TdF Teams - Tubies or Clinchers?

[mgm777]

Do most, if not all, TdF teams still race on tubulars?
If tubies are still the preferred race tire of the pro peloton, why? Not looking to start a tubie vs. clincher war here, just asking an honest question based on curiosity. Wonder what the teams' rationale/justification is for whatever system they use? Also, what do most pros train on, when training on their own? Still tubies? Seriously, no tubie vs. clincher troll here, just asking a serious question for those in the know. Thanks.

[Louis]

I'm hardly "in the know" but last I heard, they all use tubulars.

[Dave B]

On one of the stages it was brought up that a team running Reynolds wheels were on clinchers. Not sure wha team, but it took me by surprise.

[Spin71]

They ride the tire with the best ride quality and they don't change their own flats. Take a guess what they ALL ride.

[false_Aest]

race on tubulars.

cuz really, its hard to find something better. and can you can still ride em even if they puncture. there's the whole tradition thing too.

in the spring classics its also hard to imagine finishing a race with a clincher (tubeless maybe, clincher definitely not).

and, up until recently, there was still some doubt about about CF clinchers being safe on long descents.


This spring I saw HTC on the road. Seemed like a mixed bag . . . half clincher half tubular. I've seen picts of other pros on training rides pulling off a tubular when they've flatted.

[fourflys]

there is one team riding clinchers... I can't think of who they are at the moment, but I remember reading about them... they could have been tubeless though...

BTW- I bet a lot of pros ride clinchers when at home training by themselves... just a guess...

[mgm777]

It appears that AG2R has one Reynolds clincher wheelset in their quiver. According to the link, AG2R is the only team at the TdF with a clincher wheelset.

Link to Reynolds News Release (http://www.reynoldscycling.com/index.php?p_resource=articles)

Could be a PR move to appease their wheel sponsors?

[Olmo]

I think a good question to ask would be if you were sponsored, and had access to mechs to glue your tubies, and team plus neutral support every ride, why would you be riding a clincher?

You really would be hard pressed to have a reason to do so. I mean are there any reasons to ride clinchers other than cost, ease of tube/tire replacement? I don't think I've ever heard someone try to make the argument that they outperform tubies (just that they may not underperform as badly as some might think).

If I was a sponsor I'd pressure my team to race on clinchers. Isn't racing about creating a test ground to advance and innovate products for market? The market for tubulars is pretty niche.

[oldguy00]

Olmo,
Why do you necessarily consider clinchers to be an innovation over tubulars?

I know we're entering dangerous ground here....the 'ol tubie vs clincher debate.... :)

But I've simply never understood the attitude of "I'd use tubies if I had a support car...."..

My friends and I have been using tubies for years and years, without follow cars. We carry a very neatly folded up spare under our saddle, same size as a small saddle bag. Very easy to change on the road just as fast or faster than a clincher. And even if you don't have a spare, you can make it home on a flat. Or you can just carry a can of pitstop, etc.

I think the newer clinchers ride -very- nice. But I simply flat far less often with tubies, and I do feel they are safer overall.

:beer:

[oldpotatoe]

Do most, if not all, TdF teams still race on tubulars?
If tubies are still the preferred race tire of the pro peloton, why? Not looking to start a tubie vs. clincher war here, just asking an honest question based on curiosity. Wonder what the teams' rationale/justification is for whatever system they use? Also, what do most pros train on, when training on their own? Still tubies? Seriously, no tubie vs. clincher troll here, just asking a serious question for those in the know. Thanks.

Righto-we'll see how this goes.

Light carbon wheels are tubulars. Tubulars are more comfy, corner better, are safer if you flat, are less prone to flats...old news...

[oldpotatoe]

Olmo,
Why do you necessarily consider clinchers to be an innovation over tubulars?

I know we're entering dangerous ground here....the 'ol tubie vs clincher debate.... :)

But I've simply never understood the attitude of "I'd use tubies if I had a support car...."..

My friends and I have been using tubies for years and years, without follow cars. We carry a very neatly folded up spare under our saddle, same size as a small saddle bag. Very easy to change on the road just as fast or faster than a clincher. And even if you don't have a spare, you can make it home on a flat. Or you can just carry a can of pitstop, etc.

