Tubular ride quality on low spoke-count wheels?

[Jay Beattie]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news[email protected]...
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:43:21 -0800, SocSecTrainWreck wrote:
>
> >
> > Olebiker wrote:
> >> And while you are stopped by the side of the road changing
the
> >> inevitable flat, we gray-hairs can point at you with a
knowing grin
> >> coming from years of riding tubulars (until something better
came
> >> along), and snicker at how you have bought in to the whole
tubular
> >> fantasy. Ah well, I guess every generation has to learn for
itself.
> >
> > There seems to be general agreement that tubulars are no more
likely to
> > flat than clinchers and are perhaps less likely, and, if they
do flat,
> > they are easier to get back on the road.
>
> Yeah. Right. You just mail the tire in to have someone fix
it. Some of
> us rode tubulars long enough to have that second flat in one
ride etched
> into our memories. Since for most of us, that was before
cellphones, it
> was a long walk home.

No, you can ride them flat! Don't you read this news group!

Hey, I have no doubt that tubulars make for the lightest wheels,
so if the OP wants the lightest possible wheel, Go Dog Go!

Every time we get one of these threads, I want to resurrect my
sew-up wheels, buy a set of tires and feel the magic! Then I
remember the hassle, the expense and the fact that sew-ups were
magical when the competing clincher was a Michelin Elan on a Mod
E rim, or later, a SuperCompHD. Now, with clinchers like the
Michelin Pro Race, etc., I wonder if there is any real difference
in ride quality even for racing. For me, bringing back the past
would be a step backward because my last sew-up road rims (Mavic
G40s) weigh a good 50 grams more per wheel than my Open Pros or
Velocity Aeroheads. I have some Fiamme Ergal track wheels from
the dark ages, but I am afraid they would break if I rode them on
the road, or anywhere for that matter. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:47:16 -0800, Mike Krueger wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 13:22:11 -0800, Mike Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > Top-quality cotton tubulars, made by Vittoria and Veloflex, as well
> as
>> > others, will give you the optimum ride quality and handling, no
>> > question.
>>
>> Well, actually, there is a question about that, but I don't care to
> get
>> into it.
>
> Your point is?

That you made an unsubstantiated claim as if it were true.

>> OK, the strength-to weight ratio is probably real, but minor. If you
>> maintain proper pressure in clinchers there is no need to have pinch
>> flats. The stuff about the tire staying safely on the tire when flat
> is
>> plain weird. Why ride a flat tire?
>
> You missed the point. A flat clincher can separate from the rim,
> causing a crash.

No, I did not miss the point. I see no need to continue riding on a flat
tire. Only with tubulars, when you run out of spares, do you have to
consider this. With a clincher, you can carry a patch kit. You can fix
the flat rather than riding on a flat tire.

>> > In all likelihood, you will get fewer flats with tubulars.
>>
>> I disagree. I get far fewer flats with clinchers than I did with
> tubulars.
>
> You are either very lucky or you must have been riding **** tubulars.

I spent more per tire on tubulars than I do with clinchers.

> No need to wait, I carry a spare tire. Come on one of my weekend club
> rides, and see who makes everyone stop and stand around longer because
> of a flat, the tubular guys or the clincher guys.

As long as you only have one flat.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
_`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

 

[Larry Coon]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> No need to wait, I carry a spare tire. Come on one of my weekend club
> > rides, and see who makes everyone stop and stand around longer because
> > of a flat, the tubular guys or the clincher guys.
>
> As long as you only have one flat.

Well...if it's a weekend club ride and everyone is
standing around, one of 'em's bound to have an extra
tube.


Larry Coon
University of California

 

[Tom Paterson]

From: "Jay Beattie"

>sew-ups were
>magical when the competing clincher was a Michelin Elan on a Mod
>E rim, or later, a SuperCompHD. Now, with clinchers like the
>Michelin Pro Race, etc., I wonder if there is any real difference
>in ride quality even for racing. For me, bringing back the past
>would be a step backward because my last sew-up road rims (Mavic
>G40s) weigh a good 50 grams more per wheel than my Open Pros or
>Velocity Aeroheads.

I went to Component Weights by Damon Rinard. Actual weighed weights point to
about 300g lighter for sewups, comparing Aerohead rims to Mavic 330's, with
Conti 23mm tire/tube/rimstrip v. the late lamented Vittoria CG (early-mid 80's
style). Fudge 20-30g for a 360g sewup rim, maybe, but then the Aerohead is a
light clincher, so fudge 30-40g up (and more) for commonly used clincher rims.
Also, add 20-30g for a 25mm clincher tire that will resist pinch pops as well
as the CG (if your experience was different, ah, mine wasn't. 180lbs or so in
those days FWIW.)

