pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.

[jim beam]

i stood at the weigh-in of the amgen tour of california prolog today

http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/

and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having their
conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally touch them,
so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".

this leaves two possible conclusions:

1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
2. it was all a figment of my imagination.

wouldn't 2 be so much more comfy?

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:55:55 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
> all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".
>
I must have missed that argument. I've seen people claim that, indeed,
clinchers have lower rolling resistance, but I have yet to see people then
claim that the pros use them, based on this.

> this leaves two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about. 2. it was all
> a figment of my imagination.

How about: 3) You're setting up a paper tiger, for some reason.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

 

[jim beam]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:55:55 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
>>all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".
>>
>
> I must have missed that argument. I've seen people claim that, indeed,
> clinchers have lower rolling resistance, but I have yet to see people then
> claim that the pros use them, based on this.
>
>
>>this leaves two possible conclusions:
>>
>>1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about. 2. it was all
>>a figment of my imagination.
>
>
> How about: 3) You're setting up a paper tiger, for some reason.
>
not particularly. i was, er, "inspired" by the tubs/clinchers b.s.
rearing it's usual ugly head on the "pros use shallow rims" thread
recently. i don't usually comment on that stuff because i don't have
enough background on rolling resistance measurements to usefully
comment, but having just seen tubs dominate in the pro peloton up close
and personal, i thought i'd share.

 

[[email protected]]

RonSonic wrote:

> >> > and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having their
> >> > conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally touch them,
> >> > so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
> >> > tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
> >> > all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".

no one says they don't mostly use tubulars, but relatively speaking
they can have higher rolling resistance.

> >> > this leaves two possible conclusions:
> >> >
> >> > 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
> >> > 2. it was all a figment of my imagination.

the increased rolling resistance is from the soft glue interface
between the rim and tire,just as if you were riding on a thin layer of
tar which compressed as you rode along it. using hard glue, less glue
and higher pressures are ways to compensate for this. this in not new.

 

[Phil Holman]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>i stood at the weigh-in of the amgen tour of california prolog today
>
> http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/
>
> and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having
> their conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally
> touch them, so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about
> 20:1 in favor of tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the
> r.b.t. 'experts' all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling
> resistance".
>
> this leaves two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
> 2. it was all a figment of my imagination.

This from the link you posted.

The Good. Tubulars are f-a-s-t. Tubular tires can hold a lot of air, and
offer less friction with the ground, or rolling resistance. And tubular
wheelsets weigh less, so they roll faster.

Is this your example of "knowing what they're talking about?"

Phil H

 

[Skippy]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>i stood at the weigh-in of the amgen tour of california prolog today
>
> http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/
>
> and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having their
> conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally touch them,
> so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
> tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts' all
> swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".
>
> this leaves two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
> 2. it was all a figment of my imagination.
>
> wouldn't 2 be so much more comfy?

How about 3?: Many high-end composite-rimmed aero wheels (used in prologues)
and discs are tubs. The clincher variants, where available, are normally
heavier. 80g weight difference I can measure easily. Rolling resistance
difference... probably lost in noise and experimental error outdoors?

Just what sort of difference were the experts claiming? The rider can make
15 minutes plus difference over 40Km...

These are my thoughts. Yours may differ!

Skippy
E&OE

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et
puis a déclaré :

> I agree. Practicallity is virtually a non-issue for pros. If there is
> even the slightest advantage to be had in even only the most
> infrequent of conditions (miniscule weight differences, rideable
> while flat, etc), but it comes at the cost of some extra headache for
> the mechanics it is a no brainer for them. Even if it is hugely
> inconvienent for the mechanics they do it anyway (I'm not saying
> tubulars are hugely inconvenient!).

Headaches and inconveniences for people whose professional experience is
extensive ? This is their job. Changing oil in a car is a mess, a
headache, an inconvenience, and lots of follks leave it to professionals to
do it also. You could argue wearing eyeglasses is a headache (and it can
be, and yes, I do), but if it fits the situation best, not a prob.

