Tubulars for racing, most definitely!

As for expense, places like probikekit.com sell good tubulars for a reasonable price.

Pros:

less likely to pinch flat.

Run higher pressure

Easier and quicker to change

Glued properly, they ride fine.

Good decision!

Tubulars are slower than clinchers.







.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Depends on the tubular, the glue, the tube and the clincher. I have seen it both ways.

Yup - but the best poossible tubular setup is a wash with a good clincher, and then the tires are impossible to get off quickly, which obviates one of the big tubular advantages for tri.

...and honestly, how many people do you really think are running "fast" tubular setups? It's uncommon enough to be statistically non-significant...



.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I would say that the racing population is probably .001% or less running the fast tubular setup, considering that there is only really one tubular tire that can compete with the fastest clincher options, of which there are only two or three. Also, to make it "fast" you need to use the right glue and methods, and if running clinchers, you need to run the right tube (credit=jens).

Well, we agree then.

Fast Clincher setup = good wheel +Michelin Pro Race (or light, or service course..) or Deda Tre, or Vittoria open, or probably several others + latex tube.

Fast Tubular setup = Dugast or Veloflex + shellac (or non-existant track glue...)

(as per Jens' latest tests, the new Dugasts seem to have lost a step now that they are using the Hutchinson treads [which was what Lance specced on his, btw...])

I would therefore feel pretty comfortable in saying "tubulars are slow," since the entire years production of "fast" tubulars would, in all probability, instantly dissappear if everyone on this site decided to run them tomorrow...











.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

[Quote: instantly dissappear if everyone on this site decided to run them tomorrow]

yes ... you are correct ... tubulars are very very slow ...

:)

I know there have been a million and one threads about the tub vs. clincher thing, but 2 questions since you guys (and a few others) seem to know a lot about both.

1) Are latex tubes more likely to flat?

2) Is the best glue method using a lot of glue?

Thanks, Brian

reply:

1)No

2)No

Lots of good info on the topic at www.Biketechreview.com





.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

   

I'm afraid I've done myself a disservice by being so open about the results of my testing. A few things I've noticed lately:

* None of the good tires are available cheap anymore. I used to be able to get Vittoria KSs for $29. Not anymore...

* I can't sell any of my old stuff, because everyone figures I've tested it and it's too slow.

* Some people who were formerly easy to beat have changed gear and are now much harder to beat.

I'm ready to start a disinformation campaign......

-- jens

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

Hi Jens,

I think the answer is pretty simple - you need to follow Kraig's example, and start charging for all the test data!

www.jenstechreview.com





.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Have you checked out the new (2006 models) Conti Competitions? They seem more supple and flexible than in the past.

I realize clinchers have improved greatly over the years but if they really were faster, don't you think the top pro teams would be riding clinchers? Most wheel and tire manufacturers make both so don't see why sponsorship alone drives the decision.

carbon clinchers are inherently less safe than carbon tubulars. That alone should be sufficient reason to go for the tubular version.

that's one of the dumber things I've read in a while....

"Have you checked out the new (2006 models) Conti Competitions? They seem more supple and flexible than in the past. "

- Conti has a really bad track record in terms of rolling resistance, so until I see some data to support the idea that they have changed something significant, they have to be placed in the slow category. *But*, I have to admit, I have won 10 races on Conti tubular tires this season, including 4 time trials - too broke/lazy to change, and the one race I rode "good" tubulars, I flatted, and lost a stage race as a result. So, as always, the engine is the most important thing :0)

"I realize clinchers have improved greatly over the years but if they really were faster, don't you think the top pro teams would be riding clinchers? Most wheel and tire manufacturers make both so don't see why sponsorship alone drives the decision."

- This has been debated to death here and on other more technical groups. Suffice to say that many of the "top pro teams" are significantly less savvy than you would expect.


"carbon clinchers are inherently less safe than carbon tubulars. That alone should be sufficient reason to go for the tubular version."

- I agree with a previous poster. This is an asinine statement.





