Re: question about tubulars
Tom Kunich wrote:
> 1) They are really expensive and a couple of spare tubulars are heavier
> and take up more room than a couple of spare innertubes.
Tubulars are generally race wheels, where you don't carry spares.
> 2) Finding good tubulars is a problem though not as bad as it used to be
> before the advent of the internet.
Not a problem, at all, with the internet.
> 3) Unless you really know how to sew them back up after a repair, there
> will be a hard spot in the tire that feels like a lump. And the tire
> won't corner as well because of that.
> 4) Repairs of a sewup is a time consuming pain in the butt that no one
> in their right mind would take on. Racing teams want the feel of
> tubulars because they do ride smoother and that might translate into
> less fatigue in a long race. But they also toss out tubulars that have
> flatted - they don't take chances with a repair.
Generally, tubulars are restricted to race wheels, so the expense of replacing tires is considered acceptable.
> The fact is that you can race better on $30 Michelin tires than you can
> on $100 Clements.
Personally, the best riding clinchers I've tried are Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX.
But the #1 argument for clinchers is, when paired with latex tubes, they have lower rolling resistance:http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm
The Vittoria's scored very well.
This is a quantitative advantage which is hard to argue against. Given this, why did I just get some Reynolds tubular wheels? They were much lighter than the clincher version, but hardly worth the difference in rolling resistance. I did buy Veloflex Carbon tubulars, which scored lowest for >20mm tubulars in the Tour rolling resistance test (different test data), but still, significantly more RR than the Open Corsa's. I suppose I succumbed to the usual arguments, and the lower weight.