And for esthetics, you don't have to pay careful attention mounting the logo
on the tire when it's a tubular tire. They are where they are supposed to
be.

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et
> puis a déclaré :
>
> > I agree. Practicallity is virtually a non-issue for pros. If there is
> > even the slightest advantage to be had in even only the most
> > infrequent of conditions (miniscule weight differences, rideable
> > while flat, etc), but it comes at the cost of some extra headache for
> > the mechanics it is a no brainer for them. Even if it is hugely
> > inconvienent for the mechanics they do it anyway (I'm not saying
> > tubulars are hugely inconvenient!).
>
> Headaches and inconveniences for people whose professional experience is
> extensive ? This is their job. Changing oil in a car is a mess, a
> headache, an inconvenience, and lots of follks leave it to professionals to
> do it also. You could argue wearing eyeglasses is a headache (and it can
> be, and yes, I do), but if it fits the situation best, not a prob.

I was just saying that even if it were a huge inconvinience they would
do it anyway. And since it is not a huge inconveninece (only a minor
one if at all) it is a non-problem for them.

I used to wear glasses too, then I got Lasik! Problem (or non-problem)
solved with modern technology!

> And for esthetics, you don't have to pay careful attention mounting the logo
> on the tire when it's a tubular tire. They are where they are supposed to
> be.

Unless you mess-up and get glue all over the sidewall! ;-)

Joseph

 

[jtaylor]

"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> jim beam wrote:
> > the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
> > tubs.
>
> I thought the pros were *all* using tubulars...
>
> > this leaves two possible conclusions:
> >
> > 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.


The rolling resistance tests commonly referred to were _not_ done by readers
of rec.bicycles.tech; those readers merely reported the facts. I am
surprised that you are surprised at people not using facts to arrive at
conclusions, but...

....if you find the shoe fits, you are welcome to wear it.

 

[Rik O'Shea]

The real reason is a commercial conspiracy between the
wheel/rim manufacturers. The likes of Zip, Hed etc like the stats for
their wheels to look good (specifically the low weight measurement
achieved using carbon rims and low spoke counts). They cant achieve
these "impressive" stats using clincher rims made from carbon . These
manufacturers dont care about issues like Crr - they only care about
low weight and aerodynamic advantage from their wheel sets, which
stands to reason as they make wheels not tires.

It is the commericial considerations that drive this and right now the
commercial force of the wheel manufacturers outweighs the commercial
force of the clincher tire manufacturers. Around the early 1990's there
was an evident departure from tubs to clinchers in the pro peleton
(mainly driven by the likes of Michelin) and it looked like the days of
the tubular tire/wheel set were numbered. When aerodynamics became king
and "fancy" wheels started to appear, this trend started to reverse.

 

[jtaylor]

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > jim beam wrote:
> > > the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
> > > tubs.
> >
> > I thought the pros were *all* using tubulars...
> >
> > > this leaves two possible conclusions:
> > >
> > > 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
>
>
> The rolling resistance tests commonly referred to were _not_ done by
readers
> of rec.bicycles.tech; those readers merely reported the facts. I am
> surprised that you are surprised at people not using facts to arrive at
> conclusions, but...
>
> ...if you find the shoe fits, you are welcome to wear it.
>
>

r.b.t. readers (and esp. Ron Ruff) please note the attribution is to our
resident used-to-be metallurgist who is confused by the shift key...

 

[Tim McNamara]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

> i stood at the weigh-in of the amgen tour of california prolog today
>
> http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/
>
> and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having
> their conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally
> touch them, so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about
> 20:1 in favor of tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking,
> "the r.b.t. 'experts' all swear that pros use clinchers for lower
> rolling resistance".

The statement has been that some pros use clinchers. Your own
observations seem to have confirmed this.

