Pros prefer sewups

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jobst-<< Visualize the difference between slowly descending with the brake on
and standing the bicycle on its nose, so to speak, from 40mph to a
stop. >><BR><BR>

I just visualize all the pros in the Giro right now, decending, with tubies and
nobody is having their tires roll off due to heat.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jobst-<< Let me assure you
that the many tubulars of the past had excellent wear characteristics,
had good cornering traction, were essentially slick, were light
weight, had strong lightweight silk casings and were easy to mount. >><BR><BR>

Jobst, you have not seen any of the current tubies, have not used them, tested
them, bought them. You hate tubies worse thgan Delta brakes and take every
opportubity to critisize anybody that uses them or sells them.

Stick to clinchers, good for you. And your name isn't David.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

David-<< It always seems odd that the best praise of these tires is that they
are
straight. That is actually a minimum requirement, isn't it? >><BR><BR>

As with clnchers, many with dual compounds that are not straight at all.

David<< I may not have current knowledge, but I certainly rode plenty of
excellent, silk tubulars in the '70s. >><BR><BR>

Great, 30 years ago.

David<< Are you suggesting that these
cotton or cotton/aramid tires are _better_ than the handmade silk tires I
rode then? Where is the improvement? >><BR><BR>

Nope I'm saying the current crop of tubies are great tires, have many
advantages and that many racers and riders still use them, as much as you and
Jobst would like to see them go away, for some reason that I can't fathom.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

matt-<< It makes sense that Vittoria would price these tires the same.
>><BR><BR>

Sprinters and GP 3000/Conti tube are the same price also, but made very
differently.



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Joe Yannie]

> The tubular blowout is caused by ripping the stem out of the tire and
> it doesn't occur unnoticed because before that happens the tire piles
> up at the stem causing a perceptible one-around lump. However, at
> that time, stopping isn't the ideal remedy because it worsens creep.
> Jobst Brandt


So the other question is,
has glue changed over the past 25 years?
or does using a mix ( such as combining tubie glue with fastac ) or using
fastac alone
change the melting temp of tubie glue or lessen the chances of "creep"
during hard braking?

 

[[email protected]]

Joe Yannie writes:

>> The tubular blowout is caused by ripping the stem out of the tire
>> and it doesn't occur unnoticed because before that happens the tire
>> piles up at the stem causing a perceptible one-around lump.
>> However, at that time, stopping isn't the ideal remedy because it
>> worsens creep.

> So the other question is, has glue changed over the past 25 years?
> or does using a mix (such as combining tubie glue with fastac) or
> using fastac alone change the melting temp of tubie glue or lessen
> the chances of "creep" during hard braking?

No. The problem has always been the same for road racing where tire
change on the road had always been a requirement. For this reason
sticky (pressure sensitive) adhesives are used. They are all
temperature sensitive and are designed to operate at "room"
temperature and thereabouts. When they get hot they melt, when it is
freezing cold, tire changes are difficult.

If you use hardening track glue (shellac) that is not tacky once
cured, you would be free of this problem. The original reason for
track adhesive was to reduce rolling resistance, nothing else, because
the tire cannot not squirm on the rim with contact pressure from the
road. Hard glue coincidentally also solves heat problems but then
tires cannot be changed en route, besides being a pain to apply and
properly cure track glue that works only on bare cloth base tapes.
Road tires generally have a rubber coated base tapes.

Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write "the
Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and how
wheels work.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Shayne Wissler]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
> that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write "the
> Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and how
> wheels work.

Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against clinchers? Aren't
tubulars significantly lighter?

Thinking about using tubulars vs. clinchers for my own riding, the only
reason I'd want to use a tubular would be if I subscribed to the "no pain no
gain" philosophy--it sure would be a pain to use them. (that would be
illogical on two counts).


Shayne Wissler

 

[Antti Salonen]

Shayne Wissler <[email protected]> wrote:

> Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against clinchers? Aren't
> tubulars significantly lighter?

