pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman writes:

>>> 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.

>> Where was this done, by whom and who tested the tires? I'm not
>> aware of any radial ply bicycle tires although I can imagine that
>> they would be expensive to make.

>> Consider that the automotive radial tire is mainly justified by its
>> dimensions with a cross section whose major diameter is between
>> three and four times its cross sectional diameter. In contrast
>> bicycle tires have about 28:1 ratio which makes them look more like
>> compressing a straight hose than deforming a donut. The benefit of
>> radial ply has practically nothing to offer there and I doubt that
>> anyone would manufacture such tires.

> From "The Recumbent Bicycle," by Gunnar Fehlau (1st Edition, English
> translation):

> "[Rinkowski] secured his research with a GDR economic patent in
> 1954. Rinkowski's radial tire for bicycles was determined to be
> superior to the diagonal tire. He developed the radial tire long
> before it entered the automobile industry. Tests showed that
> two-tube tires of ordinary construction and size had a rolling
> resistance of 6 Newtons. To overcome the resistance of Rinkowski's
> tires only required 3 Newtons. He himself stated the following
> figures: 'The patented recumbent bicycle tires under burden have a
> resistance of about 240 grams, while a pair of tube tires has a
> resistance of at least 420 grams. I know this so accurately because
> I have developed a rolling-resistance measuring device that is now
> the property of the DHFK-Academic Sports Club in Leipzig.'
> "Rinkowski's design resulted in 1.5 miles more per hour in practice
> compared with a racing upright, if the bikes were powered with 60
> watts (which equals riding 12-14 mph on an upright). This includes
> the general advantage of the improved aerodynamics of the recumbent
> position."

I think Sheldon Brown clarified where he got the information (first
hand) and what he found gave these tires a strange feel. After
reading his comments and in line with what I wrote above you can
imagine that the tire has an odd lateral stability in contrast to a 45
degree bias ply tire. There is practically no lateral constraint
about the center position about which the tire allows the rim to move
from side to side over the contact patch with practically no centering
restraint.

A bias ply tire has cords in an x-pattern that do not readily allow
side to side motion when riding straight ahead. Not that this is the
only condition under which the rim is not laterally constrained. I
can imagine, when entering a curve, the sensation could be roughly
what an under inflated tire does as it wallows laterally. That's how
a slow leak is usually recognized and Sheldon says he had that riding
straight ahead.

That Rinkowski believed the radial was an improvement is not borne out
by the market , one that is ready for any new technology. By the way,
the radial tire was invented by Michelin for the Paris Metro rubber
tired subway where bias ply tires were an obvious energy sink. Radial
tires for "donut" form tires, as they are in most motor vehicles have
large rolling losses and tread squirm, unlike bicycles.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire

# The radial tire was invented by Michelin, a French company, in 1946,
# but did not see wide use in the United States, the largest market at
# that time, until the 1970s. This type of tire uses parallel carcass
# plies for the sidewalls and crossed belts for the crown of the
# tire. All modern car tires are now radial.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2006 12:22:49 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
> >>
> >> >> Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires. Few
> >> >> riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.
> >>
> >> > ??? I've used a lot of common road racing tires -- Continental
> >> > Sprinters, Michelins, Vitorria CX. Plus way back when I used to
> >> > train on tubulars used Clement Futuras. I thought these all have
> >> > butyl tubes. Do they actually have latex tubes?
> >>
> >> I can't imagine riding tubulars on a regular basis and never patching
> >> one. How come you never opened on of these tires?
> >
> >Simple: he's a p-o-s-e-u-r
> >
>
> For Brandt:
> When I occasionally trained on tubulars (mid-1980s) I wasn't very
> aware of the difference between latex and butyl. I repaired only a
> handful of tires -- it didn't seem worth the time.
>
> In the last 15 years I've not used tubulars for training or general
> riding at all -- clinchers work so well there is no point. The only
> times I use tubulars are for some races, and for events like that I
> don't ride material I don't trust. So I usually toss a tire that's
> flatted. I've also given some to a friend who doesn't mind reparing
> tires and riding repaired tires.
>
> But no, I never noticed the training tires I used in the past losing
> air quickly, so I assume those were butyl tubes. These were Clement
> Futuras and Wolber Invulnerables I think. In racing tires, I don't
> recall them losing air quickly either, or at least not the tires I've
> used in the last ten years. For racing tires, I re-inflate them
> before every use. But I do the same thing with clinchers before races
> too...
>
> Now on the poser comment for Ozark.
>


That's poseur, bozo.



