S
[email protected] wrote:
> When plugging in value in the following web page a high quality
clincher is
> always faster than a tubular, unleas the tubular is mounted using
track
> glue. Any gains made from weight savings by using a tubular wheel and
tire
> is more than offset by the clincher's superior rolling resistance!
What you are referring to is based on twenty year old testing. If you
look up the recent research on tubular glues, you will find that the
bond strength of the best contemporary glues is much better than that
used at the time of those tests. Bottomline: there is no published data
that would allow someone to state categorically that optimally-mounted
tubulars with contemporary road glues have higher rolling resistance
than comparable clinchers.
> Since the Pro teams are not dumb they must know something that is not
taken
> into account by pure rolling resistance vs. weight.
What they probably know is that the overall package offered by tubulars
is superior.
> Would they use an inferior product just for sponsor money?
Some would, but Armstrong emphatically does not. There have been
articles about the demands he places on his sponsors to produce
equipment that is the absolute very best and provides him with a
proven, tested competitive advantage. There may not be another
professional in the world who could make the demands of his sponsors
that he does, and you can be sure that when he rides handmade
Hutchinson silk tubulars he does it because he has evidence that it
will help him win. (Note that Hutchinson itself has largely abandoned
the commercial tubular market.)
Furthermore, Mr. Fogel himself in arguing the other side of this issue
came up with the example of Tyler Hamilton choosing tubulars for a time
trial because of their lower rolling resistance!
As to the claim that road glue provides a layer of material that
squirms, this could certainly be true, but it is a mistake to treat
this as a black or white issue when there are at least a couple of
variables at work: the thickness of the glue (If the glue does squirm,
you should be able to understand that it could squirm more when there
is more glue than necessary.); The stiffness of the glue (Imagine,
instead of "track" and "road" glue, a range of glues with varying
stiffness after proper setting.)
So, even though there are other advantages for pros using tubulars as
others have mentioned here, I think you would be making a mistake to
assume that pros are giving away an advantage in rolling resistance by
using tubulars. I think that at least the very top teams have almost
certainly collected test data, and I think that they would not give a
10 watt advantage to teams using clinchers that is in effect for
basically every second of racing, for advantages that they might get in
avoiding and dealing with punctures, which are not usually decisive for
the contenders in a race like the TdF. Punctures are dealt with by the
team support very quickly and the important team members are towed back
to the peloton by their teammates. In fact, generally, out of courtesy,
a gc contender will not be attacked by opponents when they are off with
a flat.
Also, if there are situations where the weight advantage of tubulars is
a factor, tubulars would be used, but they would revert to clinchers
for situations where they supposedly provide an advantage in rolling
resistance. That doesn't seem to be happening.
Maybe tubulars really do have higher rolling resistance but I don't
think there is anything to substantiate that theory except for the
indirect evidence from a single obsolete study, and the rest of the
evidence seems to me to be to the contrary. I think the pros' practices
imply that there is a body of test data to which we don't have access
that contradicts the earlier study.
> When plugging in value in the following web page a high quality
clincher is
> always faster than a tubular, unleas the tubular is mounted using
track
> glue. Any gains made from weight savings by using a tubular wheel and
tire
> is more than offset by the clincher's superior rolling resistance!
What you are referring to is based on twenty year old testing. If you
look up the recent research on tubular glues, you will find that the
bond strength of the best contemporary glues is much better than that
used at the time of those tests. Bottomline: there is no published data
that would allow someone to state categorically that optimally-mounted
tubulars with contemporary road glues have higher rolling resistance
than comparable clinchers.
> Since the Pro teams are not dumb they must know something that is not
taken
> into account by pure rolling resistance vs. weight.
What they probably know is that the overall package offered by tubulars
is superior.
> Would they use an inferior product just for sponsor money?
Some would, but Armstrong emphatically does not. There have been
articles about the demands he places on his sponsors to produce
equipment that is the absolute very best and provides him with a
proven, tested competitive advantage. There may not be another
professional in the world who could make the demands of his sponsors
that he does, and you can be sure that when he rides handmade
Hutchinson silk tubulars he does it because he has evidence that it
will help him win. (Note that Hutchinson itself has largely abandoned
the commercial tubular market.)
Furthermore, Mr. Fogel himself in arguing the other side of this issue
came up with the example of Tyler Hamilton choosing tubulars for a time
trial because of their lower rolling resistance!
As to the claim that road glue provides a layer of material that
squirms, this could certainly be true, but it is a mistake to treat
this as a black or white issue when there are at least a couple of
variables at work: the thickness of the glue (If the glue does squirm,
you should be able to understand that it could squirm more when there
is more glue than necessary.); The stiffness of the glue (Imagine,
instead of "track" and "road" glue, a range of glues with varying
stiffness after proper setting.)
So, even though there are other advantages for pros using tubulars as
others have mentioned here, I think you would be making a mistake to
assume that pros are giving away an advantage in rolling resistance by
using tubulars. I think that at least the very top teams have almost
certainly collected test data, and I think that they would not give a
10 watt advantage to teams using clinchers that is in effect for
basically every second of racing, for advantages that they might get in
avoiding and dealing with punctures, which are not usually decisive for
the contenders in a race like the TdF. Punctures are dealt with by the
team support very quickly and the important team members are towed back
to the peloton by their teammates. In fact, generally, out of courtesy,
a gc contender will not be attacked by opponents when they are off with
a flat.
Also, if there are situations where the weight advantage of tubulars is
a factor, tubulars would be used, but they would revert to clinchers
for situations where they supposedly provide an advantage in rolling
resistance. That doesn't seem to be happening.
Maybe tubulars really do have higher rolling resistance but I don't
think there is anything to substantiate that theory except for the
indirect evidence from a single obsolete study, and the rest of the
evidence seems to me to be to the contrary. I think the pros' practices
imply that there is a body of test data to which we don't have access
that contradicts the earlier study.