pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.

[RonSonic]

On 20 Feb 2006 19:16:18 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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.

Tom, I'm sure you are smarter than the average bear, but I really doubt you know
more about tires than the guys who make them and sponsor the teams riding them.
I'm pretty sure I've got a handle on the thinking on the business end, and if
the sewups weren't faster they would never tolerate this rebranded sewup from a
small maker **** that is the present norm. You can talk all you want about jock
superstition, it is real, but the sponsor writes the checks and gets to say what
they ride. Yes, there are exceptions for a team leader and so on. But those are
exceptions, the tire situation is pervasive.

If you made a clincher tire that you _KNOW_ is faster and better than a sewup
you would never tolerate a rider's insistence on riding another brand. OTOH, if
you know he's got a better chance of winning by riding some tire you don't make,
but with your name on the bike, that's what you'll accept. It seems the latter
is the status quo.

>> 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?

You can't feel the difference between a **** tire and a good one?

>> 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).

Riders who've experienced sewups prefer them on the road, though they may prefer
the logistics of the clincher.

Ron

 

[Lou Holtman]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lou Holtman wrote:
> > "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
>
> Easy, since most pros I know are not mechanically inclined, to say the
> least, but can change a tire, they use clinchers, of course. But for
> racing, tubies are the standard, whether some naysayers wish it were
> not true. Just the way it is. They prefer them for the often mentioned
> reasons.
>

That makes sense. I would love to try tubulars, just for the fun of it, but
the only thing that withholds me is the possibility to get stuck in the
middle of nowhere after 2 flats. That's the only showstopper for me. This
doesn't apply for Pro riders in a race though. So I can understand they
prefer tubulars.

Lou

 

[Phil Holman]

"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 20 Feb 2006 19:28:30 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>>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.
>
> Sheesh, you make the sewup riders sound almost as bad as the recumbent
> crowd.
>
He can't be a man cos he doesn't ride
The same kind of tires as me
I can't get no ..........
Satisfaction

Phil H

 

[[email protected]]

So after all the verbiage, the question of what type of glue
professional teams use to mount tubular tires, remains unanswered.
I think the answer would make clear what teams know about tire
rolling resistance, a subject, seldom mentioned in that arena.

Jobst Brandt

 

[bill]

[email protected] wrote:
> So after all the verbiage, the question of what type of glue
> professional teams use to mount tubular tires, remains unanswered.
> I think the answer would make clear what teams know about tire
> rolling resistance, a subject, seldom mentioned in that arena.
Yo,

if you look here:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2005/tech/articles/8584.0.html

You can see perfectly well what one team uses: a standard off-the-shelf
rim cement. Sure, some are adamant about one or another, and some
brands are ****, but you figure that out pretty quickly.

WTF did you think they used? Some sort of "secret weapon adhesive"?
Get real.

If you knew so much about bikes, bike racing etc, then you would
already know the answer to the question!

This whole discussion is ridiculous because we have the recumbent types
(Sherman) who ride bikes that they call "racers" even though they
cannot be raced legally, and self-proclaimed techno-experts (Brandt)
throwing all sorts of "facts and figures" around while all the while
they are so out of touch with actual racing practice, that they have to
ask (rather sheepishly) what the "pros" use!

And then when challenged by pragmatic experienced riders, mechanics,
racers and coaches, we get socialist retorts claiming that tongue in
cheek comments are in fact true universal feelings of contempt and
hatred and that the racers are an elite group who disparage the rest of
the population. What a lot of OT crock.

And, you would also understand that in the real world, the tubular is
not at a noticable disadvantage from rolling resistance. All the while,
you are ignoring the reality of road and criterium racing, which is
that "resistance" is a dynamic issue of racing tactics and strategy,
not an issue of which slightly different tyre has the least resistance.
All those other factors--cornering, handling, feel, run-flat
characteristics are all more important.