> I've never claimed to be a hotshot racer. I'm just a hobby racer --
> category 2 on the road and a competent masters racer. I've ridden big
> pro-1-2 races as pack filler, and held leadership positions in two of
> our contry's oldest racing clubs. Plus done some successful coaching.
> I love bike racing, despite rarely doing well.
>
> If all that makes me a poser, then I'm a poser. If to you, anyone who
> races bikes and isn't a pro or a winner is a poser, then I guess I'm a
> poser.
>


No, you're a poseur....learn the diff


> It sounds like you're a scrub. But at least you probably know you're a
> scrub...
>

and you're just a straight up asshole.

 

[Simon Cooper]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> bill got all huffy and wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > What are you, my professor? You *********** know that tubular wheels
> > are strogner for a gven weight and quality of material due to the
> > sectional geometry of the rim. If you are so smart and experienced in
> > bike engineering, I should not have to tell you this. One more proof
> > that you are a stuffed shirt.
>
> Toughness in material's engineering generally refers to fatigue
> resistance properties - are tubular wheels more fatigue resistant?

Not at all. Toughness and fatigue are somewhat different routes to failure.
Toughness refers the amount of energy to break something (measured in, say,
number of hammer blows - glass vase - low toughness. Steel vase - high
toughness. Rubber vase - very high toughness.)

Fatigue, then - lets push hard enough to just bend the steel, then bend it
back. Repeat until it breaks. Often quite unrelated to straight tougness
measurement.

 

[Chalo]

Simon Cooper wrote:
>
> Fatigue, then - lets push hard enough to just bend the steel, then bend it
> back. Repeat until it breaks. Often quite unrelated to straight tougness
> measurement.

Nope. Fatigue loads are by definition less than those that cause
yield. Usually a lot less.

Chalo

 

[A Muzi]

> Tom Sherman writes:
>>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.

[email protected] wrote:
> Where was this done, by whom and who tested the tires? I'm not aware
> of any radial ply bicycle tires although I can imagine that they would
> be expensive to make.
>
> Consider that the automotive radial tire is mainly justified by its
> dimensions with a cross section whose major diameter is between three
> and four times its cross sectional diameter. In contrast bicycle
> tires have about 28:1 ratio which makes them look more like
> compressing a straight hose than deforming a donut. The benefit of
> radial ply has practically nothing to offer there and I doubt that
> anyone would manufacture such tires.

Panaracer Radials held a loyal following for ten or so
years. I found they delaminated - unlike any bias casing.
And a very soft 'road feel'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>clichers are for nancys.

Chalo wrote:
> Then how come only clinchers come in manly sizes?

I was musing at a keyboard one day and wrote that as a
medium Italian guy, everything in bicycles is just right for
me. I can ride the sample shoes, the medium frames, the cool
new stuff and it all works and lasts fine.

The dominant design standards are not reasonable for you (as
we've discussed before).

But for me, tubulars are designed 'just right' at 22mm.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Simon Cooper wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >....
> > Toughness in material's engineering generally refers to fatigue
> > resistance properties - are tubular wheels more fatigue resistant?
>
> Not at all. Toughness and fatigue are somewhat different routes to failure.
> Toughness refers the amount of energy to break something (measured in, say,
> number of hammer blows - glass vase - low toughness. Steel vase - high
> toughness. Rubber vase - very high toughness.)

I was over-simplifying since fracture toughness is not easy to define
in a single sentence (unlike other properties such as stress).
Toughness is related to fatigue in that the cracks in the material
(that lead to fracture) often originate through fatigue.