I think the newer clinchers ride -very- nice. But I simply flat far less often with tubies, and I do feel they are safer overall.

:beer:


What he said. Never had a support car nor somebody else to glue these on. Have very few flats, love the ride.

[R2D2]

Olmo,
Why do you necessarily consider clinchers to be an innovation over tubulars?

I know we're entering dangerous ground here....the 'ol tubie vs clincher debate.... :)

But I've simply never understood the attitude of "I'd use tubies if I had a support car...."..

My friends and I have been using tubies for years and years, without follow cars. We carry a very neatly folded up spare under our saddle, same size as a small saddle bag. Very easy to change on the road just as fast or faster than a clincher. And even if you don't have a spare, you can make it home on a flat. Or you can just carry a can of pitstop, etc.

I think the newer clinchers ride -very- nice. But I simply flat far less often with tubies, and I do feel they are safer overall.

:beer:
+1
I've seen more people having trouble trying to get a clincher off aero rims.
I've actually just had a series of flats on a older clincher rim because the rim tape had deformed into the nipple holes and the tube weakened in the dimples.
No such problems on tubulars. Now maybe tubeless will catch on but they seem messier and more finnicky than tubulars. Anyway ride what you want but you'll never see a clincher match the weight of a tubular. And at the pro level in the mountains THAT really matters.

[Likes2ridefar]

Tubeless are not messier....you just need experience working with them. If my mechanically challenged self is capable of mounting numerous tubeless tires in a tiny manhattan apartment without ruining thousands of dollars of stereo and computer equipment, anyone can do it, and most of you have garages or yards.

Two weeks ago I flatted at the tour de toona and for various reasons the race was very messed up with half the field getting lost. I was in the lead group still on course but got dropped then promptly flatted. there was no wheel ca, perhaps it was lost too, so I rode about 7km to the finish on a flat rear tubular.

Safety would be my main vote for the use of tubulars. The rest of the reasons I find are tough to argue.

[R2D2]

Tubeless are not messier....you just need experience working with them. If my mechanically challenged self is capable of mounting numerous tubeless tires in a tiny manhattan apartment without ruining thousands of dollars of stereo and computer equipment, anyone can do it, and most of you have garages or yards.

Two weeks ago I flatted at the tour de toona and for various reasons the race was very messed up with half the field getting lost. I was in the lead group still on course but got dropped then promptly flatted. there was no wheel ca, perhaps it was lost too, so I rode about 7km to the finish on a flat rear tubular.

Safety would be my main vote for the use of tubulars. The rest of the reasons I find are tough to argue.

Do you preload your tubeless with a sealant?
How does it go changing them on the road?

[Likes2ridefar]

Do you preload your tubeless with a sealant?
And if so how does it go changing them on the road?

I've never used a rim that was designed to be tubeless, so, yes, I have always used sealant. Stan's is what I've always used.

I've never had a flat on the road with tubeless, but have changed many at home. If the sealant is dry a towel easily removes all the gunk after a few swipes around the rim. looks brand new.

If it's wet I usually remove the tire over something I don't mind a few drips falling on. After I remove the tire I just rinse it off with water in the sink and then dry the rim with a towel.

If on the road I'd simply dump the wet sealant out, put a tube in, and be done with it. It's possible your hands will get dirtier than if you'd had no sealant. I always have a pair of exam gloves in my bag regardless of whether I use tubeless wheels or not.

[R2D2]

I've never used a rim that was designed to be tubeless, so, yes, I have always used sealant. Stan's is what I've always used.

I've never had a flat on the road with tubeless, but have changed many at home. If the sealant is dry a towel easily removes all the gunk after a few swipes around the rim. looks brand new.

If it's wet I usually remove the tire over something I don't mind a few drips falling on. After I remove the tire I just rinse it off with water in the sink and then dry the rim with a towel.

If on the road I'd simply dump the wet sealant out, put a tube in, and be done with it. It's possible your hands will get dirtier than if you'd had no sealant. I always have a pair of exam gloves in my bag regardless of whether I use tubeless wheels or not.
No problem.
But that was my point.
Anyway sorry you flatted. Vittoria PitStop may have helped. BUT it too has a learning curve. But seconds make/break a race so may not have been enough.