If you are alone out front, you are using more than 30% more energy
than a guy tucked in four back in the peloton. You are diving through
corners at 35 to 40 MPH or even more (that is common on the back side
at Nutley for instance) while the pack is slowing to 25. What happens
to your "resistance" when you go through a hard corner 4 times a mile?
Oh, you didn't think about it, did you?! That is a meaningful
difference. The "squirmy glue" in straight line riding is not.

 

[Jay Beattie]

bill wrote:
> SNIP
> > My old wheels
> > used to be considered light and fast -- now they are "durable." How
> > things change.
>
> That is funny. I used to ride arc en ciels (tubular) and rigida 1320
> (clinchers). Neither was particularly durable, but they were light. As
> my teenage incme increased, I switched to GP4, which were a real
> improvement, but "heavy" at 400 grams. Then about 6 years ago I
> finally built a wheel with the newer Mavic tubular (the only one they
> sell now) and even though it is only 385g, and 32 hole not 36, it has
> taken a hell of a beating. I would have made a couple of GP4 rims into
> squares.
>
> Real progress in aluminum, I'd say.

I never raced on any road sew-up rims that were particularly light -- a
GP4 was in the ballpark, along with Red Labels in the '70s and early
80s. They were in the 370 gram range and only pretty tough. Arc en
ciels were more expensive and too light for me, at least according to
the local lore-meister LBS owner (which was kind of amazing, since he
tended to sell me anything with a high margin). That 385g Mavic would
fit the bill for me if I were to go back to the glue and sew fest,
which is probably not in the cards being that I am retired from racing
and hate even cleaning my chain. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[bill]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > SNIP
> > > My old wheels
> > > used to be considered light and fast -- now they are "durable." How
> > > things change.
> >
> > That is funny. I used to ride arc en ciels (tubular) and rigida 1320
> > (clinchers). Neither was particularly durable, but they were light. As
> > my teenage incme increased, I switched to GP4, which were a real
> > improvement, but "heavy" at 400 grams. Then about 6 years ago I
> > finally built a wheel with the newer Mavic tubular (the only one they
> > sell now) and even though it is only 385g, and 32 hole not 36, it has
> > taken a hell of a beating. I would have made a couple of GP4 rims into
> > squares.
> >
> > Real progress in aluminum, I'd say.
>
> I never raced on any road sew-up rims that were particularly light -- a
> GP4 was in the ballpark, along with Red Labels in the '70s and early
> 80s. They were in the 370 gram range and only pretty tough. Arc en
> ciels were more expensive and too light for me, at least according to
> the local lore-meister LBS owner (which was kind of amazing, since he
> tended to sell me anything with a high margin). That 385g Mavic would
> fit the bill for me if I were to go back to the glue and sew fest,
> which is probably not in the cards being that I am retired from racing
> and hate even cleaning my chain.
I hate cleaning my chain, too. I just buy a new one.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
> I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.

100% carbon. Probably the most expensive (in terms of R&D) product they've
done, when compared to the return on investment. Took them a year longer
than planned; it's just not easy doing a clincher carbon wheel, 'cuz those
sidewalls have to be made so perfect so you avoid braking issues... plus a
lot of the weight advantages are illusory. The first wheels to test strong
enough weighed as much as aluminum rims, so what would have been the point?
Their weight target was to drop a quarter pound (from the lightest of their
aluminum ones) and have considerably greater strength. They could get the
strength, but it took forever to get the weight down. In the end, the
reduced weight is partly in the rim, partly in the hub.

The look cool, they ride great (especially sprinting), and the brakes work
very well. They're just... expensive. Really expensive. Fortunately, I don't
destroy wheels, so they should last for a while. But I sure wouldn't want to
do an urban survival run on them. Sure, they're stronger than aluminum rims,
but even a solid car rim can meet a pothole that is its undoing!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > 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
>>
>> Don't tell that to my bike; it believes it's sitting on a pair of carbon
>> Bontrager clinchers. It will be highly disappointed to learn otherwise.
>> And
>> yes, they are hoo-boy expensive. Hopefully they're also hoo-boy durable!
>
>
> They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
> I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > 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>>>>>>>
>> > -
>> >
>

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Platt writes:

>> So after all the verbiage, the question of what type of glue
>> professional teams use to mount tubular tires, remains unanswered.
>> I think the answer would make clear what teams know about tire
>> rolling resistance, a subject, seldom mentioned in that arena.

