on the road.

    From my favorite boys at GCN for an overview:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4dGMDtsq64

  3. #53
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Not sure what you mean as 5W save reported is based upon reduction in rolling resistance. Tubulars have redundant inner tube integrated in the tire which increases bending and therefore rolling resistance and clinchers run without a tube do not have this additive...what can be considered, redundancy. Of course without this redundancy of integrated tube and tire aka tubular, the biggest difference is likely flat resistance...pros and many riders have greater confidence in tubulars versus clinchers run tubeless because the seal of the clincher is all important to maintain pressure. Not so with a tubular. Even with a poor glue job, a tubular can maintain pressure.
    Just repeating what ceugene wrote.

  4. #54
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    10,870
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Have to be careful with blanket statements about a given genre of tire outperforming another.
    He was asking about rolling resistance.

    It's undeniable that quality tubeless tires outperform most clinchers. And some tubular.
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  5. #55
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    Just repeating what ceugene wrote.
    Not what he said Woody. Ceugene didn't attribute the 5w savings to anything. I explained why 'the theory' of a tubeless clincher has the lowest rolling resistance of the three. Simple reason is...a tubular is a tube with inside redundant rubber layer integrated into the tire which has to contribute a very small percentage to bending resistance and therefore slightly higher rolling resistance. That is the theory. Pros who almost universally race tubulars accept this very modest increase in tire/tube bending resistance in favor of the added security of having a rubber bladder of sorts capturing air which many if not most believe is a recipe for flatting less. Of course when a tubular or sew up flats that are a bigger PITA and why many including me don't ride them for training. Pros simply change wheels and have their mechanics install their tires so they are good with it.

  6. #56
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    He was asking about rolling resistance.

    It's undeniable that quality tubeless tires outperform most clinchers. And some tubular.
    No it isn't. No single parameter of tire performance dictates a rider or team preference for a given tire brand or type. It is a collective decision based upon many factors. Same with disc brakes. A perfect analogy really. Who can deny that disc brakes stop better? Yet many pros still prefer rim brakes. There are many reasons why.

  7. #57
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Not what he said Woody. Ceugene didn't attribute the 5w savings to anything. I explained why 'the theory' of a tubeless clincher has the lowest rolling resistance of the three. Simple reason is...a tubular is a tube with inside redundant rubber layer integrated into the tire which has to contribute a very small percentage to bending resistance and therefore slightly higher rolling resistance. That is the theory. Pros who almost universally race tubulars accept this very modest increase in tire/tube bending resistance in favor of the added security of having a rubber bladder of sorts capturing air which many if not most believe is a recipe for flatting less. Of course when a tubular or sew up flats that are a bigger PITA and why many including me don't ride them for training. Pros simply change wheels and have their mechanics install their tires so they are good with it.
    This is what I was referring to.

    Ceugene wrote: I think my bigger question is why haven't the pros switched to tubeless? I mean Campy just added fuel to the fire, confirming all the tests from BRR, Wheel Energy, etc. According to Campagnolo's whitepaper, the top 5 tubeless tires averaged 5 watts better than the top 5 tubulars at 40km/h. Now consider that the race tubeless setup is probably 300g heavier than the race tubular setup, it should be a no-brainer that teams should switch to tubeless.

  8. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by woodys737 View Post
    This is what I was referring to.
    I explained the physics involved. Nothing wrong with what ceugene wrote.

  9. #59
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    I explained the physics involved. Nothing wrong with what ceugene wrote.
    I'm only interested in the "5W better than" part... we are missing each other I think.

  10. #60
    tlg
    tlg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: tlg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    10,870
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    No it isn't. No single parameter of tire performance dictates a rider or team preference for a given tire brand or type. It is a collective decision based upon many factors. Same with disc brakes. A perfect analogy really. Who can deny that disc brakes stop better? Yet many pros still prefer rim brakes. There are many reasons why.
    OMG.. you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

    Again.... he asked "do you know what they are giving up in rolling resistance? "
    Custom Di2 & Garmin/GoPro mounts 2013 SuperSix EVO Hi-MOD Team * 2004 Klein Aura V

  11. #61
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    OMG.. you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

    Again.... he asked "do you know what they are giving up in rolling resistance? "
    OMG...lol. You guys talk it out. I believe you are on the same wavelength.

