pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.

[[email protected]]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

> Right, those guys that get paid to ride and race a bicycle rely on myth
> and lore, in the US, my aunt matilda's mushtache. maybe in Europ[e, BIG
> maybe, but as these guys opt for the latest carbon whizbangery, they
> still use tubulars.

A tubular "rides" on a cushion of glue which deforms as the tire rolls.
Obviously the enery dissipated is tiny otherwise people would notice
that the glue heats up as you ride, and no one observes that.

 

[bill]

Michael Press wrote:

>
> Do you know what glue the professional teams use?
>

So then I infer that you imply that all teams use the same glue.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > Right, those guys that get paid to ride and race a bicycle rely on myth
> > and lore, in the US, my aunt matilda's mushtache. maybe in Europ[e, BIG
> > maybe, but as these guys opt for the latest carbon whizbangery, they
> > still use tubulars.
>
> A tubular "rides" on a cushion of glue which deforms as the tire rolls.
> Obviously the enery dissipated is tiny otherwise people would notice
> that the glue heats up as you ride, and no one observes that.


I wonder how much mounting technique (type and amount of glue, even
mounting, etc.) affects RR. Back when tubulars were in wider use by
recreational riders, I used to see alot of very poorly mounted tires
(wiggly, bumpy, etc), even with good quality (and expensive) tires.

 

[Nick Payne]

It's not a weight or rolling resistance advantage. It's that if needed you
can continue to ride on them when they puncture. I've heard McEwen say that
he rode the last few km of a stage one time with a rear flat - no chance of
getting a spare without losing time on the bunch.

"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?

 

[Jay Beattie]

bill wrote:
> 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.

Didn't Michelin sub-out their sew-ups, or was there a period where they
actually made them?

Anyway, what is not to like about a ProRace, except price? I have not
tried the newer version, but I really like the original -- which I
bought close-out for $25 a tire. It wears out fast, but it is a very
nice riding tire with good cornering traction.

Not to get into the sew-up wars, but it is true that some of these
clinchers are so ungodly expensive that you can get better deals on
good quality sew-ups from some of the internet sellers. It's too late
for me to go back to sew-ups, though, because I sold my last pair of
road sew-up wheels to my neighbor for his cross-bike. My old wheels
used to be considered light and fast -- now they are "durable." How
things change. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[RonSonic]

On 19 Feb 2006 21:08:33 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>

>> I also think anyone who suggest #3 is full of ****. Tire sponsors would have
>> too much to gain from being able to show _their_ products actually winning races
>> to ignore the applicable science if it worked in their favor.
>
>Hey, it is not about the bike remember - level playing field,
>competition of riders, blah, blah, blah.... Additionally, everyone
>knows that name on the tires often has no connection to the real
>manufacturer.

That's the point, a competitive clincher would be worth millions to a tire
company. If it existed it would be on the bikes.

>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.

Do you really think, knowing, as I'm sure you do, the distribution patterns of
human intelligence that you are really smarter than the entire peloton, all of
their mechanics, DSs, sponsors and reps.

I don't think the riders give two ***** whether it's a clincher or a sew-up. I
am certain that they know which they like when they jump on the bike and ride.

One hundred years experience times millions of riders has given its answer.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On 20 Feb 2006 09:09:20 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>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.

That's my theory, that the famous sewup ride reflects an ability to roll more
smoothly over the normal irregularities of the road. In addition to being able
to take higher pressures a sewup will run at lower pressures with much lower
risk of pinch flats. On a cross course that actually means lower RR since you
aren't skittering along. Something much like that, though less extreme may be
happening on the road.

>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.

I know guys are paying serious money for 'cross tires. No telling what's out
there.

>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.

Yep.

Ron

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> 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."

thanks for the consultation, doctor. how much do i owe you?

in the mean time, feel free to believe "experts" asserting that pros
ride clinchers. because they don't.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you know what glue the professional teams use?
> >
>
> So then I infer that you imply that all teams use the same glue.