.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Have you ever done a test comparing 650c and 700c for rolling resistance? I did some tests last weekend comparing 700c Conti Gatorskins (28c with a Bontrager "Thorn-proof" innertube), 700c Michelin Pro-Race 23c (standard butyl tube), and 650c VeloFlex Record Tubular. Huge difference between the Gatorskins and the other two (the tube was probably as much to blame as the tire). The Veloflex vs Michelin came out much closer, with the Michelin still winning by a clear margin. I think most of that is 650c vs 700c, with the 700's taking an advantage in Crr but loosing some of that back in aerodynamics/weight in a real time-trial. Of course I was using different bikes and wheels also, which I would guess was almost a wash...weight favoring the 700, aero favoring the 650, and my own weight being the dominant factor. My general impression was that a 700c setup might be slightly faster, but it's hard to resolve whether 650 really are more aerodynamic, and if so, at what speed the Crr-aero trade-off crosses over. I'm left with an impression but no conclusion.

The gatorskins are my training setup and I was wondering how much I give up to others on group rides. Turns out it is significant...which is great!

There must be a lot of folks that haven't read your data, or maybe I was just lucky, but when I sold my used tubular race wheels on ebay I did way better than I expected. Helps when you replace items such as a used rare Hed 3D sew up disk with a new clincher Renn disk, I made good money on that swap alone. I'll sacrifice the cool factor for faster (not to mention cheaper) any day.

Why? you don't think they "fudged" the data, do you? Remember, they had the guys from Conti helping them out (it's their machine) and the Conti tires didn't fare too well IMHO.


OK...which are you complaining about? The pressure or the smoothness? The reason that pressure was chosen is that is actually close to the best pressure to use in either type of tire to minimize the resistance to forward motion of the entire bicycle + rider system. Pay close attention that I did NOT say "to minimize the rolling resistance of the tire"...there's a difference.

The only place pressures higher than that are useful are on a perfectly smooth surface like an indoor track...and, ironically, if you want to get good RR numbers on a smooth drum...but that wasn't the point of the testing, now was it? ;-)


The specific type of road glue isn't going to make an appreciable change to the performance of the tubulars, at least not enough to have them leapfrog the best clinchers. For the clincher tubes, if they used butyl, that just means the clinchers are even that much better (since the RR will be lower with latex)...and, if they used latex, then the existing rankings stand. So...what's the problem there?


A little "quality time" with our friend Google should garner you more than enough reading material...

Sigh...I think I'm in with Jens and Gary. Time to just be quiet and fire up the disinformation campaign.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"Sigh...I think I'm in with Jens and Gary. Time to just be quiet and fire up the disinformation campaign. "




It's the ST version of the Flat Earth Society!

(Or the global warming "debate.")

Sweet!



.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I don't even know why I'm bothering. If you're skeptical of test results, how will me providing you with links to test results help?

On the off chance you approach this with an open mind:

There are too many links discussing the fact that running a higher pressure will increase rolling resistance. Here is one. Please avail yourself of Google for more. http://www.velonews.com/...articles/7508.0.html The most telling section:

"There is simply no question about it; rolling resistance tests conducted with bicycle tires rolling over surfaces akin to normal road surfaces always indicate the lowest rolling resistance at pressures a lot closer to 100psi than to 170psi!"

There's the higher pressure issue.

I'm sorry to hear that your former career was cut short due to injury. I'm sure you have popeye forearms and super nimble fingers. But to say that you can rip off a tubular and mount and seat a new one faster than I can unseat a clincher bead, rip out and replace a tube, and reseat the bead is kind of silly. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, contact me and we'll have a change-off. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. I might lose, but both tubular and clinchers can be changed very quickly - provided the operator knows what they're doing.

As for showing otherwise... well, I did show otherwise on the first point (your skepticism seems to be what you're standing on regarding pressures, not any linked studies or even well regarded anectodal reports). And the changing the tire issue is one of practiced skill, which I'd be happy to show you any time you want to stop by.

btw. your other comments on steel drum, etc. were completely beside the point.