ARe these tests on asphalt or a track?????

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

A number of us have tested tubulars and clinchers on real asphalt. The results are consistent and repeatable.



-jens

yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, .... :)

rmur

Man, just imagine if Jan had been running clinchers instead of tubulars all these years. Maybe he'd be the one with Sheryl.

<<A number of us have tested tubulars and clinchers on real asphalt. The results are consistent and repeatable.>>

You've said this a few times......so what's the answer?

The best tubular in the Tour magazine test (the veloflex carbon) does not do as well as any of the better clinchers.



-jens

<<The best tubular in the Tour magazine test (the veloflex carbon) does not do as well as any of the better clinchers.>>

No need to be vague, I'm not challenging the results of your test, just want to know what they are.

Which tires should I use? (for maximum speed)

Michelin Pro Race 2. No one has ever done a rolling resistance test that had this tire perform less than near the top and the puncture resistance is far better than other tires with similar RR.

I would go so far as to say, this may be one of the ONLY clear cut choices a person could make for building the fastest bike. Racing with a disk might be another, but then you still have to choose which disk. As for tires... Buy the Pro Race 2 and then move on to other areas as your tire choice is taken care of. Done deal. No second guessing. No worries the competition has better gear in that department. It is easy and everyone can sleep well.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

Well.... look at the list above. The top 4 clinchers are all quite good. I've tested all of them.

-jens

or michelin carbons...they last a heck of a lot longer than the pro race 2's and will flat a lot less. You're not giving up that much either.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

That would be my guess -- if only to avoid pinch-flats. I weigh ~85kg (with bike) and I found that 100 is too light; I got pinch flats. 110 seems to do the trick, and my measured rolling resistance is as low as the charts above indicate (for the upper-range clinchers).

It's the repeating of things that were, in the original, merely made up or conjectured that creates all these persistent myths.

Others have test on drums, roads and the whole range of surfaces and they keep getting the same results.

But -- I heartily encourage people to keep riding tubulars. Put sealant in them. Glue them softly so you can get them off in races. And, by all means, pump them to the max pressure printed on the sidewall. I especially encourage everyone in the M45-49 AG to do this. See you at Nat's!

Hmmm... I wouldn't consider a Michelin Carbon for racing. That would require ignoring factors directly related to speed. Rolling resistance and weight. I get 5000+ miles out of Pro/Pro Race/Pro Race 2. I'm still riding a Michelin Pro (older than the Pro Race, and Pro Race 2) as a training tire. Can't see any reason to look for a tire that lasts longer.

For a training tire, the Carbon might be a good choice. Personally, I dont' race on the tires I train with. After a few races the race tires become the training tires.

---

----------------------------------
Justin in Austin, get it? :)

Cool races:
- Redman
- Desoto American Triple T

[reply]In all honesty, it actually warms my heart to see people still claiming that tubulars are as good as clinchers :-)[/reply]

Thanks for replying so thoroughly so I didn't have to try to figure out how to say the same thing while jetlagged from my trip to China. ;-)

BTW-I agree with Jens on the tire choice, and what really annoys me about the data is they say "narrow is higher RR" but don't have a single comparison with the same tire and 2 widths. I found pressure to be more important than tire width. Also, the RR on clinchers changes pretty substantially from 100 to 120psi, lower as you go higher. The same effect isn't true of tubulars for some reason, I found a couple actually increasing in RR as pressure increased. Seeing a couple of the tires I've ran in the same order and approximate magnitude percentage different makes me feel better about my test setup. :)

---

---

Less deformation is not always what you want. It works on a track (or steel drum), but can slow a tire down on asphalt roads -- even smooth ones. The tire bounces over imperfections, rather than deforms around them. The net is a loss of speed. A tire that is supple, and deforms readily, and returns to shape readily, is what makes a low Crr number. So, hard is not better, again except on tracks and metal drums. The same feature that makes a fast tire on a test rig (one that deforms at the contact patch and returns to shape without heating up or squiggling on the glue) makes it fast on real roads, but only so long as it isn't pumped up too high.

On the other note: The lower one's CdA, the more that Crr matters. It eats up a greater proportion of the power. A rider with a CdA of 0.32 doesn't have the Crr worries of a guy with a CdA of 0.25.

As always, the idea is a nice slick aero setup, with low Crr tires. Folks can argue the numbers all they want, but I have yet to have a triathlete (about my size) step forward who can go as fast as guys like Jens and me at the same power output.