> Yo,

> if you look here:

> http://www.velonews.com/tour2005/tech/articles/8584.0.html

> You can see perfectly well what one team uses: a standard off-the-shelf
> rim cement. Sure, some are adamant about one or another, and some
> brands are ****, but you figure that out pretty quickly.

I think you are not aware that there are two kinds of glue, road and
track, and that there is a specific reason for them.

> WTF did you think they used? Some sort of "secret weapon adhesive"?
> Get real.

Do you use tubulars and what do you know about gluing tires?

> If you knew so much about bikes, bike racing etc, then you would
> already know the answer to the question!

Without having been part of the racing scene, you probably think that
to be true but in 40 years of bicycling and racing, I found no one who
could explain why there were two kinds of tubular tire rim glue. I
had to discover that from IRC rolling resistance tests together with
experience with years of riding tubulars, much of which has been
discussed here on wreck.bike.

> This whole discussion is ridiculous because we have the recumbent types
> (Sherman) who ride bikes that they call "racers" even though they
> cannot be raced legally, and self-proclaimed techno-experts (Brandt)
> throwing all sorts of "facts and figures" around while all the while
> they are so out of touch with actual racing practice, that they have to
> ask (rather sheepishly) what the "pros" use!

I think you are the one who is proclaiming who is who. You are
attributing words to people that never mentioned them. I don't mind if
you want to believer I am an expert. That is for you to decide.

So back to the subject, what glue do professional teams use, road or
track glue?

> And then when challenged by pragmatic experienced riders, mechanics,
> racers and coaches, we get socialist retorts claiming that tongue in
> cheek comments are in fact true universal feelings of contempt and
> hatred and that the racers are an elite group who disparage the rest
> of the population. What a lot of OT crock.

That sounds a bit hyperbolic, can you repeat that in plain English. I
don't understand what your point is.

> And, you would also understand that in the real world, the tubular is
> not at a noticeable disadvantage from rolling resistance. All the while,
> you are ignoring the reality of road and criterium racing, which is
> that "resistance" is a dynamic issue of racing tactics and strategy,
> not an issue of which slightly different tyre has the least resistance.
> All those other factors--cornering, handling, feel, run-flat
> characteristics are all more important.

How do tactics and strategy affect tire rolling resistance?

> If you are alone out front, you are using more than 30% more energy
> than a guy tucked in four back in the peloton. You are diving through
> corners at 35 to 40 MPH or even more (that is common on the back side
> at Nutley for instance) while the pack is slowing to 25. What happens
> to your "resistance" when you go through a hard corner 4 times a mile?
> Oh, you didn't think about it, did you?! That is a meaningful
> difference. The "squirmy glue" in straight line riding is not.

I see a bit of Walter Mitty in your self image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Walter_Mitty
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/6821/thurber.html

There is more to tubular tire gluing than you are aware of. Try it!

Jobst Brandt

 

[Phil Holman]

Snip banter
>
> How do tactics and strategy affect tire rolling resistance?
>

They don't, but tactics and strategy hugely overshadow tire rolling
resistance differences in mass start races. Also, the difference in
rolling resistance measured under ideal conditions does not necessarily
translate to significant differences under mass start road racing
conditions. Has anyone run any tests on anything other than a smooth
roller?

Phil H

 

[Michael Press]

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

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:26:02 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

> >> 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.
>
> The clincher rim presents a relatively sharp top edge for the tire and tube to
> be pinched against. The flat (ish) surface of a tubular rim spreads the force.
> Running sewups on a cross course, a lot of guys run pressures low enough to
> bottom out once or twice a lap, usually on transitions onto pavement. I bottom
> out sewups all to often and haven't flatted yet. A clincher would never tolerate
> that.

