Clichers v Tubbies

Jun 28, 06 8:52

Post #1 of 81 (5902 views)

Caveat #1: Please do not reply with some flame of a post without analytical data...this is not a touchy feely "i feel faster with ABC wheels" post. I want data.
Caveat #2: Please read #1...

I am very strongly considering switching from Powertap to Ergomo Pro. Right now my race setup is 2005 Zipp 404 Tubular in Front w/ Vittoria Corsa EVO KS and Rear 2005 Zipp 404 w/PT SL and cover from wheel builder w/Vittoria Corsa EVO KS.

These seem fast; however, recently I have seen a few threads where Gary Tingley, Jens, and Rappstar allude to the fact clinchers (high end w/latex tubes) are faster or at least the same as the fastest tubbies (assuming ideal gluing).

So why would we race with tubular tires if they are at best equal assuming the glue job was done perfectly? Additionally, it seems clinchers have progressed a good deal over the last decade. Are we at the point where clinchers have surpassed tubulars?

I know I said no "I feel this way or that way", but I do have a Pro Race set of clinchers which I put on my training wheels from time to time, and they seem to be faster at a given wattage than my race day setup. Now, I have not tested in the exact same conditions, but it is an inclination I have.

Since it looking like I will be changing my power setup to the ergomo pro, I will also be purchasing a disc, so I am re-evaluating my race day wheel set as a whole.

Please reply if you have data. Or if you can link to studies which have been done or if you are some person in "the industry" with some insight...

Thanks

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 9:12

Post #2 of 81 (5870 views)

Tubulars are up to a couple of pounds lighter than clinchers. Is that data?

Geoffrey Nenninger

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 9:12

Post #3 of 81 (5869 views)

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html

I have an Ergomo Pro. I've damaged my 404's, but when I get them back from ZIPP I'd like to do some tests on my own to see if the difference is that much. Who knows. Since I had to use my training wheels (ksyriums), I raced CDA on a fresh set of michelin pro2 race's because of the data tables on the bottom of that linked page. - E

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 9:12

Post #4 of 81 (5866 views)

Something I would like to see address is how rolling resistance and aerodynamics trade off. There was a test done recently on a few tires showing that a deda clincher tire has by far the least rolling resistance of any tire. But that tire is 27mm wide. If you compare 23mm tires, some of the clinchers and tubulars are exactly the same.

So a wide tire has better rolling resistance, but not as good aerodynamics. Where is the trade off? A 25mm tire? From what I've read of Josh at zipp's posts, using a tire that is wider than the rim 'significantly' impacts aerodynamics. By how much? What's the comparison?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 9:36

Post #5 of 81 (5815 views)

here we go again!

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 10:06

Post #6 of 81 (5761 views)

Tubulars flat less often then clinchers. Races cost of lot of money these days. If you flat, you've just lost time to your rivals. With tubulars you stand a better chance of not flatting -- not to mention that they ride/feel better and are lighter. If I was rich enough I would train on tubualrs as well. Oh, and if you're bombing a decent at high speed with clinchers and flat, it could be a catastrophic crash. With tubulars, the wheel stays glued to the rim and you can ride it out until you stop. Been there, done that. So, tubulars are safer too.

Let's review... Tubulars:

* Have less flats

* Have a better ride

* Are lighter than clinchers

* Are safer than clinchers

~ AB ~

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 10:21

Post #7 of 81 (5741 views)

Ignoring for a second the ridiculous posts about clinchers killing you, etc...

I have a set of 404 Clinchers on a PT (I had 404 tubulars on a PT, and got rid of them).

Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I'd get the 808 clinchers. The extra weight as compared to the 404's is inconsequential on all but the absolute steepest climbs, and the 808 front I use on my TT bike is way better than I expected in a cross wind.

While I've done a ton of field testing w/both wheels, I've also done a lot of our local tues and thursday training races w/power files on both sets of wheels. On average, it comes out to about 10-15 watts less for the clinchers--and the training races are not flat!
(Michelin Pro 2 race vs. Vittoria KS/Mastic One).

Very unscientific, but when comparing average speeds and power, the trend is pretty obvious.....

As far as the PT SL vs. the Ergomo, I wouldn't want to speculate as I have no experience w/the new Ergomo--but it seems promising.

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 10:49

Post #8 of 81 (5698 views)

In Reply To:

Tubulars are up to a couple of pounds lighter than clinchers.

Huh?...try more like, at most 1 lb.

In Reply To:

Is that data?

In a word...no.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Last edited by: Tom A.: Jun 28, 06 10:56

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [art vandelay] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 10:56

Post #9 of 81 (5680 views)

In Reply To:

There was a test done recently on a few tires showing that a deda clincher tire has by far the least rolling resistance of any tire. But that tire is 27mm wide.

