Rolling restance:
- The difference a user can feel, is that nice tubulars handles uneven surfaces (rough road) better than clinchers. This is due the construction, with individual differences (the best clinchers are better than cheap clinchers). This shock-damping directly improves the real rolling resistance, but are not handled by the standard rolling resistance tests done on completely even metal drums.
Tubulars do probably have better rolling restance in the real world then the tests indicates.

I've wondered about this too. I've had about 3 flats in the last 15,000 miles. I've never pinch flatted, in my LIFE. The only time you could maybe call it a pinch flat is when I was crowded into rolling over a sewer grate by a car and taco'd the wheel. I don't really think that was the clincher's fault. I did screw up installing a tube once when I went back to riding after a 5 year absence from the road...pinched the tube with the lever and thought I could get away with it.

Anyway, I race Pro2Race with Michelin latex on the front and Vittoria EVO CX with Michelin latex in the back. If weight really mattered you wouldn't see me riding an H3 and disc. I ride this because it is arguably the fastest combination I can race on.

For tubular fans, I can carry a spare tube, patch kit and 2 CO2 cartridges all tucked into a tiny pouch hidden behind my head tube. This weighs about 80g plus the CO2s (which you would need in either case). To be able to patch the equivalent flats in a race you'd need to carry 2 or more preglued tubulars (400g) and put them somewhere on the bike that is hardly aerodynamic...like those monstrosities I see on the back of people's seats. Or you can wing it like I saw one guy do at the GFT last year and flat at mile 60...and try to ride it all the way in like an idiot. With the weight "advantage" mostly negated by having to carry the spares, and the aero disadvantage of having crap strapped to your bike, and the Crr disadvantage of even the best tubulars, there's no point in really arguing.

Regarding handling, there are some pretty crappy clinchers...Conti 3000 is harsh and the current Vredestein I have is pretty vague with no road feedback. There are also some pretty good clinchers, Pro2Race, EVO CX, Michelin Carbon, etc. I rode on a friend's tubular set with a pair of fairly expensive Vittorias...they felt pretty much the same as my race wheels.

Regarding Beloki's crash, here's the second best thing to being on his shoulder...the guy who was 2 feet behind him, you might know Armstrong:
"All the corners were melting and the tarmac was hot. Up until that corner it wasn't slippery but when he (Beloki) braked hard he locked up the back wheel and he couldn't control it ... then the back tyre rolled and exploded. In that case you're on the (wheel) rim and there's nothing you can do." The slide started with the tire on the wheel, but rolled off when he went from the goopy pavement to the grey high traction stuff. He might have saved it if the tire had stayed on the rim. Maybe not.

---

---

... and then the person that does the gluing for this kid has to hand the wheels to his driver and/or his maid to get the old glue removed. I am not sure this "tire gluer" would let this kid him race in all but only on the most important races if he would have to take the old glue off himself ;)

I have to agree that clinchers are a great invention. It also seems that the performance diference is not that much anymore. I am still not sure that clinchers are the best choice for the most important races.

Sergio

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.

(ps. your son's performances are amazing, but when are we going to hear accounts of you doing some tri racing?)

I have not any evidence, just pointing out differences between the real world and the tests I have seen; differences that might influence the value of the tests.

If you know a bit of tire construction and physics, there is no doubth that the round tubular construction (where almost the entire tire flexes and dampen road shock) is much better than the clincher, where a smaller part (from one side of the rim to the other) flexes. That's probably the reason why manifacturers making both clinchers and tubulars makes the clinchers 1-2 mm wider. (23mm is the "standard" for clinchers, 21-22 for tubulars.)

[reply][reply]
Rolling restance:
- The difference a user can feel, is that nice tubulars handles uneven surfaces (rough road) better than clinchers. This is due the construction, with individual differences (the best clinchers are better than cheap clinchers). This shock-damping directly improves the real rolling resistance, but are not handled by the standard rolling resistance tests done on completely even metal drums.
Tubulars do probably have better rolling restance in the real world then the tests indicates.[/reply]

...and your evidence to support this opinion is where? I'm not talking anecdotal evidence, I'm talking empirical evidence.[/reply]


I have not any evidence, just pointing out differences between the real world and the tests I have seen; differences that might influence the value of the tests.

If you know a bit of tire construction and physics, there is no doubth that the round tubular construction (where almost the entire tire flexes and dampen road shock) is much better than the clincher, where a smaller part (from one side of the rim to the other) flexes. That's probably the reason why manifacturers making both clinchers and tubulars makes the clinchers 1-2 mm wider. (23mm is the "standard" for clinchers, 21-22 for tubulars.)

You must be kidding...

No, I'm serious, I wasn't trying to be a smart azz (like others), I just wanted some sort of link so I can read up on it ..... I've honestly never seen anything legitimate on the topic. Education is key.

No, I'm serious, I wasn't trying to be a smart azz (like others), I just wanted some sort of link so I can read up on it ..... I've honestly never seen anything legitimate on the topic. Education is key.

Here's Al's roller tests, which are a pretty complete summary of lots of different tires:
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm

There's also the Continental clincher/tubular drum tests that were published a while back:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html

Note that Continental's tests show the best tubular to be the VeloFlex Carbon at 34.05/34.74W with most tubulars in the 40+ range...and the best clincher at 26.4W with most in the mid 30s. Even the lowly Michelin Carbon clincher training tire is just as good as the best tubular...

I know this has been covered in another thread but the test at Bike Tech Review is flawed.

A single tire pressure was used for all the test and not the recommended pressure stated by the manufacturer. I already posted the differences with the Zipp tires and how Zipp recommends different tire pressures, but I found some Vredestein literature and it stated how it had the best rolling resistance as I recall at about 135 psi which is far different from the 120 psi used in the test. Bike Tech Review use of 120 psi was arbitary.

In all fairness, until the test is rerun at Bike Tech Review at the manufacturer's recommended pressure, Bike Tech Review cannot be used as a guide to say which tire has the best rolling resistance.

From their website: With a casing technology that permits a 145psi recommended pressure for lower rolling resistance and unsurpassed cornering consistency.

These (and other tests I have seen) shows which tire that rolls best on smooth metal drums.

All IM's I know of, have quite different surfaces, where other tires (and other pressures) are more optimal.