We differ here. I still think that rim shape does not
contribute to pinch punctures; that the determining factor
is butyl rubber tube contrasted with latex rubber tube.

>
> >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.
>
> I hope to win the lottery some day, too.
>
> In the debate here, the relative costs are somewhat exaggerated. Really good
> clinchers ain't cheap and good sewups are much if any more. The best are pricey,
> but so's everything else at that end of the bike ornament market.

Yes, I limp along on 127 tpi, 25 mm carbon slicks.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Phil Holman writes:

>> How do tactics and strategy affect tire rolling resistance?

> They don't, but tactics and strategy hugely overshadow tire rolling
> resistance differences in mass start races.

So why bring that up in this connection?

> Also, the difference in rolling resistance measured under ideal
> conditions does not necessarily translate to significant differences
> under mass start road racing conditions. Has anyone run any tests on
> anything other than a smooth roller?

I think you don't understand rolling resistance. The losses are
encountered by flexing the tread, tire casing, and tube, that are
either elastomers directly or are bonded by ones. That flexing has
hysteresis losses (does not return the same energy that was required
to deform it). The rougher the surface the more tread deformation
plays a role so the smooth drum is the standard by which tires are
compared.

Tread patterns cause tread squirm losses in addition to those from
casing flex and these become worse with textured test surfaces, and
higher inflation pressure. You can notice which tires in the RR
curves at:

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

have thicker tread with patterns because they cease getting better
with increased inflation. This is even starker with MTB knobby tires,
whose losses get worse with higher inflation pressure (even on a
smooth surface) because individual knobs come under higher pressure
and deform to barrel shapes.

In order to compare rolling losses in tires, they must be run on
smooth test surfaces. Other tests might be used to show other
characteristics but the principal loss of interest is the one on a
smooth surface that assesses losses internal to the tire. You would
probably hear a howl of complaint if a rough gravelly drum were used
because tread thickness of smooth tread would not even reveal the true
character of the tire, quite aside from tires with thicker tread and
tread patterns.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press writes:

> We differ here. I still think that rim shape does not contribute to
> pinch punctures; that the determining factor is butyl rubber tube
> contrasted with latex rubber tube.

We've been through this many times here. The edge of the tubular rim
compresses the casing the same as with clinchers. That there is is a
greater or smaller void next to it has no bearing on the compression
force and the sharpness of it. As I mentioned, it was while patching
pinch flats in the old days when there were no other tires of worth
other than Clement racing tires, the term snake bite was coined to
bring attention to looking for the other hole adjacent to the
principal one when there was no sign of a sharp penetration.

And, yes, latex stretches much farther than butyl rubber before
failing, but as an inner tube it leaks like a sieve.

Just the same, we had plenty of snake bites.

>>> 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.

You can leave off the "over irregularities" the thickness of the
casing, tread and tube are what cause rolling tire losses and casings
can only be made thin if strong fibers are used... like silk. Somehow
nylon never made a big hit in racing tires although it replaced silk
for parachutes.

>> I hope to win the lottery some day, too.

>> In the debate here, the relative costs are somewhat exaggerated.
>> Really good clinchers ain't cheap and good sew-ups are much if any
>> more. The best are pricey, but so's everything else at that end of
>> the bike ornament market.

> Yes, I limp along on 127 TPI, 25 mm carbon slicks.

Isn't that dangerous??? Oops, forgot to leave a space before the ?.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

bill ? wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> No, the truth of the matter is that I know how to glue a tubular on
> without getting all sticky, and you don't ;-)
>
> Seriously, you did not read my post. You reacted against it.

How do you know what I read? Are you omniscient?

> If you understand structural engineering, then I do not need to explain
> to you the issue of unbalanced sections.

Explain further how this applies to bicycle tires.