OK, if I've distilled all this discussion down correctly, I understand that there are very good clinchers that are probably lower in rolling resistance than the best tubular. At worst, they're just as good. Taking into account wanting a bit of deformation (for comfort and lower Crr) and good puncture resistance because having to stop negates all of this, I should use:

23 mm Michelin Pro Race 2s with a latex tube.

But which wheels for that 'nice slick aero setup' go with these? Or does that not matter as all clincher interfaces are ~ equal?

[quote]OK, if I've distilled all this discussion down correctly, I understand that there are very good clinchers that are probably lower in rolling resistance than the best tubular.[/quote]

Not "probably"...they are demonstrably better.

[quote]I should use:

23 mm Michelin Pro Race 2s with a latex tube.[/quote]


That's a tough combo to beat. Don't use the Vittoria tube...stick with the Michelin. The Vittoria's have "issues".

[quote]But which wheels for that 'nice slick aero setup' go with these? Or does that not matter as all clincher interfaces are ~ equal?
[/quote]

Whichever clinchers you prefer...the interfaces are ~equal. Zipp, however, does claim to have done some shape optimization to make their wheels work better with clinchers...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

So, are you and Ashburn racing on clinchers or tubies?

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.

If you consider the 30+watt difference between my old Tufos and my current ProRace2s (observed BEFORE reading this article) to be SMALL then more power to you and I heartily encourage all guys 30-39 to do lots of squats and race tubbies to your hearts content. I, personally, would like to be be 10-20 minutes faster at my next IM.

Tubbies are a much bigger PITA, are slower, are less durable (in my experience) and far more expensive. This isn't a tough decision.

ot

I am glad this talk came up when it did. I am trying to decide what to race on next year, and likely the next few years. I am leaning towards a 999 setup since I am racing flat courses next year, maybe get a 404 front for the following year when I will be more on hills. So then it comes down to tubular vs clincher. Here are my thoughts, you can hate them if you want. These are the facts first.

Tubie:

Pro:

lighter wheels

Con:

Glue, harder to carry a spare, I can change a clincher faster, should change out brake pads on hilly courses.

Clinchers:

Pro:

eaiser to deal with - carrying a spare and changing

Con:

Heavier

Now the thing that I wonder about is not so much the rolling resisance, but which is more aero. I have read things about the clincher tire/rim interface being an aero mess. I will tell you I have done a 5:58 on clinchers at IMLP and a 5:18 on tubulars at IMFL, but I was in better shape at FL. Obviously the results are impacted by numerous things, but the point is to me that those times are somewhatclose considering the courses. Really there is no test that has shown the differences conclusively. Probably would need some type of animatronic (sp) person sized rider in a wind tunnel on a asphalt covered treadmill, with the same wheel just c vs. t. Is that too much too ask.

---

Brian

Really? Where?

In September, I did a $5,000 cash purse sprint triathlon that included a steep, ~1mile climb (I averaged about 9mph and ~275W on it) in the middle of the 14.3 mile bike leg. Of the >400 entrants, I saw about half a dozen disks in transition; I usually see scores and scores of them at local races. Three or four of the top ten finishers (myself included) had disks. The overall winner, whose bike split was 3:00 faster than the next fastest, used a disk.

You won't be doing any course where the weight penalty of a disk outweighs the aero benefit.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I just had to check out your website:

---

Power testing:

Can you pump out 1000 watts? Lance can for over an hour. Done with the
help of our Compu-Trainer, we can test your limits, and recommend position
changes to increase power production. Of course power is only a part of the
equation for speed. Power + Aero position + Comfort = Speed. The power
test includes initial test and 2 month follow-up.

---

1000 watts for an hour? Hmmm.

---

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

Another 'easy' one. A powertapped rear (clincher) wheel with CH aerocover (unless you are SRM level rich) and an aero front clincher wheel of your choosing will make you into a faster and smarter racer.

I've been where you are and I did the whole Zipp tubbie thing...now I wish I hadn't invested the time and money and sacrificed a season (2004) of race results. You are free to believe whatever you'd like but personal experience backed up by study after study of 'unscientific tests' consistently reaching the same conclusions makes for more than enough validation to me.

ot

The other thing to remember for all the tubular bashers is that clinchers only show better or equal in these tests when used with thin latex tubes, these tubes have significantly less RR than butyl so if you want to run clinchers for racing you really have to run latex tubes, which is something that very few people do.
---
I glanced at the article quickly but didn't see this information. do you know if they did use latex or butyl tubes?

---

Josef
-------
blog