I was hoping tubeless would have caught on by now. But seems to be off to a slow start.

[Tony Edwards]

Honestly I've always been a little scared of tubulars after rolling a front tubular and crashing into a concrete track at high speed on a rented track bike at Hellyer Park Velodrome many years ago. That was, bar none, the most painful crash I've ever had. I know that is not something that should happen with a properly-installed tubular, but it was, to say the least, a memorable experience.

[avalonracing]

My friends and I have been using tubies for years and years, without follow cars. We carry a very neatly folded up spare under our saddle, same size as a small saddle bag. Very easy to change on the road just as fast or faster than a clincher. And even if you don't have a spare, you can make it home on a flat. Or you can just carry a can of pitstop, etc.


You live in Canada where chucking bottles out of cars isn't a way of life. Riding tubulars around the suburban roads around Baltimore and DC would be a very silly proposition.

[oldguy00]

You live in Canada where chucking bottles out of cars isn't a way of life. Riding tubulars around the suburban roads around Baltimore and DC would be a very silly proposition.

This is true. Our roads aren't always the smoothest, but usually all we face in terms of debris is some gravel and several train tracks to hop over. Not much glass on our typical training routes.

[Charles M]

Get the myth dead that "tubulars" are more puncture resistant or longer wearing than "clinchers".

They're the same exact rubber and casing for many companies... In fact the inner tubes in many tubulars are less durable than what a lot of folks use for their clinchers.


You may be purchasing a better quality tire for your tubulars, but in general terms simply sewing the casing shut instead of putting in a bead doesn't magically transform its puncture resisting or wear...



The one difference is in pitch flat resisting being better for tubular than clincher (of the same size and casing) and for all but very very very few, that's just not important on the road.


It's also an overly general statement to say tubulars ride better, corner better etc without again qualifying that the brand and model of tire matter... There are some lesser tubulars that ride like *****...

I'll take a clincher vittoria 320 tpi over many tubulars for overall ride qualities... But I'll take the 320 tpi tubular over the clincher (and do for 75% of the wheels in the house).




The real difs that need less qualifying are in total system weight...

[oldguy00]

The one difference is in pitch flat resisting being better for tubular than clincher (of the same size and casing) and for all but very very very few, that's just not important on the road.
.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see many many flat tires due to pinches and/or issues with base tape.

[zap]

You live in Canada where chucking bottles out of cars isn't a way of life. Riding tubulars around the suburban roads around Baltimore and DC would be a very silly proposition.

Silly me.

[TAW]

The one difference is in pitch flat resisting being better for tubular than clincher (of the same size and casing) and for all but very very very few, that's just not important on the road.


At the shop I would say that better than 50% of the flats I change are due to pinch flats. I suppose it may depend on where you ride, but around here, potholes are a way of life. ;)

[fiamme red]

The one difference is in pitch flat resisting being better for tubular than clincher (of the same size and casing) and for all but very very very few, that's just not important on the road.I get plenty of pinch flats on clinchers, usually not because of under-inflated tires, but from hitting deep potholes. The roads in and around NYC are in terrible condition.

[fourflys]

At the shop I would say that better than 50% of the flats I change are due to pinch flats. I suppose it may depend on where you ride, but around here, potholes are a way of life. ;)


if people are paying you to change a tire, chances are they might just roll over whatever is in their way anyway... I'm guessing most don't right "light"...

[Mark McM]

in the spring classics its also hard to imagine finishing a race with a clincher (tubeless maybe, clincher definitely not).

That's a bit of a hyperbole. Not only have many clincher riders finished the spring classics, but some have even won some - including the classic that is supposedly the toughest on tires, Paris-Roubaix (Andre Tchmil, 1994, Michelin clinchers).

[Mark McM]

You really would be hard pressed to have a reason to do so. I mean are there any reasons to ride clinchers other than cost, ease of tube/tire replacement? I don't think I've ever heard someone try to make the argument that they outperform tubies (just that they may not underperform as badly as some might think).

Miguel Indurain was known to have switched to clinchers for mountain stages in the Grand Tours, due to the concern of tubular glue melting (from braking heat) on descents.

