pros use tubular tires, not clinchers.

[Ozark Bicycle]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.


Perhaps I'm being too conservative, but I would be really hesitant to
squirt goo into an expensive tubular tire. A cheap one, sure....can't
make them much worse than they already are.

 

[Simon Cooper]

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

My turn to be sloppy. "Bend" meaning "deflect elastically".

 

[G.T.]

bill wrote:
> 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.

You're a stubborn fool.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[G.T.]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

LA, one out of hundreds. I've hung out with enough pros that it was
clearly obvious that they thought no further than the lore that was
passed down to them by the peleton. Eventually the stuff that LA was
interested in the last few years will be passed on to the general
peleton, too.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Jay Beattie]

G.T. wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 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.
>
> LA, one out of hundreds. I've hung out with enough pros that it was
> clearly obvious that they thought no further than the lore that was
> passed down to them by the peleton. Eventually the stuff that LA was
> interested in the last few years will be passed on to the general
> peleton, too.
>

Which means that lore can be right. The hard part is determining when
lore is wrong. With tires, there is enough reason to ride sew-ups
(rideable when flat) that it really does not matter whether the lore is
right or wrong. Even if it is wrong, it means that sew-ups have a
slightly higher rolling resistance than clinchers which may be lost in
the noise any way. And a super-low rolling resistance clincher may
have some other problem, like poor wet traction.

I would be curious to find out how much "wrong lore" affects the pro
peleton. I have never seen any seriously whacky equipment in a pro
race, like wooden rims or five speed. The only wrong lore I have heard
of is doping -- back in the 60s when pros would mix stimulants with CNS
depressants (alcohol and amphetamines). Like that is going to improve
your performance? What about those guys in the poster taking a smoke
before the big climb to open up their lungs. Now that was some
seriously wrong lore. When I raced, equipment lore took a distant back
seat to lore about conditioning/diet/hydration and legal drugs, some of
it which turned out to be very wrong and dangerous. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

bill platt wrote:
> ...
> 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.)...

It is all about "packaging". If one is to have a low profile to take
advantage of lower wind speeds near the ground, the choice is either
small diameter wheels or a ridiculously long bicycle.
--
Tom Sherman

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

bill platt wrote:
> 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.

Whoosh!

Someone is starting to sound like jb complaining about JB.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Chalo]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> 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.....

Yeah, with a bit of poking around, I was able to find some Dugast
tubies that measure 29mm inflated. Nice. 29 isn't 40, but at least
it's getting into the range where it might work on real streets that
don't get swept or repaired diligently-- I have some 32s that do
reasonably well if I baby them. But $140 each! Talk about incentive
to do surgical repair on a tire even though it's an odious chore! At
that price, I'd probably darn the sidewalls and carefully plug the
treads when they got holed, too. The manufacturer should send someone
over to my place to weave the tire casings right onto my rims for that
kind of dough.

My lady uses 28mm (actual size) tires on her bike. She complains about
the extra flats she gets, but she likes them. Me, I sometimes pinch
flat my 700x40s at 100 psi. I imagine my experiment with tubies would
end after a week or two when I'd bashed a hearty assortment of flat
spots onto the rims-- and figured out where to go for plus-sized sewing
thimbles-- but that's not going to happen because I have no interest in
devoting $500-$600 to such an experiment.

Chalo

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"jim beam wrote:
> Johnny S"unset 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.

I know perfectly well what Mr. Chain Reaction meant.

> >>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?

Presumably threads formed from carbon fiber filaments and not diamonds!
--
Tom Sherman

 

[RonSonic]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:15:33 -0400, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> jtaylor wrote:
>> > "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >
>> >>we have bike "engineering" experts on this forum that [incredibly] know
>> >>nothing of fatigue, fracture, deformation, thread rolling, [etc.]
>> >
>> >
>> > You're not bringing up again that nonsense about cut threads being a
>danger
>> > in brake bolts, are you?
>> >
>> >
>> try not to get so personally wrapped up in demonstrating the failure of
>> your schooling there kiddo. if an anonymous jerk on the net can push
>> your buttons so bad that you lose all rationality, you need to start
>> worrying about that tenuous grip you have on the rest of your life.
>
>Previously you told us you "used to be a metallurgist".
>
>Now you describe yourself as "...an anonymous jerk on the net..."
>
>Tell us, was this lifestyle change of your own choosing?