  12. #62
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    You were doing pretty well until you mixed your metaphors of flat earth and luddites. You referred the Paris Roubaix as essentially a flat race which it is where disc brakes aren't needed. If you live in a flat place like I do...I ride year around, nobody here that knows anything about racing bicycles rides disc brakes because not only are they unnecessary but unwelcome for their weight, aero deficit, complexity and cost. That said, if I lived in the mountains like you, I would be on a disc brake bike without question. I don't embrace technology for technology sake. That is a mindless position. Instead horses for courses.
    I'd still have disc brakes if I lived in the flat lands because I'd drive/vacation/or move to the mountains to ride.

    I'm assuming that you and your friends ride with friction shifters on the down tubes? Because nobody "who knows anything about racing bicycles rides brifters because not only are they unnecessary but unwelcome for their weight, aero deficit, complexity and cost".

  13. #63
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    12,388
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Fiber orientation matters aka anisotropic properties which create differential bending but size, shape and thickness matter MUCH more than fiber orientation. Think of fiber orientation as a tuning tool to make a structure more efficient however size, shape and thickness being the essence of any structure including an anisotropic bridge with rebar running through it oriented to provide strength is specific planes of bending. What every engineer is taught in junior level strength of materials class in ungraduate school.
    Makes sense.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  14. #64
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo View Post
    I'd still have disc brakes if I lived in the flat lands because I'd drive/vacation/or move to the mountains to ride.

    I'm assuming that you and your friends ride with friction shifters on the down tubes? Because nobody "who knows anything about racing bicycles rides brifters because not only are they unnecessary but unwelcome for their weight, aero deficit, complexity and cost".
    Your first sentence makes sense. Your last sentence exposes your awkward side...lol

  15. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Makes sense.
    Thanks. And look no further than what engineers learned about shaping carbon bikes and then applying it to Al bikes...Al being more isotropic than carbon. What they learned really revolutionized Al racing bikes in the last 5 years or so. Shape is king. Even trumps material. If steel and Ti could be hydroformed like Al...presently cost prohibited to do so, Al may take a back seat...but Al can rival the performance of carbon in spite of its lower strength to weight...at the end of the day only giving up 200-400 grams per frame or so. Shape rules the day and trumps material if a given material can be formed to optimize performance.

  16. #66
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,635
    I've had a couple bikes with mechanical disc brakes. Sold them within a year of buying them, because I really didn't like riding them much. Loved the braking on descents and in the wet, but disliked them pretty much everywhere else. A lot of that likely came down to the frame design, as manufacturers hadn't really figured out road disc yet. They were set up well, but I never really took to them.

    Now I'm giving it another try with hydraulic discs on an endurance-oriented Moots. All of my race and performance-oriented bikes will still run rim brakes, because as a racer I'm terrified of spinning blades of death and such. That, and all of my nice wheels are rim brake. That's also one of the reasons I haven't gone tubeless. "Upgrading" just because the industry introduced something new doesn't make sense. They screw it up a lot (see bottom bracket standards), and it takes a while to sort things out.

  17. #67
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska Mike View Post
    I've had a couple bikes with mechanical disc brakes. Sold them within a year of buying them, because I really didn't like riding them much. Loved the braking on descents and in the wet, but disliked them pretty much everywhere else. A lot of that likely came down to the frame design, as manufacturers hadn't really figured out road disc yet. They were set up well, but I never really took to them.

    Now I'm giving it another try with hydraulic discs on an endurance-oriented Moots. All of my race and performance-oriented bikes will still run rim brakes, because as a racer I'm terrified of spinning blades of death and such. That, and all of my nice wheels are rim brake. That's also one of the reasons I haven't gone tubeless. "Upgrading" just because the industry introduced something new doesn't make sense. They screw it up a lot (see bottom bracket standards), and it takes a while to sort things out.
    Mike,
    Can you comment on overall speed of your Moots with disc brakes compared to your rim brake race bikes?...presuming its heavier, maybe not quite as aero etc. Have you timed it on say the same course as your race bikes? Do you have it set up as aggressively or is your fit more relaxed?
    Do you use it is for longer rides...and/or do you train on it?
    Any pics?..thanks

