I'm pretty sure "open tubular"-style clinchers were available more than 10 years ago...I guess you don't understand that part where I said "equivalently constructed" :-/

Besides, I'm also fairly certain that Jobst Brandt did the roller testing that indicated the inherent glue losses in tubular system WAY before then...

So, I'm really not seeing your point.

But, if you want to look at tires as an analogy for the current discussion, I think you have it backwards. I looked at those 2 main systems and realized people were focusing on performance qualities that were lower order (wheel/tire weight for example) and willing to put up with hassles to obtain that...while I looked at what actually makes a rider faster overall (and apparently Tony Martin, among others, agrees ;-) In the case if the brake discussion, people are valuing a performance property (braking...although it's unclear if hub-discs actually do perform "better" when compared to well-designed rim-disc setups) over other properties that actually make a rider faster (for pavement racing applications). On top of that, they're advocating a system change that inherently requires a "sea change" in equipment due to incompatibilities. Again, I'm looking at the overall system to make a judgement.

I find it funny that because I'm insistent on pointing these things out that I'm perceived as a hub-disc hater, when I'm not. In fact, I embrace them for activities where it makes sense, such as activities where tires that are significantly wider than the rim are a preferred setup (e.g. MTB, CX, "gravel", etc.) and where aerodynamics, and to a lesser degree mass, aren't as important (e.g. commuting, training, etc.) With "go-fast" bikes on pavement though, the better systematic approach is to take advantage of all the things that rim-discs have to offer due to them being a more highly integrated implementation. If you're unhappy with the braking performance of rim-disc though, that's not a flaw of the configuration, it's a flaw in the implementation somewhere. It's that simple.

What's ironic is that in the first implementations of rim-disc braking, we unknowingly (at the time) skipped past the awkward hub-disc phase and proceeded straight to the more system integrated phase. Yeah, it's a technology that has been used for a long time on road bikes, but that doesn't mean it's not a more advanced configuration for the "racing on pavement with fractional hp" task. Moving to a hub-disk system is in many ways a step backwards, technologically speaking.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/