Depends on what you think is "significant", I guess. A reasonable
clincher tyre for every-day use is about 300 grams including the inner
tube. A comparable tubular tyre might be lighter than that, but not by
much. The tubular rim is also lighter, but the weight different is
something like 20 grams per rim. Is that significant?

-as

 

[Matt O'Toole]

[email protected] wrote:

> No. The problem has always been the same for road racing where tire
> change on the road had always been a requirement. For this reason
> sticky (pressure sensitive) adhesives are used. They are all
> temperature sensitive and are designed to operate at "room"
> temperature and thereabouts. When they get hot they melt, when it is
> freezing cold, tire changes are difficult.
>
> If you use hardening track glue (shellac) that is not tacky once
> cured, you would be free of this problem. The original reason for
> track adhesive was to reduce rolling resistance, nothing else, because
> the tire cannot not squirm on the rim with contact pressure from the
> road. Hard glue coincidentally also solves heat problems but then
> tires cannot be changed en route, besides being a pain to apply and
> properly cure track glue that works only on bare cloth base tapes.
> Road tires generally have a rubber coated base tapes.

And pro racers generally have full mechanical support. When was the last time
you saw a pro fixing a flat or changing a tire in the middle of a race? The
support car comes to their aid with a whole new wheel, and away they go. So for
all we know, their tires could be glued on permanently with 3M 5200 or
something.

> Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
> that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write "the
> Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and how
> wheels work.

One man's mystery is another man's mystique...

Seriously, I wouldn't call it a bad part of history. Like many other things, it
was the best technology at some point, but hung on about 30 years too long
because of inertia in business and consumer acceptance.

Personally, I'm glad to be rid of them.

Matt O.

 

[Shayne Wissler]

"Antti Salonen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Shayne Wissler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against clinchers?
Aren't
> > tubulars significantly lighter?
>
> Depends on what you think is "significant", I guess. A reasonable
> clincher tyre for every-day use is about 300 grams including the inner
> tube. A comparable tubular tyre might be lighter than that, but not by
> much. The tubular rim is also lighter, but the weight different is
> something like 20 grams per rim. Is that significant?

It's not significant to me. Maybe it is to racers, I wouldn't know.


Shayne Wissler

 

[[email protected]]

Shayne Wissler writes:

>> Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
>> that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write
>> "the Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and
>> how wheels work.

> Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against
> clinchers? Aren't tubulars significantly lighter?

> Thinking about using tubulars vs. clinchers for my own riding, the
> only reason I'd want to use a tubular would be if I subscribed to
> the "no pain no gain" philosophy--it sure would be a pain to use
> them. (that would be illogical on two counts).

They aren't called weight weenies for nothing. Weight difference is
truly insignificant. This is a couple of ounces compared to 200 lbs
of rider and bicycle, or 0.01% for a four ounce difference. when you
consider that this times a 10% grade that you are climbing is 0.001%
more drag.

Make sure you don't carry any water on your bicycle or on your back
because that weighs more than an entire tire.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole writes:

>> No. The problem has always been the same for road racing where
>> tire change on the road had always been a requirement. For this
>> reason sticky (pressure sensitive) adhesives are used. They are
>> all temperature sensitive and are designed to operate at "room"
>> temperature and thereabouts. When they get hot they melt, when it
>> is freezing cold, tire changes are difficult.

>> If you use hardening track glue (shellac) that is not tacky once
>> cured, you would be free of this problem. The original reason for
>> track adhesive was to reduce rolling resistance, nothing else,
>> because the tire cannot not squirm on the rim with contact pressure
>> from the road. Hard glue coincidentally also solves heat problems
>> but then tires cannot be changed en route, besides being a pain to
>> apply and properly cure track glue that works only on bare cloth
>> base tapes. Road tires generally have a rubber coated base tapes.

> And pro racers generally have full mechanical support. When was the
> last time you saw a pro fixing a flat or changing a tire in the
> middle of a race? The support car comes to their aid with a whole
> new wheel, and away they go. So for all we know, their tires could
> be glued on permanently with 3M 5200 or something.