Fiamme Ergals (under 290 per Rinard) and 330's (with a 280 front) were
serviceable rims from what I saw "back in the day", esp. if one used CG's
instead of CX's (<g>, but a little more rim protection).

It's possible to lose a pound by using sewups, comparing apples-apples for
approximately equal durability on either side of the aisle.

Ride quality? I've had one set of clincher tires recently that had a feel I
associate with sewups (having ridden my last pair of CG's on a fairly light
wheelset, Sun Mistral M17 rims, a few years ago). Hutchinson Kronos folders,
IMS, more like a 21 than a full 23 section, and not good at resisting lumpy
impacts, even at 120psi. The Michelin Carbon 23's and same size Conti 3000's
(plus others) aren't quite the same (to me, opinion, etc.). --TP

 

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Paterson wrote:

> I went to Component Weights by Damon Rinard. Actual weighed weights point to
> about 300g lighter for sewups, comparing Aerohead rims to Mavic 330's, with
> Conti 23mm tire/tube/rimstrip v. the late lamented Vittoria CG (early-mid 80's
> style). Fudge 20-30g for a 360g sewup rim, maybe, but then the Aerohead is a
> light clincher, so fudge 30-40g up (and more) for commonly used clincher rims.
> Also, add 20-30g for a 25mm clincher tire that will resist pinch pops as well
> as the CG (if your experience was different, ah, mine wasn't. 180lbs or so in
> those days FWIW.)
>
> Fiamme Ergals (under 290 per Rinard) and 330's (with a 280 front) were
> serviceable rims from what I saw "back in the day", esp. if one used CG's
> instead of CX's (<g>, but a little more rim protection).
>
> It's possible to lose a pound by using sewups, comparing apples-apples for
> approximately equal durability on either side of the aisle....

How much does a spare sew-up tire weigh compared to a spare inner tube
(for a comparable sized clincher)?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:11:24 +0000, Tom Paterson wrote:

> I went to Component Weights by Damon Rinard. Actual weighed weights point to
> about 300g lighter for sewups, comparing Aerohead rims to Mavic 330's, with
> Conti 23mm tire/tube/rimstrip v. the late lamented Vittoria CG (early-mid 80's
> style).

I certainly recall things like 220gm tires (Clement seta extra)-- and this
is with the tube as well of course, and 300 +/- gm rims such as the
Nisi's that I rode.

But comparing those rims to modern ones is not reasonable, at least not
for the rear. I know from experience, re-spacing my old rims, that the
Nisi's could not stand up to the tensions needed for 8-speed freewheels,
much less 10-speed cassettes. The dishing requires too much tension
for a thin rim like that. But the clincher rims, at least, that you
are talking about are modern rims and are strong enough for this kind
of dishing.

Sure, though, tubular rims/tires can be lighter. Not simultaneously
lighter and more durable, but lighter.

> It's possible to lose a pound by using sewups, comparing apples-apples
> for approximately equal durability on either side of the aisle.

A pound is definitely on the outside limit, but certainly possible.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

 

[A Muzi]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> I have some Fiamme Ergal track wheels from
> the dark ages, but I am afraid they would break if I rode them on
> the road, or anywhere for that matter.

I'll take them off your hands


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

 

[[email protected]]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:11:24 +0000, Tom Paterson wrote:
>
> > I went to Component Weights by Damon Rinard. Actual weighed weights
point to
> > about 300g lighter for sewups, comparing Aerohead rims to Mavic
330's, with
> > Conti 23mm tire/tube/rimstrip v. the late lamented Vittoria CG
(early-mid 80's
> > style).

> But comparing those rims to modern ones is not reasonable, at least
not
> for the rear. I know from experience, re-spacing my old rims, that
the
> Nisi's could not stand up to the tensions needed for 8-speed
freewheels,
> much less 10-speed cassettes. The dishing requires too much tension
> for a thin rim like that. But the clincher rims, at least, that you
> are talking about are modern rims and are strong enough for this kind
> of dishing.

You just reminded me of the only reason I would go to 130mm spacing- it
would allow me to build a 9s-spaced 8s rear with no dish. Then I could
use my light tubular rims, would save a few extra grams over the
superfluous-anyway 9th cog, and would still probably have gears I don't
use for most rides. (Might have to regear if I rode real hills
regularly, let alone mountains.) Only thing is I already use those
light Campy tubular rims with 8s in the rear with 126mm spacing and
moderate dish, Fiamme ergal in front.