A couple of articles:
<http://www.twi.co.uk/j32k/protected/band_3/kscsw011.html> and
<http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art46.htm>.

It is not intuitively obvious that a sew-up/tubular rim will have
greater or lesser fracture toughness than a clincher rim made from the
same alloy with the same heat treatment.

> Fatigue, then - lets push hard enough to just bend the steel, then bend it
> back. Repeat until it breaks. Often quite unrelated to straight tougness
> measurement.

No, this is the ductility/formability of a material. S-N fatigue
diagrams (used to obtain fatigue and endurance limits) are developed
from ELASTIC strain cycles.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 22 Feb 2006 20:35:19 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Now on the poser comment for Ozark.
>That's poseur, bozo.
>No, you're a poseur....learn the diff

Is that the best you can do? Correct the spelling on a phrase that is
itself pretentious? Or is there really a difference in meaning?

I assume that the term "poseur" is the same as poser, which is someone
pretending to be something fancy that they're not. But does it mean
something different?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[41]

G.T. wrote:
> "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 wat ched 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 my self thinking, "the r.b.t. 'experts'
> > all swear that pros use clinchers for lower rolling resistance".
> >
>
> You left out another conclusion:
>
> 3. Pros don't have brains.

Now we are getting somewhere. This discussion has the usual air of
unreality: if pros really were obsessed with rolling resistance, then
NOBODY would be riding Continental tires, clincher OR tubular, because
they consistently place near the bottom of performance in all rolling
resistance tests, of which there are several independent ones available
on the web. Likewise, EVERYBODY would be using the exact SAME tire,
within the limits of the right size and weight for the conditions,
because there is only one with the LOWEST rolling resistance.

Score: RBT experts +1, sock puppets still not out of the starting
gate.Ü

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 23 Feb 2006 05:16:51 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:


>Now we are getting somewhere. This discussion has the usual air of
>unreality: if pros really were obsessed with rolling resistance, then
>NOBODY would be riding Continental tires, clincher OR tubular, because
>they consistently place near the bottom of performance in all rolling
>resistance tests, of which there are several independent ones available
>on the web. Likewise, EVERYBODY would be using the exact SAME tire,
>within the limits of the right size and weight for the conditions,
>because there is only one with the LOWEST rolling resistance.
>
>Score: RBT experts +1, sock puppets still not out of the starting
>gate.Ü

There's more to tire selection than rolling resistance.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Chalo wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >
> > clichers are for nancys.
>
> Then how come only clinchers come in manly sizes?
>
> Chalo

28mm tubies are easy to find. since they are clearly superior, no need
to be HUGE.....

gas onto flame.....

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

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. 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.

$2500+ to save 400 grams...hmmmm. I guess you don't pay retail tho do
you.
Buy since you know the secret TREK handshake and the password, I'm a
thinkin you don't pay anything for these.


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>>>>>>>
> >> > -
> >> >
> >

 

[bill]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > > You can ride a tubular a long way with no air.
> >
> > 1995 World Road Race Champion Abraham Olano would agree with that.
>
> That happened under a Km away. Bill was two miles out. He would have
> been caught before the finish, flapping along on his flat sew-up as the
> crazed maniacs at the back of he pack cut in and out in front of him,
> sprinting for thirty-seventh place. Some oxygen deprived idiot on a
> Softride would have crashed into him, causing Bill great bodily injury.
> So, using a sew-up that day may have resulted in terrible disability
> and disfigurement. He should be happy he was riding a clincher and
> just dropped out. -- Jay Beattie.

LOL ROF! (I can see myself now...sprintring down the back
stretch...bike wagging like a dog, slobbering in desperation.....)

 

[bill]

A Muzi wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >>clichers are for nancys.
>
> Chalo wrote:
> > Then how come only clinchers come in manly sizes?
>
> I was musing at a keyboard one day and wrote that as a
> medium Italian guy, everything in bicycles is just right for
> me. I can ride the sample shoes, the medium frames, the cool
> new stuff and it all works and lasts fine.
>
> The dominant design standards are not reasonable for you (as
> we've discussed before).