Not to be picky or anything, but I think you are embellishing slightly...the Deda tire measured at 24mm wide.

In Reply To:

If you compare 23mm tires, some of the clinchers and tubulars are exactly the same.

Look again.

Aah, never mind...who am I kidding? You're right...It's all just a bunch of hooey.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [gottabekidding] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 10:58

Post #10 of 81 (5672 views)

In Reply To:

Oh, and if you're bombing a decent at high speed with clinchers and flat, it could be a catastrophic crash.

Run away! Run away! They'll KILL you, they will!!!!

Instant "yardsale". It's absolutely unavoidable.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:02

Post #11 of 81 (5666 views)

Flanny,

Review all the data and info you can Google...then use your finely honed reasoning skills to make your own judgement.

From what you say, it sounds like you already have some personal experience to guide you as well. Make a hypothesis and test it.

It's not "data", but I hope it helps.

Oh yeah...you just HAD to open up this can of worms again, huh? ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [gottabekidding] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:02

Post #12 of 81 (5665 views)

In Reply To:

Tubulars flat less often then clinchers. With tubulars you stand a better chance of not flatting Let's review... Tubulars:

* Have less flats

Why? Because they're made with a little bit of magic? Seriously, why?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [one_lap] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:05

Post #13 of 81 (5659 views)

One of the main reasons is that clinchers can pinch flat. If they hit a pothole, etc. the tube gets pinched against the rim and goes flat. With a tubular, there is no tube so they cannot pinch flat.

Geoffrey Nenninger

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [one_lap] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:07

Post #14 of 81 (5653 views)

I totally agree, tubulars are just as prone to flatting as a clincher. If you've ever patched a tubie and got to feel the thickness of the casing, it's awfully darn close to the same thickness as a clincher. So how could it be better against avoiding a flat? -E

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:08

Post #15 of 81 (5652 views)

In Reply To:

With a tubular, there is no tube so they cannot pinch flat.

Wow. Who knew?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Tri Fold] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:10

Post #16 of 81 (5641 views)

I did!

Geoffrey Nenninger

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:11

Post #17 of 81 (5635 views)

In Reply To:

I did!

I'll give you one chance: you are kidding when you say that tubulars have no tube, right?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Tri Fold] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:13

Post #18 of 81 (5622 views)

That's what I was thinking!!

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:13

Post #19 of 81 (5622 views)

I have never pinch flatted a clincher. Just pump up your tires before you ride (I often will even go a few days) and it won't happen.

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Tri Fold] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:14

Post #20 of 81 (5612 views)

Not a tube like a clincher has! Did you honestly not know that tubulars are not prone to pinch flats like clinchers are?

Geoffrey Nenninger

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [Flanagan] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:15

Post #21 of 81 (5606 views)

Why I race tubulars:
1) they cannot pinch flat, as there is no rim to pinch the tube against.

2) they can safely be ridden in the event of a flat, so that if you are, for example, one or two miles from transition, you can ride it in.

3) assuming you practice, I think it is faster to change a tubular than a clincher

4) depending on which wheels you use, there can be an aerodynamic advantage with tubulars. Toroidal rims such as those seen on the Bontrager Aeolus, Zipp 404 and 808, and Hed Stinger 60 & 90 make this advantage negligible. But for some wheels, this can still be a factor.

5) I am a bit sentimental, and I personally just love the "feel" of tubulars. This is totally personal.

I use Vittoria Mastik'One glue, which has been shown to be most effective for gluing on carbon rims. I also pay a lot of money for Dugast tubulars, which are extraordinarily supple and have a Crr that is comparable to the best clinchers. It may be better, but for all practical purposes, I assume it is merely equivalent.

Hope that helps with your decision. I do NOT race on tubulars because I think they are faster or because I think they are better made.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:15

Post #22 of 81 (5605 views)

So what's the little black tube-like thing on the inside of the sewed-up casing in tubular tires?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [gregk] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:16

Post #23 of 81 (5601 views)

Well I have and I pump my tires up before every ride as well. Try hitting a pothole at 45mph in a paceline! 2 flats in a spit-second!

Geoffrey Nenninger

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [GDNenn] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:18

Post #24 of 81 (5593 views)

If you hit a properly inflated clincher into a pothole, etc. hard enough to cause it to flat, you've got bigger problems - like rim damage. Hammering your tubular wheel that hard will mess it up too. You can flat by slamming a tubular through a pothole too.

Also, a tubular is a casing around a tube. Hence the name tubular. They have no beads, perhaps that's what you meant.

So, since "one of the main reasons" didn't pan out, what are the other reasons?

Re: Clichers v Tubbies [ErnieK] [ In reply to ]

Jun 28, 06 11:19

Post #25 of 81 (5592 views)

that would be a tubular tube as opposed to a clincher tube

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.