That could be but they don' even know what the problem is so they
probably don't have a solution for it. I spent plenty of time
interviewing manufacturers and team mechanics and found them to not
understand the melting glue phenomenon or the RR problem. You may
recall that the RR tests were the first definitive indicators of how
bad the road glue problem was and why there is road and track glue.

Besides that, you cannot hard glue a rubberized base tape and most road
tubulars have rubberized base tapes.

>> Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
>> that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write
>> "the Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and
>> how wheels work.

> One man's mystery is another man's mystique...

Religion. Don't mess with mine!

> Seriously, I wouldn't call it a bad part of history. Like many
> other things, it was the best technology at some point, but hung on
> about 30 years too long because of inertia in business and consumer
> acceptance.

Somehow a lot of that got lost during WWII because I found no one who
could tell me what the purpose of track and road glue for tubulars
was. No one knew what spoke stress relieving was except that some
wheel builders had odd things they did because it "made wheels last
longer." They had no idea what that step did. I saw it in Italy when
a 5' 2" mechanic walked around with tennis shoes on the spokes of a
wheel laid on the floor.

> Personally, I'm glad to be rid of them.

Amen. Or was that another more appropriate word? I believe.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Richard Chan]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ..
> Just forget about tubulars. They are part of history, a bad one at
> that. It was wheel myths and tubulars that inspired me to write "the
> Bicycle Wheel" just to get rid of all the mystery of why and how
> wheels work.

Jobst, as a "solution provider", why don't you suggest or contact
chemical companies to up with a higher T glue? Afterall, we have dope
that can push a human to run under 9.XX sec and other as yet traceable
performance enhancing compounds that are "developed". I know its all
about economics but many people still like tubies.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:45:03 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:

>> Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against clinchers? Aren't
>> tubulars significantly lighter?
>
> Depends on what you think is "significant", I guess. A reasonable
> clincher tyre for every-day use is about 300 grams including the inner
> tube.

A race tire/tube might be lighter, but say 250 and you get all but the
very lightest around.

> A comparable tubular tyre might be lighter than that, but not by
> much.

You can get about 30-50 grams lighter at the same level of durability.
But at these weights neither the clincher nor the tubie would be all that
durable.

> The tubular rim is also lighter, but the weight different is
> something like 20 grams per rim.

Well, rim weight can be more significant than that. We used to use rims
that were on the order of 200-250g, some even under 200g. Clinchers just
can't be that light. Maybe as much as 100g difference per wheel. Also,
modern rear wheels, with the extreme dish, need a heavier rim, so you
would not save that much in the rear.

All told, you could approach 150-200g lighter using tubulars. As to
whether or not that is significant, it obviously depends on what your team
is willing to put out for you. If you are not with a team, I don't see
the point of the discussion, since the economics alone clearly favor
clinchers, not to mention the hassle factors.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

 

[G.T.]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David-<< It always seems odd that the best praise of these tires is that
they
> are
> straight. That is actually a minimum requirement, isn't it? >><BR><BR>
>
> As with clnchers, many with dual compounds that are not straight at all.
>
> David<< I may not have current knowledge, but I certainly rode plenty of
> excellent, silk tubulars in the '70s. >><BR><BR>
>
> Great, 30 years ago.
>
> David<< Are you suggesting that these
> cotton or cotton/aramid tires are _better_ than the handmade silk tires I
> rode then? Where is the improvement? >><BR><BR>
>
> Nope I'm saying the current crop of tubies are great tires,

You mean they've changed the way they're mounted?

Greg

 

[Dave Lehnen]

[email protected] wrote:

<snip>
>
> They aren't called weight weenies for nothing. Weight difference is
> truly insignificant. This is a couple of ounces compared to 200 lbs
> of rider and bicycle, or 0.01% for a four ounce difference. when you
> consider that this times a 10% grade that you are climbing is 0.001%
> more drag.
>
> Make sure you don't carry any water on your bicycle or on your back
> because that weighs more than an entire tire.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]

Four ounces out of 200 lb is 0.125%, not 0.01%. Climbing a 10%
grade, most of the effort goes into overcoming gravity, not 10%
of it, so it takes almost 0.125% more energy, not 0.001% more.
That's still only about 4 sec. difference on an hour-long hillclimb.