Yes, I expect they do, the choice in my mind is between
pressure sensitive, `squirmy' glue, and hard track glue.
Wondering if they actually use track glue, because track
glue does not eat up energy.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2006 09:09:20 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >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.
>
> That's my theory, that the famous sewup ride reflects an ability to roll more
> smoothly over the normal irregularities of the road. In addition to being able
> to take higher pressures a sewup will run at lower pressures with much lower
> risk of pinch flats. On a cross course that actually means lower RR since you
> aren't skittering along. Something much like that, though less extreme may be
> happening on the road.

Pinch flat frequency is a function only of tube
composition. Butyl rubber tubes will puncture under less
strain than a latex rubber tube, whether it be mounted in
a clincher tire or a tubular tire.

Side wall construction is the principal deciding factor in
how well a tire rolls over irregularities. Tread thickness
also contributes. Vittoria makes a 290 thread per inch
clincher tire. I have toyed with the idea of buying a pair
to see how well they ride.

[...]

--
Michael Press

 

[Tim McNamara]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

> in the mean time, feel free to believe "experts" asserting that pros
> ride clinchers. because they don't.

You're right, they don't. No one has asserted that "all pros" or even
"most pros" ride on clinchers. That's just your distortion of what
other people have said. What has been said is that some pros ride
clinchers (which is true and which you confirmed in your post) and
that clinchers have measurably lower rolling resistance that tubulars.
The rest of your post was just more of your usual folderol, distorting
what other people say so you can pretend to knock 'em down.

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>in the mean time, feel free to believe "experts" asserting that pros
>>ride clinchers. because they don't.
>
>
> You're right, they don't. No one has asserted that "all pros" or even
> "most pros" ride on clinchers. That's just your distortion of what
> other people have said. What has been said is that some pros ride
> clinchers (which is true and which you confirmed in your post) and
> that clinchers have measurably lower rolling resistance that tubulars.
> The rest of your post was just more of your usual folderol, distorting
> what other people say so you can pretend to knock 'em down.

so how much do i owe you? i don't want to keep consulting you without
remuneration for your valuable services.

 

[[email protected]]

Someone writes:

>> 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.

With all the detective work done on who rides tubulars, we don't have
a could of who does and who doesn't in the current Tour of California,
and more importantly, what glue do they use. I think we would have
heard the answer to these questions if the detectives were truly
interested in the subject. I can't imagine not asking about it if I
were on the scene.

> 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.

You can believe the RR curves in the graph at:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

These represent typical drag forces for tires in the test and because
they are done over a range of inflation pressures, they are self
verifying. That these forces are small should not be overlooked, but
they exist. The shape of the curves, as a family of curves, should be
all the proof one who understands the causes of RR needs to believe
their accuracy.

> Bottom line 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.

I don't know who might have made such an absurd statement and I
wouldn't believe it without some evidence to back that up that claim.
That pressure sensitive (sticky) rim glue has fixed losses is
demonstrated by the RR curves. Whether, professional racers (who do
not change tires) use reusable tacky adhesive is not certain, but I
doubt it. In contrast, avocational riders must use tacky road glue if
they don't have a follow car with extra wheels with them and are
therefore, subject to the losses shown in the RR curves in the URL.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Someone in Canada writes:

>> Right, those guys that get paid to ride and race a bicycle rely on
>> myth and lore, in the US, my aunt matilda's mushtache. maybe in
>> Europ[e, BIG maybe, but as these guys opt for the latest carbon
>> whizbangery, they still use tubulars.

> A tubular "rides" on a cushion of glue which deforms as the tire
> rolls. Obviously the enery dissipated is tiny otherwise people
> would notice that the glue heats up as you ride, and no one observes
> that.

Not noticeable if you consider air cooling/heating from the speed of
progress and the exposed surface of the rim. The energy involved is a
small fraction of a rider's power and is lost in the wind.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Well I'm not a pro but I ride sew-ups on my around town bike, they
corner better, that's it. Ask some of those pros who ride tubs, I
have, and they are right. You can feel it as soon as you take a real
low corner, clinchers will slide out as they are not round but c
shaped. I glue them, I pay for them, and no I don't have any trouble
gouing around the big pile of broken beer bottle in the road ahead!
-Tim

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Well I'm not a pro but I ride sew-ups on my around town bike, they
> corner better, that's it. Ask some of those pros who ride tubs, I
> have, and they are right. You can feel it as soon as you take a
> real low corner, clinchers will slide out as they are not round but
> c shaped. I glue them, I pay for them, and no I don't have any
> trouble gouing around the big pile of broken beer bottle in the road
> ahead!