Curiously, many rolling resistance tests have shown that clinchers have lower rolling resistance than otherwise similar tubulars.

Tubulars and clinchers have different characteristics regarding what types of flats they are prone to and how they behave after flatting, and how they react to braking heat. But when they are inflated and not overheated from braking, tubulars and clinchers can be so close in performance that you'd be hard pressed to show a distinct advantage of one over the other.

[false_Aest]

That's a bit of a hyperbole. Not only have many clincher riders finished the spring classics, but some have even won some - including the classic that is supposedly the toughest on tires, Paris-Roubaix (Andre Tchmil, 1994, Michelin clinchers).

i don't doubt that people have finished and won PR or other cobbled classics on clinchers. I didn't mean to insinuate that it had never happened.

but it seems that the possibility of pinch flatting while riding tubulars is much less. and it seems that the possibility of pinch flatting while riding on cobbles is much higher than that of riding on plain ol tarmac.

[Olmo]

Olmo,
Why do you necessarily consider clinchers to be an innovation over tubulars?

I know we're entering dangerous ground here....the 'ol tubie vs clincher debate.... :)

But I've simply never understood the attitude of "I'd use tubies if I had a support car...."..

My friends and I have been using tubies for years and years, without follow cars. We carry a very neatly folded up spare under our saddle, same size as a small saddle bag. Very easy to change on the road just as fast or faster than a clincher. And even if you don't have a spare, you can make it home on a flat. Or you can just carry a can of pitstop, etc.

I think the newer clinchers ride -very- nice. But I simply flat far less often with tubies, and I do feel they are safer overall.

:beer:

I think perhaps you misunderstood the point, or I wasn't effective in making it in a way that was easily understandable to all.

I was attempting to articulate that racing is the research and development ground for cycling goods, and that all performance gains from tubulars aside, the sponsors sell very very few tubies. They sell a TON of clinchers, since that is what almost 99.9% of all 700c tires sold happen to be. I would think the manufacturers would make the case that it would help them sell the products people actually BUY by requiring the racers to use them. Inevitably, the R&D on clinchers would result in better clinchers, due to the need for them to perform at race performance levels in this context. That is not to suggest that clinchers, in and of themselves, are innovative in a context of comparison to tubulars. Rather that the sponsors have a vested interest in the innovation of the products they are attempt to sell on the open market, and in volumes significant enough to be relevant.

I think one would have to be a fool to not concede that tubulars outperform clinchers if they are properly glued and installed. However, I guarantee you that you can't mount and install your tubies in a tenth the time I can replace a tube and clincher. You can't even begin to compare the time required to replace a tube to the time required to replace a tubular roadside.

There is a reason that pro racers use tubulars. They don't mount them themselves, they don't pay for them, and they don't have to deal with them "on the road." There is a reason that the rest of us all use clinchers, excepting an very insignificant minority market size wise, and the reasons are the same.

Also safety, if you feel comfortable riding on an old spare tubular that has is only sticky because it has glue on the base tape plus the remaining glue on the rim feel free. However, I live near mountains and I've never been on a ride yet where I didn't see a car, and either of those could get you killed.

When you replace the tube and/or tire on a clincher the bike is as safe as it was before the tube/tire failure. Not so with a roadside tubular repair. You'll never see someone racing on a roadside tubular repair/replacement, and with good reason. Also, unless one is a 145 pound Spanish climber, tubulars can become dangerous when they get overheated from braking. Certainly when a clincher blows a tube from the heat build-up in the rim it becomes as dangerous, but a tubular can walk off the rim before the tube blows, and usually does, whereas the clincher blows and then walks off. Take your pick, as the tubular is actually better insulated, and thus heat resistant. However, you should also know that many pro cyclists don't like descending, and don't take more risks, because even winning a gran tour stage while riding on tubulars isn't worth their life. If the peleton switched to clinchers, due to sponsor pressures, don't you think the market would see tire and wheel systems innovate to become safer in racing conditions like these?

The reality is that arguments can be made for racing on tubulars, but for unsupported training I think more cyclists are swayed by tubulars being Pro's Pro than the performance. The reality is that most cyclists using tubulars aren't riding at a selective enough level to realize the performance variance between clinchers and tubulars in the first place. However, please don't misinterpret that to suggest that there is not a variance.

