I always ran Conti. Grand Prix clincher in 18's or 20's, both of which could be pumped to 150 psi comfortably per their recommendations. Fast, light, very good tires. Put thousands of miles on them with few flats, and they raced great.
I don't get where people say that tubulars are lighter .............. a really good clincher and lightweight tube set-up weigh basically the same as a really nice set of tubulars, which cost three times more.
Stronger?? How so, it is the same rim material and technology? I guess you could argue that tubular rims are a solid shape which could provide a more rigid structure. But a good welded seam clincher rim lasts just as long. I've seen dinged rims from both camps over the 5 years I was a mechanic for shops, it totally depends on the rider's style and ability to keep them from getting housed.
MY best example of why people should run clinchers would be Beloki in last year's Tour .......... we all know what happened to him! Who needs a tire to un-glue and roll at 45 mph on a hot day on a descent ..........
Just my opinion though, doesn't amount to much.
I don't get where people say that tubulars are lighter .............. a really good clincher and lightweight tube set-up weigh basically the same as a really nice set of tubulars, which cost three times more.
Stronger?? How so, it is the same rim material and technology? I guess you could argue that tubular rims are a solid shape which could provide a more rigid structure. But a good welded seam clincher rim lasts just as long. I've seen dinged rims from both camps over the 5 years I was a mechanic for shops, it totally depends on the rider's style and ability to keep them from getting housed.
MY best example of why people should run clinchers would be Beloki in last year's Tour .......... we all know what happened to him! Who needs a tire to un-glue and roll at 45 mph on a hot day on a descent ..........
Just my opinion though, doesn't amount to much.