Nevermind.

JP

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> What kind of buddies are these that stand around and don't give a
> damn? As I said, putting a new tube in a tire takes no longer than
to
> pull a tubular off the rim and put on another. Of course macho guys
> pretend that the flat will fix itself once back home.

Actually, they almost do fix themselves. If the flat has not cut the
casing significantly, squirt some Tufo stuff in the tire, pump it up
and you're done with fixing the flat. Still has to be glued on though,
but that can be no more difficult than levering a clincher back on, if
the rim has previously been glued.

This will fix about two out of three flats.

JP

 

[Mike Krueger]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> Would you care to explain what it is about "non-****" tubulars that
> prevents flats?

I didn't say "prevents"-I said "fewer". I've been riding Vittoria Pavé
EVO CG's for over a year without a puncture (touch wood). Many pro
teams choose this tire for the spring classics. It is constructed with
a thick kevlar/silicon rubber tread, a puncture-resistant belt, a
kevlar/cotton casing, and a latex inner tube. The fat profile gives a
very comfortable ride with great handling, especially in the wet. I
believe this tire is also available in a clincher version.

 

[Mike Krueger]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> >> > Top-quality cotton tubulars, made by Vittoria and Veloflex, as
well
> > as
> >> > others, will give you the optimum ride quality and handling, no
> >> > question.
> >>
> >> Well, actually, there is a question about that, but I don't care
to
> > get
> >> into it.
> >
> > Your point is?
>
> That you made an unsubstantiated claim as if it were true.

Fair enough. My claim is just my opinion based on my own experience of
riding about 25 different tire models, both tubular and clincher, over
the last 20 years. You are certainly entitled to challenge my
statement, but raising the issue and then saying you don't want to get
into it hardly furthurs the discussion.

> I see no need to continue riding on a flat
> tire. Only with tubulars, when you run out of spares, do you have to
> consider this. With a clincher, you can carry a patch kit. You can
fix
> the flat rather than riding on a flat tire.

This is a moot point. On club rides, half the group is on tubulars. We
never run out of spares. On solo rides, I could certainly carry an
additional spare tire in my jersey pocket. However, I have never
suffered two flats on the same ride in over 30,000 miles on tubulars.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:53:06 -0800, Mike Krueger wrote:

>> I see no need to continue riding on a flat
>> tire. Only with tubulars, when you run out of spares, do you have to
>> consider this. With a clincher, you can carry a patch kit. You can
> fix
>> the flat rather than riding on a flat tire.
>
> This is a moot point. On club rides, half the group is on tubulars.

Not on any club rides I've been on. Back when I rode tubulars in the
mid-to-late '90s, I was typically the only one. I had to provide for
myself.

> We
> never run out of spares. On solo rides, I could certainly carry an
> additional spare tire in my jersey pocket. However, I have never
> suffered two flats on the same ride in over 30,000 miles on tubulars.

Here is another place where our experiences differ. I have had several
times when I'd suffer two flats on the same ride. I had one where I had 3
flats. Fortunately, since I knew it was going to be a long ride and I
knew no one else would have them, I had three spares. Now, maybe I didn't
ride on $100 tires, but I usually had $30 tires, which at the rate I was
going through them quickly became economically unfeasable. My last pair
of clinchers (Hutchinson carbon comp) were $21.95, and will likely last
until the casing shows through. The tubulars I got, whether Michelin,
Vittoria, or Conti, never lasted that long. They were inevitably ruined
by multiple flats or casing cuts well before the rubber was wearing thin.

I once did a loaded, unsupported tour on tubulars. Nothing sucks like
having to patch tires at night after a long ride, when all you want to do
is sleep.


--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

 

[Tom Paterson]

From: Tom Sherman

>How much does a spare sew-up tire weigh compared to a spare inner tube
>(for a comparable sized clincher)?

(trying again as the AOL newsreader dies)

Approx: 250g, tubular tire. 100g, "real" inner tube.

The Fatal Flaw, if overall weight is the only consideration. --TP

 

[Tom Paterson]

From: Tom Sherman

>How much does a spare sew-up tire weigh compared to a spare inner tube
>(for a comparable sized clincher)?

(trying again as the AOL newsreader dies)

Approx: 250g, tubular tire. 100g, "real" inner tube.

The Fatal Flaw, if overall weight is the only consideration. --TP