The real point to be made is that glued on tires are only relevant to racing with bicycles. In every other form or racing be it motorcycles, touring car, F1, or silly children pretending they live in some Toyko Nights fantasy movie, they do NOT use glued on rims. If you live in flatlands, or can ride in the middle of the road like a racer can when roads are closed for racers, maybe tubulars are better. However, if you are riding on the shoulders of roads having to share with cars and debris and glass, then I'm not sure that tubulars make sense. Then again I'm not sure that most cyclists need a Pinarello or Colnago with Campy Carbon Record for those same rides (not races) but that is a different conversation. The point being that many of those riding tubulars are riding them because that is what the pros ride, and really no other reason. Pros aren't riding what they are riding where most of us ride. Most pros don't ride tubulars when they are unsupported. They ride clinchers. Next time you meet one, ask.

[sean]

arguments aside, I vote for bringing back the Cyclo Wheel Carrier:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3193977721_621d63ac15.jpg

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=Olmo]

Whole BUNCH snipped..."The point being that many of those riding tubulars are riding them because that is what the pros ride, and really no other reason."

And some of see no compelling reason to switch from tubulars since they ride better, corner better and are less prone to (pinch) flats regardless of what 'some' say.

[dekindy]

I have never used clinchers but I cannot imagine a pro that would not want tubulars. If you flat during a mountain downhill and the tire rolls off the rim, you are dead. Road tubeless clinchers are not supposed to come off and can be ridden flat so that might be an option. Tubed clinchers, no.

[firerescuefin]

I have never used clinchers but I cannot imagine a pro that would not want tubulars. If you flat during a mountain downhill and the tire rolls off the rim, you are dead. Road tubeless clinchers are not supposed to come off and can be ridden flat so that might be an option. Tubed clinchers, no.


....and somewhere Joseba Beloki is wincing....I do agree though for the most part.

[fogrider]

....and somewhere Joseba Beloki is wincing....I do agree though for the most part.
I was wondering when beloki would be brought into this...I'm pretty sure his crash was not caused by rolling the tire, if you watch the video, he locked up the rear wheel and slid out the rear at high speed and then popped the bike to the side trying to recover. at that point, it just didn't matter what he was on, he was going down!

as for carbon rims with tubulars; I have a complete wheelset with tires, cogs and skewers that weigh in less than 1900 grams! there is no way you can get clinchers that light, so that is why pros ride them. simple as that.

[Mark McM]

as for carbon rims with tubulars; I have a complete wheelset with tires, cogs and skewers that weigh in less than 1900 grams! there is no way you can get clinchers that light, so that is why pros ride them. simple as that.

You could probably get clinchers that light if you really wanted to. I've got a set of clinchers I built that come in at 1920 grams (with tires/tubes, cogs & skewers). If I had built then with 24F/28R spokes instead of the 28F/32R I used, they would have dipped below 1900 grams. And I know that there are lighter components than the ones I used.

Particulars:

Front: American Classic Micro 58 hub, American Classic 350 rim, 28 DT Revolution spokes, aluminum nipples, Ritchey rim tape, Continental SuperSonic 700cx23 tire, Continental Supersonic tube, KMC titanium skewer.

Rear: Tune 180 freehub, American Classic 350 rim, 16 DT Revolution spokes + 16 DT Competition spokes, aluminum nipples, Ritchey rim tape, Continental SuperSonic 700cx23 tire, Continental Supersonic tube, 12/25 American classic aluminum cassette, KMC titanium skewer.

(Of course, tubular wheels can be lighter than this - I've got a set I'm gathering the components to build that will be about 1700 grams complete - and that's with aluminum rims.)

[thwart]

I've got a set of clinchers I built that come in at 1920 grams (with tires/tubes, cogs & skewers).
Particulars:12/25 American classic aluminum cassette Well, there you go... race day only... and won't last for many of those.

[GregL]

Not to pour fuel on this particular fire, but Tony Martin won today's stage riding on a front clincher:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-20/photos/184242

Discussed over at slowtwitch.com:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Jet_6_Clincher_Just_wo_........_spoiler_P3449061/

I guess this should help to clarify that clinchers are no slower than tubulars...