Well, that's one subjective data point. Another is my own, which is
that I found nothing about tubulars to be superior for racing or
general riding, and I found their drawbacks compared to clinchers to
be several.

FWIW your argument about tire shape is inaccurate- both are round in
profile. Only clinchers with thick rubber tread can have a not-round
profile. The laws of physics see to that.

However, it's your bike. Ride whatcha like. That's what I do.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

RonSonic (who?) anonymously snipes:
>
> Do you really think, knowing, as I'm sure you do, the distribution patterns of
> human intelligence that you are really smarter than the entire peloton, all of
> their mechanics, DSs, sponsors and reps.

If one believes the WAIS to be an accurate indicator, then the answer
is yes. In addition, most all of the aforementioned lack an education
in engineering mechanics, and as Jobst Brandt is fond of pointing out;
the level of engineering at many cycling related manufacturers is not
what it could be.

> I don't think the riders give two ***** whether it's a clincher or a sew-up. I
> am certain that they know which they like when they jump on the bike and ride.

So it is all psychological and not based on objective testing?

> One hundred years experience times millions of riders has given its answer.

Yep, most riders choose clinchers, except those who believe the myth
and lore of tubular superiority (passed down through the racing clubs,
who sneer at the unwashed Freds riding clinchers).

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

bill ? wrote:
> 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.

Define "nicer" in this context.

Define "tougher" in this context. Provide citations of experimental
evidence or a mathematical model using established methods to prove
your contention.

> 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,...

Citation or other proof? How is a carcass or sidewall failure
inevitable with a clincher tire? Millions of clincher tires have been
retired from tread wear without exhibiting the aforementioned failure
modes.

> 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).

And when the tubular ride with one (1) spare suffers two (2) flats?

> 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

Now we get to the real truth of the post. Tubular riders are "superior"
because they are part of the in clique that knows how to conform with
the "proper" equipment, clothing, jargon and dismissive attitude
towards others.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> FWIW your argument about tire shape is inaccurate- both are round in
> profile. Only clinchers with thick rubber tread can have a not-round
> profile. The laws of physics see to that.

Contradicting myth and lore with science? Stop it now!

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> bill ? wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Define "nicer" in this context.
>

Agreed, "nicer" is subjective. And IMO/E, only fairly expensive
tubulars have the possibility of being "nicer" than any number of
decent clinchers. Cheap tubulars are the pits, except as spares to get
you home.


> Define "tougher" in this context. Provide citations of experimental
> evidence or a mathematical model using established methods to prove
> your contention.
>

Well, I don't think there is any question that, for a given rim weight,
a well designed tubular rim is stronger than a well designed clincher
rim. As an example, I used to ride 280gr front and 330gr rear
(published weights) tubular rims. I seriously doubt clincher rims in
that weight vicinity would last very long.



> > 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,...
>
> Citation or other proof? How is a carcass or sidewall failure
> inevitable with a clincher tire? Millions of clincher tires have been
> retired from tread wear without exhibiting the aforementioned failure
> modes.
>
> > 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).
>
> And when the tubular ride with one (1) spare suffers two (2) flats?
>

Been there, done that, in a way. Got a (rare) front flat, peeled the
tire off and mounted the effectively NOS (2 or 3 seasons stashed in a
tire sock, but never used) spare, which, it turned out, had a semi-slow
leak. Every 15-20 minutes, I had to pull over and pump the damn thing
up. Carrying two spares seemed over the top, but I sure wished I had
done so that day.


> > 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
>
> Now we get to the real truth of the post. Tubular riders are "superior"
> because they are part of the in clique that knows how to conform with
> the "proper" equipment, clothing, jargon and dismissive attitude
> towards others.
>
>

I think that last part was a bit tongue in cheek, Tom.