  18. #68
    The Slow One.
    Reputation: Alaska Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,635

    Thread hijack. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Mike,
    Can you comment on overall speed of your Moots with disc brakes compared to your rim brake race bikes?...presuming its heavier, maybe not quite as aero etc. Have you timed it on say the same course as your race bikes? Do you have it set up as aggressively or is your fit more relaxed?Do you use it is for longer rides...and/or do you train on it? Any pics?..thanks
    No, unfortunately I can't because FedEx has it somewhere in Ohio at the moment. I haven't ridden it yet. When it arrives, I will likely set it up less aggressively than my race bikes, but not excessively so. Too many other variables will be in play to say if the brake choice will make any difference in speed. I am hoping the less draggy nature of hydraulic discs (vs cable-actuated disc) will keep me from abandoning the bike prematurely. It will be mostly for long rides and foul weather, so comfort trumps performance here.

    I will train on it. X amount of watts is pretty much the same workload from road bike to road bike, although when the weather is nice I'll probably move to a more performance-oriented bike.
    Attachment 322352
    It's a Moots Vamoots DR, which I first saw in the classifieds here but eventually contacted the owner through PinkBike. It's actually replacing another rim brake ti bike in my collection, because I've found them to be near-indestructable (TSA has tried) and easy to clean after rainy rides. Moots admits it isn't a sprint machine, and I would have preferred a Vamoots Disc RSL based on my normal preferences, but I figured I'd give it a shot. Not every bike has to be crit worthy. My back isn't getting any younger. Plus, it has a bunch of Chris King/Moots/Enve components, BSA bottom bracket, and external routing. Lot to love there.

    I did buy an older, performance-oriented Moots Compact (rim brakes) frame at about the same time that may end up being my crit bike, depending on how it turns out. If not, I'll just ride the hell out of it. All built up, I'll probably have less than $2500 (including SRM) in it when I'm done, and it will be more than race-worthy. Hoarding parts and buying used stretches my dollars a lot farther and lets me try a lot of different bikes.

    I'm starting to fall out of love with swoopy carbon shapes and really digging round tubes these days. The brutal simplicity of a deep-section carbon wheel on a well-built ti or steel frame is just sexy to me. Tilford used to kill it on his Eriksens.

    Bridging this back more or less to the original topic, I'm also interested to see how much the frame material/design affects me over longer rides/races over rough pavement. There's nothing revolutionary here, just the application of tried-and-true technology- pretty much what many of the teams at Roubaix were going for.

  19. #69
    Cycling Addict
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,548
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Thanks. And look no further than what engineers learned about shaping carbon bikes and then applying it to Al bikes...Al being more isotropic than carbon. What they learned really revolutionized Al racing bikes in the last 5 years or so. Shape is king. Even trumps material. If steel and Ti could be hydroformed like Al...presently cost prohibited to do so, Al may take a back seat...but Al can rival the performance of carbon in spite of its lower strength to weight...at the end of the day only giving up 200-400 grams per frame or so. Shape rules the day and trumps material if a given material can be formed to optimize performance.
    In the last five years? look at the 1994 Klein Quantum Pro. What folks are doing now with aluminum was first showing up on Gary Klein's bikes over twenty years ago.
    Life is short... enjoy the ride.

  20. #70
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by 11spd View Post
    Thanks. And look no further than what engineers learned about shaping carbon bikes and then applying it to Al bikes...Al being more isotropic than carbon. What they learned really revolutionized Al racing bikes in the last 5 years or so. Shape is king. Even trumps material. If steel and Ti could be hydroformed like Al...presently cost prohibited to do so, Al may take a back seat...but Al can rival the performance of carbon in spite of its lower strength to weight...at the end of the day only giving up 200-400 grams per frame or so. Shape rules the day and trumps material if a given material can be formed to optimize performance.
    It's interesting that you don't see 200-400 grams as being of consequence in frame weight.

    Specialized has tunnel tested their new tarmac s-works disc against their tarmac s-works rim and has concluded no aero loss at any angle and only 300 grams total in weight difference (it weighs around 15.7 lbs).