-Greg

[oldpotatoe]

Not to pour fuel on this particular fire, but Tony Martin won today's stage riding on a front clincher:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-france/stage-20/photos/184242

Discussed over at slowtwitch.com:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Jet_6_Clincher_Just_wo_........_spoiler_P3449061/

I guess this should help to clarify that clinchers are no slower than tubulars...

-Greg

Clinchers when tested have lower rolling resistance than tubulars, that's never been disputed. NOT why tubies are used. Cornering, safety, comfort, weight...not RR, which show teeny differences anyway.

What I don't get is why triathletes use tubulars, w/o any neutral support. I guess aero wheels and such but a clincher makes so much more sense if they puncture, since they most likely gotta fix it themselves.

[Mark McM]

Clinchers when tested have lower rolling resistance than tubulars, that's never been disputed. NOT why tubies are used. Cornering, safety, comfort, weight...not RR, which show teeny differences anyway.

The difference in rolling resistance test measurements between clinchers and tubulars has not been teeny, often measuring differences in drag power in the range of 10 - 20 Watts (@ 25-30 mph). These are similar to the differences in drag between "standard" low profile box-section wheels and deep aero wheels. If wheel selection is important for speed performance, than surely choosing between clinchers and tubulars is just as important.

[rice rocket]

Pic of the Tony Martin HED 4.

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/185274_2228015586467_1430148431_2555068_4184493_n. jpg

[goonster]

all performance gains from tubulars aside, the sponsors sell very very few tubies. They sell a TON of clinchers, since that is what almost 99.9% of all 700c tires sold happen to be.
OMFG . . . know what they should do?

They should have the pros ride tubies, but make them LOOK like clinchers!

Oh, wait . . .

[firerescuefin]

The difference in rolling resistance test measurements between clinchers and tubulars has not been teeny, often measuring differences in drag power in the range of 10 - 20 Watts (@ 25-30 mph). These are similar to the differences in drag between "standard" low profile box-section wheels and deep aero wheels. If wheel selection is important for speed performance, than surely choosing between clinchers and tubulars is just as important.


Mark...those numbers (10-20 Watts @ 25) seem excessive to me given the presenting surface area difference/rolling resistance numbers. Do you have a source for them.

[97CSI]

Mark...those numbers (10-20 Watts @ 25) seem excessive to me given the presenting surface area difference/rolling resistance numbers. Do you have a source for them.Same on the box-section versus deep-aero rims. If true, I may have to hang onto my '05 Scirocco wheelset in the case I ever get up to 25mph+ on the flat.

[Mark McM]

Mark...those numbers (10-20 Watts @ 25) seem excessive to me given the presenting surface area difference/rolling resistance numbers. Do you have a source for them.

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html

http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/06/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-rolling-resistance_12493

http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/rolres.html

[merlincustom1]

The current issue of Rouleur has two pics of Voeckler riding Pro Race 3s in the Dauphine. Is there a tubular version of that tire?

[Mark McM]

Same on the box-section versus deep-aero rims. If true, I may have to hang onto my '05 Scirocco wheelset in the case I ever get up to 25mph+ on the flat.


http://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/technology/revolutionary_speed.pdf

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

[djg]

You live in Canada where chucking bottles out of cars isn't a way of life. Riding tubulars around the suburban roads around Baltimore and DC would be a very silly proposition.

Oops, guess I messed up today.

[97CSI]

http://www.zipp.com/_media/pdfs/technology/revolutionary_speed.pdf

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.htmlThanks. At my average speed looks like I'll save about one watt. :)

[Grant McLean]

Do most, if not all, TdF teams still race on tubulars?
If tubies are still the preferred race tire of the pro peloton, why?

I think the answer is best explained by looking at the wheel and tire together.

Teams are mostly using 50mm+ deep carbon wheels in many stages,
and Campagnolo and Fulcrum sponsored teams don't even have a clincher
wheel available from their sponsor. That says something in itself.