Of course water is heavy, and people racing uphill carry as little
of it as they can. I'll predict there won't be a lot of 100-oz
Camelbaks on the Alpe d'Huez TT.

I stopped using sewups about 20 years ago; for me they aren't worth
the expense and the bother, but it seems most pros still use them
most of the time.

Dave Lehnen

 

[Tom Sherman]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:45:03 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:
>
>
>>>Did I miss where you addressed the weight argument against clinchers? Aren't
>>>tubulars significantly lighter?
>>
>>Depends on what you think is "significant", I guess. A reasonable
>>clincher tyre for every-day use is about 300 grams including the inner
>>tube.
>
>
> A race tire/tube might be lighter, but say 250 and you get all but the
> very lightest around.
>
>
>>A comparable tubular tyre might be lighter than that, but not by
>>much.
>
>
> You can get about 30-50 grams lighter at the same level of durability.
> But at these weights neither the clincher nor the tubie would be all that
> durable.
>
>
>>The tubular rim is also lighter, but the weight different is
>>something like 20 grams per rim.
>
>
> Well, rim weight can be more significant than that. We used to use rims
> that were on the order of 200-250g, some even under 200g. Clinchers just
> can't be that light. Maybe as much as 100g difference per wheel. Also,
> modern rear wheels, with the extreme dish, need a heavier rim, so you
> would not save that much in the rear.
>
> All told, you could approach 150-200g lighter using tubulars. As to
> whether or not that is significant, it obviously depends on what your team
> is willing to put out for you. If you are not with a team, I don't see
> the point of the discussion, since the economics alone clearly favor
> clinchers, not to mention the hassle factors.

The UCI sets the minimum bicycle mass at 6.8 kg, so if that figure can
be reached through weight savings elsewhere, the heavier clincher
rim/tire combination would not be a disadvantage to a professional racer.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[LGF]

"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> And pro racers generally have full mechanical support. When was the last time
> you saw a pro fixing a flat or changing a tire in the middle of a race? The
> support car comes to their aid with a whole new wheel, and away they go. So for
> all we know, their tires could be glued on permanently with 3M 5200 or
> something.
>

If I remember correctly, the world famous bicycle designer Mike
Burrows writes in his book "Bicycle Design: Towards the Perfect
Machine" that the only sensible reason to use tubulars is in TTs,
where a quick tyre change could "keep you in the money" - there being
a small financial reward for a placing. I believe support vehicles are
uncommon in British TTs.

I can't possibly believe tubulars are such a bad idea. Wasn't the
Paris-Roubaix won on them again this year? That's a race where the
pros ride all sorts of non-standard equipment, from cross-bikes to
front suspension, special wheels etc. Time and again many choose
tubulars.

We are all going to be riding tubless clinchers soon anyway.....


LGF

 

[dvt]

Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> Plugging in a few reasonable numbers (5000 watts, 280 g rim)
> produces a rim temperature rise of about 20 C/second. Ignoring
> cooling, it would take less than 4 seconds to raise the rim
> temperature to 100C, presumably well above the glue melting
> temperature.

Nice analysis. I don't know anything about tubular glues, but many adhesives
melt at temperatures well above 100C. So to pick a nit, I think it would take
a bit more than 4 seconds.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[Mark South]

"dvt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Plugging in a few reasonable numbers (5000 watts, 280 g rim)
> > produces a rim temperature rise of about 20 C/second. Ignoring
> > cooling, it would take less than 4 seconds to raise the rim
> > temperature to 100C, presumably well above the glue melting
> > temperature.
>
> Nice analysis. I don't know anything about tubular glues, but many adhesives
> melt at temperatures well above 100C. So to pick a nit, I think it would take
> a bit more than 4 seconds.

You don't need the glue to melt, ie convert to a liquid, for there to be a
problem.

You only need it to soften enough to creep. That can be a long way before the
melting temperature is reached.

Nitpicks need to be nitpick proof themselves, otherwise they make one look like
a nit.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>