  21. #71
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by bradkay View Post
    In the last five years? look at the 1994 Klein Quantum Pro. What folks are doing now with aluminum was first showing up on Gary Klein's bikes over twenty years ago.
    Klein frames had no special tube shapes. All they did was file down the welds and bend tubes the conventional way.

  22. #72
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,548
    Quote Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Quality tubeless tires outperform most clinchers. And some tubular.

    #1 on the list is tubeless.
    https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews
    Specialized @ Paris-Roubaix:  no CG-Rs, no disc brakes-tire-rolling-resistance.jpg

    not so fast. When comparing RR at equal PSI, then yes the tubeless tire is faster at equal PSI to the tubular. However, in reality, nobody is going to ride a road tubeless tire at 100 PSI, and for many people using tubeless, they're likely using 80 PSI or less. So now if we compare the RR of the tubeless tire at 80 PSI to the RR of the tubular at 120 PSI, now the tubular wins.

  23. #73
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    12,388
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tire-rolling-resistance.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	63.6 KB 
ID:	322354

    not so fast. When comparing RR at equal PSI, then yes the tubeless tire is faster at equal PSI to the tubular. However, in reality, nobody is going to ride a road tubeless tire at 100 PSI, and for many people using tubeless, they're likely using 80 PSI or less. So now if we compare the RR of the tubeless tire at 80 PSI to the RR of the tubular at 120 PSI, now the tubular wins.
    I don't know anyone that rides tubulars at 120. One of the major reasons to use tubulars besides lighter weight and the fact they're safely attached to the rim if they flat is that you can use lower pressure and they're less likely to get a pinch flat.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  24. #74
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    23,613
    Quote Originally Posted by BCSaltchucker View Post
    look like thread-on. however I have a Praxis prob-solver BB in one of my bikes that looks just like this, in a press fit shell

    cyclingnews has all the pics of the bike http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...ubaix-gallery/

    Very interesting:

    Specialized's Roubaix frameset is only available as a disc brake option. However Specialized produced pro-rider only rim brake versions of the frameset following the requests of riders on both Bora-Hansgrohe and Quick-Step Floors.

    The Roubaix frameset also features Specialized's 'Future Shock' suspension system, which suspends the handlebars in an attempt to take away the vibrations when riding over rough surfaces. The riders have a dial on the top of the stem which allows them to lock out the suspension system when not required.


    First, how ya gonna sell a disc brake bike marketed on the racing accomplishments of guys who are riding rim brake versions? You can't get the same bike your hero rides? Thanks a lot, Specialized.

    Second, wasn't Sagan fiddling with his stem with an allen wrench? Maybe he was "locking it out." Have to wonder how much they'll creak bouncing over cobble stones. Much better to use the material the handlebars and frame are made with, to absorb shock and still have structural integrity that provides positive control under hard riding. Elastomers cheat the issue. Where they join the frame is usually where the system breaks down.

  25. #75
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: BCSaltchucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,663
    I think you're over-thinking it. Mountain bikers live with front suspension and have vastly more need of precision control than road bikes. Road bikes are more or less point n shoot machines, demanding minimal handling skill even at the pro level. The boing boing at the front isn't going to affect bike handling much and might help on the cobbles too, as per the intention.

    however, I would not want to be sprinting at the finish with a set of bars bobbing up and down. The pros riding Roubaix models probably prefer the front suspension to be minimal and very tight. It did end in a sprint.

    Having tried adding suspension stem and seat post on my one bike, I still find it much more effective riding my cyclocross bike with quality 28mm tires for achieving a smoothened ride on rougher surfaces. Tires are just more crucial. Teams have run suspension on bikes at Paris Roubaix going back 24 years now, and yet most teams today just focus on the tires (and a little bit on frame geometry)
    Faith is pretending to know things you don't know

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-15-2017, 02:34 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 05:20 AM
  3. Movistar rider reportedly injured by disc brake in Paris-Roubaix crash
    By krtassoc in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 436
    Last Post: 06-03-2016, 08:47 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 11:35 PM
  5. Disc brakes are awesome!!! / Disc brakes are Awesome???
    By metoou2 in forum Components, Wrenching
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

roadbikereview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.