> this leaves two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
> 2. it was all a figment of my imagination.
>
> wouldn't 2 be so much more comfy?

The problem with your formulation is that your conclusions are based
on your hatred for Jobst Brandt and not actual logic.

That the majority of pros you observed were using tubulars only proves
that the majority of pros you observed pros use tubulars.

 

[Tim McNamara]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

> not particularly. i was, er, "inspired" by the tubs/clinchers
> b.s. rearing it's usual ugly head on the "pros use shallow rims"
> thread recently. i don't usually comment on that stuff because i
> don't have enough background on rolling resistance measurements to
> usefully comment, but having just seen tubs dominate in the pro
> peloton up close and personal, i thought i'd share.

No you didn't. You thought you'd create another opportunity to take
potshots based on your distortions of what other people say. Maybe
you should change your sock puppet handle to "mosquito jim."

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> writes:

> 5. Life with tubulars is much more pleasant and sensible if a) you
> get them free and b) you don't have to deal with gluing them on your
> rims or with carrying one or two spare tires instead of one or two
> spare tubes.

'struth!

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

jim beam wrote:
> i stood at the weigh-in of the amgen tour of california prolog today
>
> http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/
>
> and watched the first hour's worth of various sundry bikes having their
> conformity tests. [i was at the barrier and could literally touch them,
> so visibility was not a problem.] the ratio was about 20:1 in favor of
> tubs. "but, but, but" i found myself thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
> all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".
>
> this leaves two possible conclusions:
>
> 1. r.b.t. "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
> 2. it was all a figment of my imagination.
>
> wouldn't 2 be so much more comfy?

First, not all RBT guiys say clinchers are used by pros. I have always
said the majority use tubies for the following reasons(notice I will
not mention lower RR).

Tubies cuz
1)-safer-generally will not roll off when flat
2)more comfy-no need to use a bunch of PSI to prevent pinch flats
3)-corner better-hello Jobst-more supple sidewalls, no need for any
bead to hold it onto the rim, rounder.
4)with all the carbon rims, most are tubular only. To date, only 3
carbon clinchers I know of-FSA, Campagnolo and Reynolds and hoo-boy
expensive

All these guys have a squadron of support cars and people so flatting
isnobigdeal. Tubies for racing is still a better tire. IN MY
OPINION>>>>>>>
-

 

[bill]

Rik O'Shea wrote:
> The real reason is a commercial conspiracy between the
> wheel/rim manufacturers. The likes of Zip, Hed etc like the stats for
> their wheels to look good (specifically the low weight measurement
> achieved using carbon rims and low spoke counts). They cant achieve
> these "impressive" stats using clincher rims made from carbon . These
> manufacturers dont care about issues like Crr - they only care about
> low weight and aerodynamic advantage from their wheel sets, which
> stands to reason as they make wheels not tires.
>
> It is the commericial considerations that drive this and right now the
> commercial force of the wheel manufacturers outweighs the commercial
> force of the clincher tire manufacturers. Around the early 1990's there
> was an evident departure from tubs to clinchers in the pro peleton
> (mainly driven by the likes of Michelin) and it looked like the days of
> the tubular tire/wheel set were numbered. When aerodynamics became king
> and "fancy" wheels started to appear, this trend started to reverse.

If Michelin had figured out how to actually make a good tire, rather
than merely talking about it, they might have had a more lasting effect
on the business.

As it turned out, their (new) tyres sucked.

Ironically I am riding a Michelin Liberty training tubular on my fixie
right now. New Old Stock (Michelin gave up making tubulars). It is a
nice cheap tyre. Much nicer than the stupid $45 clincher I tried from
them 6 years ago. And it survived being strapped under my seat for 4
years before being mounted, and has no damage whatsoever. So there.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

>
> Besides, many of the riders would get upset and perform poorly if they
> were made to ride clinchers regardless of the actual performance
> benefits/detriments. We are discussing mostly irrational primates here,
> not machines.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman

I'll be standing by when you actually talk to a pro about this Tom.
Email me direct if you wish at [email protected] and post here also.
can't wait.....