Shimano sponsored teams have the choice of 24, 35, and 50mm wheels in
both clincher and tubular, but there is a significant weight penalty for the
clinchers, almost a pound difference. Tire performance is very close between
both types, but for racing, with support, and unlimited tire stock, it's clear
that tubulars are still the best combination with carbon wheels for weight.

Carbon clinchers have their shortcomings with brake tracks overheating.

-g

[AC0]

The current issue of Rouleur has two pics of Voeckler riding Pro Race 3s in the Dauphine. Is there a tubular version of that tire?

Michelin Tubulars
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-53428907.html

Not exactly a Pro 3 Race, in any case, Europcar is sponsored by Hutchinson. Maybe he was using a Neutral Service spare. What rims were being used?

AC

[mgm777]

I think the answer is best explained by looking at the wheel and tire together.

Teams are mostly using 50mm+ deep carbon wheels in many stages,
and Campagnolo and Fulcrum sponsored teams don't even have a clincher
wheel available from their sponsor. That says something in itself.

Shimano sponsored teams have the choice of 24, 35, and 50mm wheels in
both clincher and tubular, but there is a significant weight penalty for the
clinchers, almost a pound difference. Tire performance is very close between
both types, but for racing, with support, and unlimited tire stock, it's clear
that tubulars are still the best combination with carbon wheels for weight.

Carbon clinchers have their shortcomings with brake tracks overheating.

-g


Thank you, Grant.

[firerescuefin]

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...oiler_P3449061/

GregL linked this earlier in the thread. Gives good insight into why highroad put Martin on the CC.

[oldpotatoe]

The difference in rolling resistance test measurements between clinchers and tubulars has not been teeny, often measuring differences in drag power in the range of 10 - 20 Watts (@ 25-30 mph). These are similar to the differences in drag between "standard" low profile box-section wheels and deep aero wheels. If wheel selection is important for speed performance, than surely choosing between clinchers and tubulars is just as important.

At both ends of those charts, 'maybe' 10 watts but between similar tires and wheels, the differences are often lost in the noise.

[jr59]

You guys are to silly.

A pro racer will ride what he is paid to ride.
If his sponsor wants him to ride a certain type of tire, he rides that tire.

Same goes for anything else with the pro riders.

[retrogrouchy]

You guys are to silly.

A pro racer will ride what he is paid to ride.
If his sponsor wants him to ride a certain type of tire, he rides that tire.

Same goes for anything else with the pro riders.

Sort of....

1) If a pro rider is of a certain stature in the pecking order, he/she rides whatever he/she wants. That includes frames. In the 'old days' of steel, it was quite common to see a Colnago (for example) painted and decaled as coming from the team's frame sponsor, but usually only the guy with a '1' as the last digit of his race number could get that kind of deference. Greg Lemond rode Della Santas painted and decaled as Gitanes, for example, iirc.

2) If everyone else has tubulars, and you are asked to ride clincher wheels that are a pound heavier than everyone else's, would you accept that?

[Mark McM]

At both ends of those charts, 'maybe' 10 watts but between similar tires and wheels, the differences are often lost in the noise.

I don't think you looked carefully at the charts. The Roues Artisanale measured rolling resistance at 30 kph (18.6 mph) and the measured values of tubular rolling resistance was from 34.05 W to 53.51 W (a 19.5 W spread) with an average of 42.6 W, while the clinchers varied from 27.1 W to 47.9 W (a 21.1 W spread) with an average of 34.5 W. These rolling resistance measurements were taken at a relative low speed, and since rolling resistance loss is proportional to speed, the losses (and differences between losses) will be greater at racing speeds.

But more to the point, there were 2 tubular tires in the test that had very close to the same construction as clinchers in the test - specifically, the Vittoria Corsa CX (tubular) and Open Corsa CX (clincher), and the Schwalbe Stelvio tubular and the Stelvio (clincher):

30 kph 40 kph 50 kph
(18.6 mph) (24.8 mph) (31.1 mph)
Corsa CX tubular: 35.05 W 45.4 W 56.75 W
Corsa CX clincher 27.1 W 36.1 W 45.2 W
Stelvio tubular 47.95 W 63.9 W 80.0 W
Stelvio clincher 41.0 W 54.7 W 68.3 W

So, at racing speeds (40 - 50 kph), the clinchers have an advantage of 9 - 12 W over otherwise similar tubulars. This not an insignificant difference, and is in the same order of magnitude as the advantage of aerowheels over "standard" wheels.