Actually what you say is very interesting, as it correlates with my
experience. I am over 6 feet and 210 lbs (even as a Junior I was 6'
180 lbs) and I have failed four framesets through fatigue (Merckx,
Raleigh Professional (2), Gios) and my brother, similar sized, has
fatigued a number of frames as well (including a Viscount--and not the
fork!). Also I have fatigued numerous rims--all clincher by the
way--destroyed many rims outright, clicher and tubular, fatigued
innumerable spokes and rear hub axles (usually Campy--the cheaper
brands just yield from overload and get out of alignment), bottom
bracket spindles, pedals, chains....the list goes on.

So I came to the conclusion, after noticing that there were really not
very many choices in frame tube thicknesses (back in the day, don't
know now--there are so many new products) that the "average" around
which the equipment evolved was probably a 150-160 lb racer. I was
therefore over 20% stronger, and so pushed everything over the bend.

I am curious how Indurain kept his equipment from failing. Maybe he
just replaced it more frequently, and so never had to experience "high
cycle fatigue" (oops a pun!).

Of course as tyres are a "wear item" I am sure that I probably go
through them faster than the smaller guys, too. If I followed Tom
Sherman's bizarre theories, I'd have to ride a 38c tyre in order to
have whatever he thinks is necessary. (Strange how he so fixates on the
rolling resistance superiority of a clincher, and the importance of
rolling resistance, and then he goes and admits that he rides big fat
cushy tyres--with small wheel diameter no less! I think he is trolling
and will have to ignore him from now on.) But for some reason, I am
perfeectly happy on a 22 to 25 c tubular, and find that they are less
prone to flatting than my MTB tyres. (Pretty obvious why,
really--narrower means they cover less ground--less to run over! and
they are smooth and so don't pick up debris).

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Qui si parla Campagnolo 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. 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.
>
> $2500+ to save 400 grams...hmmmm. I guess you don't pay retail tho do
> you.


I wonder how many of these will actually be sold at retail. I suspect
that 90%+ of production will go to sponsored riders. Trek will probably
get more out of these as an advertising vehicle that leads to sales of
more affordable Bontrager wheels than as a profitable product.


> Buy since you know the secret TREK handshake and the password, I'm a
> thinkin you don't pay anything for these.
>
>

 

[41]

bill wrote:
> Strange how he so fixates on the
> rolling resistance superiority of a clincher, and the importance of
> rolling resistance, and then he goes and admits that he rides big fat
> cushy tyres--with small wheel diameter no less! I think he is trolling
> and will have to ignore him from now on.

You might want to learn some more about rolling resistance. If you go
to any manufacturer's website that has a discussion of the matter, you
will find that fatter tires at the same pressure have lower rolling
resistance than narrower ones. In fact one of these was already
referenced:

<www.vredesteinusa.com/contents/en-us/d16.html>

They also say the effect of wheel diameter on rolling resistance is
marginal.

So it seems that in fact you are the troll here.

 

[bill]

41 wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > Strange how he so fixates on the
> > rolling resistance superiority of a clincher, and the importance of
> > rolling resistance, and then he goes and admits that he rides big fat
> > cushy tyres--with small wheel diameter no less! I think he is trolling
> > and will have to ignore him from now on.
>
> You might want to learn some more about rolling resistance. If you go
> to any manufacturer's website that has a discussion of the matter, you
> will find that fatter tires at the same pressure have lower rolling
> resistance than narrower ones. In fact one of these was already
> referenced:
>
> <www.vredesteinusa.com/contents/en-us/d16.html>
>
> They also say the effect of wheel diameter on rolling resistance is
> marginal.
>
> So it seems that in fact you are the troll here.