I'm sure that-put pro here that does what he does for $$- relies on non
personal experience to choose what he uses. That's why there are so
many wood tennis rackets and long, nonhourglass skis. Tubies work
better for these guys and l9ke Ozark said , they don't have to glue 'em
and they have a room full of new ones. PLEASE Tom do two things, get
good information and DON'T use tubulars on your bicycle, clichers are
for nancys.

 

[Lou Holtman]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> >
> > Besides, many of the riders would get upset and perform poorly if they
> > were made to ride clinchers regardless of the actual performance
> > benefits/detriments. We are discussing mostly irrational primates here,
> > not machines.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman
>
> I'll be standing by when you actually talk to a pro about this Tom.
> Email me direct if you wish at [email protected] and post here also.
> can't wait.....
>
> I'm sure that-put pro here that does what he does for $$- relies on non
> personal experience to choose what he uses. That's why there are so
> many wood tennis rackets and long, nonhourglass skis. Tubies work
> better for these guys and l9ke Ozark said , they don't have to glue 'em
> and they have a room full of new ones. PLEASE Tom do two things, get
> good information and DON'T use tubulars on your bicycle, clichers are
> for nancys.
>

I was wondering what do Pro's use when they are training alone in de middle
of nowhere?

Lou

 

[bill]

I don't think it means much if you lump eveyone together in "what do
the pros use". Obviously, some people will use tubulars, others
clinchers. There is no "standard."

The immutable facts are clear. Tubulars ride nicer and the wheels are
tougher. Clinchers allow a more compact emergency kit, and a fully
functional tyre after an on the road flat repair (tubulars cannot take
a hard corner after an on the road fix).

Clincher riders who carry only a tube will eventually suffer a carcass
failure or sidewall blowout and have to walk home, while the guys with
tubulars will have a complete spare tyre, as will the guys that carry a
foldable. (I know this from painful experience).

Clinchers allow you to ride through trashy streets, get flats,
patch/replace the tubes over and over, and still get 2000 miles out of
the tyre. Tubulars, except for TUFO, do not allow this behavior. (TUFOS
can be made self-sealing and so will literally seal the hole the moment
you ride over a piece of glass).

If you are racing the criterium in Hunting Park you aught to ride
clinchers or TUFOS rather than your $70 silks. Just in case.

If you are in the habit of riding over whatever the road throws in
front of you, and/or believe Jobst when he says that "wiping tyres
makes no difference" then you probably aught to copy all the fred and
nancies and ride a set of deep-dish cosmic pizza wheels with michelin
marshmellow tyres and a couple spare tubes and foldies and those stupid
compressed air thingies instead of a real pump 8-0

But if you are a cool dude, you will ride a real wheel with real tyres
and you might even look where you are going

 

[[email protected]]

RonSonic wrote:
> My thinking is that someone, somewhere performed some test that measured
> something that appeared to be lower rolling resistance for clinchers under those
> particular conditions. IOW, I don't think anyone's lying or "does not know what
> they're talking about." I do think that whatever was measured doesn't have much
> to do with bike tires rolling on a road with a rider on them.

Even Brandt admits that in his tests tubulars with track glue matched
the rr of clinchers. The tests that I still want to see done are how rr
varies with glue technique, and how rr varies with road surface, since
the tests that I've seen measure rr on rotating drums with perfectly
smooth surfaces. Until these tests are done no one can say definitively
that tubulars or clinchers have better or worse rr. Would also like to
see the performance of LA's magic handmade, otherwise unobtainable silk
tubulars tested, because it would be interesting to know whether at
that ultra level of competition the very best tires outperform
everything else.

Bottomline is anyone who states categorically that all tubulars have
worse rr than good clinchers is taking a test or two and extrapolating
them all to hell, which is just as ignorant as anything else.