> Ride nicer.

"Ride nicer" is an ungrammatical fragment.

"Nicer" is a subjective criteria and a matter of preference, not
"fact".

> Well, if you do not agree, then it is clear that you have
> not spent any time on tubulars.

Opinion presented as fact. Next!

> Sidewall punctures from outside sources happen eqqully to either type
> of tyre, but pinch flats, anecdotally, never happen on tubulars. What I
> said was that if you carry *only* a tube, then you are bound to be
> caught out. As has happened to me. RTF post before responding.

I read what was written; "Clincher riders who carry only a tube will
eventually suffer a carcass failure or sidewall blowout and have to
walk home..." This is utter nonsense, as it is POSSIBLE to ride a
lifetime only carrying spare tubes and never having a sidewall or
carcass on a clincher tire fail. The occurrence of sidewall and/or
carcass failures prior to the tread wearing out on clincher tires is
less than 100%, if you had not noticed.

Think about what you are actually saying before posting, and especially
flaming others.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

bill aka Bill Platt wrote:
> ...
> This whole discussion is ridiculous because we have the recumbent types
> (Sherman) who ride bikes that they call "racers" even though they
> cannot be raced legally....

Will I be arrested for racing my recumbent bicycle? Should all these
people [1] be turned in to the Department of Homeland Security so their
recumbent bicycles can be confiscated while they are sent off to
prison?

Mr. Bill is apparently unaware that quite a few non-drafting events [2]
are happy to take entry fees from recumbent riders (who are placed in
their own class).

Responsible governments everywhere, not to mention the United Nations
Security Council need to take up the issue of recumbent bicycle being
raced legally, and ban this activity before it dooms human
civilization.

[1] <http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/hpra.htm>.
[2] Including RAAM.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> ...
> That makes sense. I would love to try tubulars, just for the fun of it, but
> the only thing that withholds me is the possibility to get stuck in the
> middle of nowhere after 2 flats. That's the only showstopper for me. This
> doesn't apply for Pro riders in a race though. So I can understand they
> prefer tubulars.

Who is to say that only two (2) spare sew-up tires can be carried on a
ride? Of course, this will require more than just a tiny under-saddle
pack (or heaven forbid, a hydration bladder carrier with pockets), but
that should not matter under non-racing conditions.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

RonSonic ? wrote:
> ...
> If you made a clincher tire that you _KNOW_ is faster and better than a sewup
> you would never tolerate a rider's insistence on riding another brand....

Making a faster clincher is easy - just use radial instead of bias-ply
construction. However, the handling feel of radial bicycle tires is
reported to turn off most riders.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
> > I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.
>
> 100% carbon.

Diamond rims?

> Probably the most expensive...

If the rims are made from diamonds, no surprise that they are
expensive.

I expect the referenced rims are actually of carbon fiber reinforced
thermoset polymer matrix composite construction.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > > They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
> > > I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.
> >
> > 100% carbon.
>
> Diamond rims?
>
> > Probably the most expensive...
>
> If the rims are made from diamonds, no surprise that they are
> expensive.
>
> I expect the referenced rims are actually of carbon fiber reinforced
> thermoset polymer matrix composite construction.
>
>

You mean "carbon fiber reinforced plastic"? _Plastic!_ Why, you can't
charge *nearly* as much for that! What's a marketer to do?

 

[jim beam]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>>They are all carbon clinchers? No metal hoop? Don't think so but since
>>>I don't drink the Trek koolaide, not as 'informed' as you Mike.
>>
>>100% carbon.
>
>
> Diamond rims?

eh? look up "allotrope". but do that after you've stopped being myopic
about the use of the word "carbon" in the bicycling context.

>
>
>>Probably the most expensive...
>
>
> If the rims are made from diamonds, no surprise that they are
> expensive.
>
> I expect the referenced rims are actually of carbon fiber reinforced
> thermoset polymer matrix composite construction.
>

what /kind/ of "carbon fiber" tom?