I've got no doubt both are true. Realizing that we are each just one more jerk
with a modem is a useful bit of perspective.

Ron

 

[RonSonic]

On 22 Feb 2006 18:57:37 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> ...
>> Disposable (tubular) tires, disposable brifters. Poseurs don't
>> care....they just wannabe.
>
>If I get an upright road bike (for stealth purposes), it will have a
>steel frame, conventional 36-spoke wheels, down-tube or bar-end
>shifters, lights, fenders and clincher tires at least 28-mm wide.

Get a 'cross bike. With tubulars and make 'em at least 32mm wide, they'll roll
as nice as the smaller clincher, and really, argue all you want, the difference
off-road is tremendous. Then really have some fun on a bike. My objection to
recumbency is being limited to pavement, if you go diamond frame you might as
well get the most out of it.

Ron

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

RonSonic wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2006 18:57:37 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Disposable (tubular) tires, disposable brifters. Poseurs don't
> >> care....they just wannabe.
> >
> >If I get an upright road bike (for stealth purposes), it will have a
> >steel frame, conventional 36-spoke wheels, down-tube or bar-end
> >shifters, lights, fenders and clincher tires at least 28-mm wide.
>
> Get a 'cross bike. With tubulars and make 'em at least 32mm wide, they'll roll
> as nice as the smaller clincher, and really, argue all you want, the difference
> off-road is tremendous. Then really have some fun on a bike. My objection to
> recumbency is being limited to pavement, if you go diamond frame you might as
> well get the most out of it.

I think we need to be more specific about the term "off-road".

For dirt roads, "fire roads", many hiking trails (that allow bicycles,
pace Mikey V.) and similar conditions, most recumbents that will accept
fat tires with some tread will perform at least acceptably, and some
(like rear suspended trikes) will do very well.

For technical single-track or other situations that require jumping
over logs or other obstacles, the recumbent will have do be walked or
carried over the obstacles, so an appropriately robust upright bicycle
will work much better. The same is true for non-vehicular cycling that
involves jumping curbs and other such foolishness.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Bob]

On 23 Feb 2006 21:13:56 -0800, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Yes, I mean riding five speed now -- holding on to old technology based
>on the beleif that it is superior in some absolute way, like the
>frequent posts here about bar end shifters. -- Jay Beattie.

Good point. Downtube shifters are far superior to bar end shifters.


Bob

Real men enjoy friction!

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Bob
([email protected]) wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2006 21:13:56 -0800, "Jay Beattie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes, I mean riding five speed now -- holding on to old technology based
> >on the beleif that it is superior in some absolute way, like the
> >frequent posts here about bar end shifters. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Good point. Downtube shifters are far superior to bar end shifters.

Only if one has a downtube on which to mount them...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

 

[RonSonic]

On 23 Feb 2006 16:44:56 -0800, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> 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.....
>
>Yeah, with a bit of poking around, I was able to find some Dugast
>tubies that measure 29mm inflated. Nice. 29 isn't 40, but at least
>it's getting into the range where it might work on real streets that
>don't get swept or repaired diligently-- I have some 32s that do
>reasonably well if I baby them. But $140 each! Talk about incentive
>to do surgical repair on a tire even though it's an odious chore! At
>that price, I'd probably darn the sidewalls and carefully plug the
>treads when they got holed, too. The manufacturer should send someone
>over to my place to weave the tire casings right onto my rims for that
>kind of dough.

The Dugasts are are, uh, special. Don't bother spending their kind of money
unless you're contending for some championship jersey or other.

Cross tires are available up to 34 and come in a variety of treads. Those should
hold up as well as anything.