Gee, thanks. Yes, that all seems so great. I just love theory, too.
But it just doesn't always work out that way. I have had plenty of
wide tyres, too. And there is *no doubt* that the 32c were slower than
the 23c. The 19c were not noticeably faster than the 25c, so that is
where the "theory" works out. Whether this is due to rolling
resistance or air resistance or whathave you is unimportant. The fact
is that the (much) wider tyres are slower. And 20" wheels are most
definitely more drag on real surfaces than 27" wheels. But if the
aerodynamics are improved as a result, it does not matter, does it?!
(BTW as a kid I was a fervent follower of "White Lightning" and
then "Vector" at the HPVA record attempts. I still have the clipping
from White Lightning breaking 50 MPH. I have nothing against
"progress" and "recumbents" per se. But they are not "racing bikes" and
are not "raced" in the common sense of the term as used in my context.
That is yet another attempt to lead the thread off-track).

The fact remains that Tom Sherman *did not* correctly read my initial
post. His latest retorts just dig him even deeper into the hole of
misunderstanding.
What blows my mind about it is that my initial post actually defended
clinchers--I stated that *if* you carry a spare carcass as well as a
tube, and you suffer a sidewall failure, then you will, after repair,
have a fully functioning wheel, whereas with a tubular, you have to
avoid hard cornering after an on the road repair. Whether sidewall
failures are common or not is beside the point and a red herring. In
fact Sherman throws red herrings all over the place, as he has done
with my statement that tubular wheels are "tougher." I never said
"fracture toughness" or "toughness" or any such thing. I merely said
"tougher." He picks apart stuff fof the purpose of creating
misunderstanding, rather than discussing the underlying issues in a
rational, cordial way. And that ****** me off.

Sherman didn't *read* my post. He distorted it, reacted against it.
Period.

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
> >
> > >> Few riders run latex rubber tubes in their clincher tires. Few
> > >> riders run butyl rubber tubes in their tubular tires.
> >
> > > ??? I've used a lot of common road racing tires -- Continental
> > > Sprinters, Michelins, Vitorria CX. Plus way back when I used to
> > > train on tubulars used Clement Futuras. I thought these all have
> > > butyl tubes. Do they actually have latex tubes?
> >
> > I can't imagine riding tubulars on a regular basis and never patching
> > one. How come you never opened on of these tires?
>
> Simple: he's a p-o-s-e-u-r

These days the need to open tires has become much less for me. Tufo
sealant took care of ALL my flats last year and that was only two or
three over maybe 4,000 miles. That being the case, if I do get a tire
that keeps leaking after the sealant I might just throw it away, unless
it's a new and expensive tire. I had one persistent slow leak after
injecting sealant that I was just about to give up on, then it seem to
fix itself- I guess the sealant built up enough around the leak that it
finally stopped.

 

[[email protected]]

G.T. wrote:
> "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".
> >
>
> You left out another conclusion:
>
> 3. Pros don't have brains.

It doesn't take brains. But one thing is obvious: they do almost
anything that they think will help them win (and that they think they
can get away with). I can't imagine a pro giving away 25 watts to their
competition out of some allegiance to "cycling lore". It's well
documented that LA was a fanatic about his equipment. For instance, he
demanded that his helmet have an aero advantage not available in
helmets porvided to other teams. How many watts do you think that was
worth, a couple, maybe? He may or may not be stupid, but, regardless,
he didn't give away 25 watts on his tires to *anyone*.

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> Now we are getting somewhere. This discussion has the usual air of
> unreality: if pros really were obsessed with rolling resistance, then
> NOBODY would be riding Continental tires, clincher OR tubular, because
> they consistently place near the bottom of performance in all rolling
> resistance tests, of which there are several independent ones available
> on the web. Likewise, EVERYBODY would be using the exact SAME tire,
> within the limits of the right size and weight for the conditions,
> because there is only one with the LOWEST rolling resistance.

This could be more complicated than your statement indicates you
realize. First, there's an assumption that the published data to which
you refer measures rr that is transferrable to the road. Second, at
least some pros are riding tires that are not available to anyone else.
Finally, they may all be riding the same tire, or at least many of them
are, because with all the label switching, etc., it's hard to know just
how many different types of tires there are in the peloton.