[Mark McM]

2) If everyone else has tubulars, and you are asked to ride clincher wheels that are a pound heavier than everyone else's, would you accept that?

This is a bit of an exageration. Differences in wheelset weight between otherwise similar tubulars and clinchers is more like 1/4 - 1/2 lb. And even with this weight difference, the lower rolling resistance of clinchers still puts them ahead even on climbs - see the comments on the real-world tests reported in this Lennard Zinn article:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2007...esistance_12493

[mgm777]

In general terms, why is the rolling resistance of a a clincher less than a tubular?

Is it due to the contact patch of a tubular, due to lower inflation pressure, being larger and resulting in higher rolling resistance?

[Likes2ridefar]

In general terms, why is the rolling resistance of a a clincher less than a tubular?

Is it due to the contact patch of a tubular, due to lower inflation pressure, being larger and resulting in higher rolling resistance?

I think I recall it's because of the glue.

[JMerring]

Unless the weight of the wheel itself adds to rolling resistance, isn't the weight argument a red herring? It always seems as if nowadays teams are looking for ways to get their bikes up to the minimum weight, and not down to it?

[Likes2ridefar]

Unless the weight of the wheel itself adds to rolling resistance, isn't the weight argument a red herring? It always seems as if nowadays teams are looking for ways to get their bikes up to the minimum weight, and not down to it?

you'll never find them adding weight to their rims.

[JMerring]

you'll never find them adding weight to their rims.

but that's most likely a function of practicality vs. impracticality more than anything else, no? possibly physics too (i'd guess that a wheel would need to be uniformly weighted, but science never was my strong suit).

[Likes2ridefar]

but that's most likely a function of practicality vs. impracticality more than anything else, no? possibly physics too (i'd guess that a wheel would need to be uniformly weighted, but science never was my strong suit).

It's due to rotational mass. less is better, generally.

[AC0]

In general terms, why is the rolling resistance of a a clincher less than a tubular?

Is it due to the contact patch of a tubular, due to lower inflation pressure, being larger and resulting in higher rolling resistance?
I think I recall it's because of the glue.

Yes, it's due to the "flexible contact between the tire casing and the rim".

http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTires_Page.html


AC

[mgm777]

Thanks AC!

[merlincustom1]

Michelin Tubulars
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-53428907.html

Not exactly a Pro 3 Race, in any case, Europcar is sponsored by Hutchinson. Maybe he was using a Neutral Service spare. What rims were being used?

AC

He's on some gold Campy wheels on a Time bike in Bouygues Telecom kit in racer no. 121.

[Grant McLean]

This is a bit of an exageration. Differences in wheelset weight between otherwise similar tubulars and clinchers is more like 1/4 - 1/2 lb.

Many commonly sponsored deeper wheels it's more than half a pound.

Shimano C50 tubs vs. clincher is a 266 gram difference (1396 vs 1662)
Zipp 404 tubs vs clincher is a 380 gram difference (1278 vs 1658)
Campagnolo Bora Ultra vs new Bullet 50 ultra is 285 grams (1310 vs 1595)

-g

[basso1]

I started with tubulars in 1971, Went to clinchers in 2008. Tubeless in 2009. Back to tubular in 2010 where I am staying. Ridden them all and I have many reasons for liking tubular. Biggest difference is descending grip and stability. I always pull out the old canard, radial vs. belted, but the canard is very true.

[Grant McLean]

I started with tubulars in 1971, Went to clinchers in 2008. Tubeless in 2009. Back to tubular in 2010 where I am staying. Ridden them all and I have many reasons for liking tubular.

I've said it many times on this forum before, but it seems worth repeating here,
I think there is more difference between the brands and models of
tubulars than there is between clinchers and tubulars.

The generalization of "tubular" and "clincher" has become meaningless without
specifics. A Michelin Pro Race, Vittoria Corsa CX, Veloflex, or Schwalbe Ultremo clinchers
are better than many tubulars, in particular Continental, imho.

-g