>My lady uses 28mm (actual size) tires on her bike. She complains about
>the extra flats she gets, but she likes them. Me, I sometimes pinch
>flat my 700x40s at 100 psi. I imagine my experiment with tubies would
>end after a week or two when I'd bashed a hearty assortment of flat
>spots onto the rims-- and figured out where to go for plus-sized sewing
>thimbles-- but that's not going to happen because I have no interest in
>devoting $500-$600 to such an experiment.
>
b>Chalo

 

[Bob]

On 24 Feb 2006 18:45:10 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Some
>> times it's the operator, not the designer, that comes up with the best
>> solution. i saw this all the time when I was in a USN test squadron,
>> mucking with some of the silliest things you can imagine, brought to us
>> by the engineers, pocket protector types that lived in the lab, not in
>> the world. I think the same applies to tubulars.
>
>These engineers apparently need some free market discipline and the
>threat of being sued for negligence, so they would get their act
>together.

It happens in the other direction too... engineers come up with
quality solutions and corporate "management" insists on doing it the
cheap way, instead of the right way.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > These engineers apparently need some free market discipline and the
> > threat of being sued for negligence, so they would get their act
> > together.
>
>
> Right...I guess you don't have any experience in the military.

If a private company spent as much money on bureaucracy
(proportionally), kept as poor track of its assets, and had the same
financial management as the US Department of Defense, it would head
into bankruptcy in short order.

But anyone in Congress who truly insisted on proper management would
get smeared as "un-patriotic" and "soft on defense" by those in the
'military-industrial complex" who handsomely line their pockets at
taxpayer expense. Talk about welfare fraud!

Hell, if this waste was eliminated and the money given to the VA, there
would be plenty of funds to care for the tens of thousands who will be
returning from Iraq with permanent physical and psychological damage.
Instead the policy is "Leave No Military Contractor Behind".

--
Tom Sherman

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > >
> > > These engineers apparently need some free market discipline and the
> > > threat of being sued for negligence, so they would get their act
> > > together.
> >
> >
> > Right...I guess you don't have any experience in the military.
>
> If a private company spent as much money on bureaucracy
> (proportionally), kept as poor track of its assets, and had the same
> financial management as the US Department of Defense, it would head
> into bankruptcy in short order.
>
> But anyone in Congress who truly insisted on proper management would
> get smeared as "un-patriotic" and "soft on defense" by those in the
> 'military-industrial complex" who handsomely line their pockets at
> taxpayer expense. Talk about welfare fraud!
>
> Hell, if this waste was eliminated and the money given to the VA, there
> would be plenty of funds to care for the tens of thousands who will be
> returning from Iraq with permanent physical and psychological damage.
> Instead the policy is "Leave No Military Contractor Behind".
>
> --
> Tom Sherman

Not just the DOD(civilain managed, BTW), but any US governmental
entity. They are all poorly run, to say the least. The DOD is an easy
target because of the mess in Iraq, but actually does the job of
killing people and breaking things very well, particularly when
compared to other departments. AND before you slam the DOD, please
point at the civilian leadership that has driven the DOD wagon into
Iraq. The military has done a great job accomplishing the mission given
to them.

Even tho I was a career Naval Aviator(20 yrs in USN Fighters, on the
bounding maine, black nights and pitching decks and all that), I really
feel for the military today,as they have been placed into an
environment they are not trained to handle. Going to war, defeating the
enemy, as defined by the POTUS, they have done that well in Iraq. The
civilian leadership has then FUBARed it.

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> ...AND before you slam the DOD, please point at the civilian leadership that has driven
> the DOD wagon into Iraq. The military has done a great job accomplishing the mission
> given to them.

Huh? The US Department of Defense (DOD) is run by civilian leadership.

--
Tom Sherman

 

[RonSonic]

On 26 Feb 2006 07:15:23 -0800, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> ...AND before you slam the DOD, please point at the civilian leadership that has driven
>> the DOD wagon into Iraq. The military has done a great job accomplishing the mission
>> given to them.
>
>Huh? The US Department of Defense (DOD) is run by civilian leadership.

It's in the constitution.

Big on the suggested reading list.

Ron