Can you guys explain me what is the biggest difference between this two tires? I mean in terms of performance, handle, etc…
thanks
Smarreco
This has been discussed in detail many many times. Search the forum and you’ll find tons of info.
Can you guys explain me what is the biggest difference between this two tires? I mean in terms of performance, handle, etc…
thanks
Smarreco
Short answer. When comparing tires of similar construction and with similar material tubes, the performance and “handling” are basically identical…how it’s attached to the rim makes little to no difference in those factors.
However, in order for a tubular version of a tire to match the rolling resistance of a similarly constructed clincher, it basically needs to be “welded” to the rim, which isn’t necessarily a good idea for a triathlete who may need to pull off a flatted tire and replace it during a tri bike leg.
A tubular wheel/tire setup can typically be lighter for the overall assembly when compared to an “equivalent” clincher setup…that said, however, the influence of that sort of weight difference, even when considered as rotating weight, is VASTLY overrated (especially in the context of the overall bike + rider mass)…unless you’re consistently climbing grades of 8-9% or more.
Just my 2 centavos 
There can be differences in the tires but over the last 20 years, clincher TIRES have gotten alot closer to tubular tires. The main significant difference is in the rims. Since a tubular rim does not have to have side flanges to hold a clincher tire on it, it can be made lighter than a clincher rim. A tubular rim/tire combo can be a couple 100 grams lighter than a clincher rim/tire combo. A couple hundred grams on a wheel is huge, a bigger deal than taking a pound or two off the bike frame in terms of how it makes the bike feel. Some people ride light tubular wheel/tire combos or, you can get a stronger rim and a bulletproof tire at a weight similar to a tricked out light clincher wheel/tire combo. There are other differences, some real some imagined, but the weight thing is the big one you’d actually feel.
Oh, and lots of people think they are really cool if they ride on tubulars. Having a spare tubie under seat is kind of like shaving your legs. That’s the real reason most people use them
“There can be differences in the tires but over the last 20 years, clincher TIRES have gotten alot closer to tubular tires.”
There is a MAJOR reason we can even have this debate today. Early clinchers simply lacked the quality construction and materials of the best tubulars. They cornered like crap, rolled like bricks, and were much more prone to the pinch flats, etc.
Today is a much different story.
But the history keeps the older crowd deeply entrenched with tubulars for best performance.
The reality today is that it really comes down to those other factors (weight, mounting, pinch flats, etc.) rather than the on-road performance when choosing between clincher and tubular. When both are done properly with the best available examples…neither gives up anything significant in the performance department.
Keep in mind that Kona has been won 2 years running in the women’s race on clinchers. That same athlete won a triathlon climbing Alpe d’Huez on nearly the identical setup. That is not to say CW’s particular choices were the best available examples. But it IS to say that you can safely choose a clincher setup and win on an international level.
it basically needs to be “welded” to the rim, …
Isn’t welded a little of a strong word? Where is the data that shows of a tubular performs if it is put on just how the manufacturer says (e.g. using Zipp’s method)?
Tubulars had gotten a bad rap because Bike Tech Review screwed up their first tests on tubulars and did not glue them properly. If they are going to do a test on them, why don’t they just follow the manufacturer’s instructions? Which is what 99% of us will do if we have tubulars.
It is already bad enough that they do not follow inflation guidelines.
i tend to agree with everything that has been said above, but there is something to be said about the traditions of merckx, bartali and coppi, not that we are not riding carbon and titanium instead of steel, but the tires . . . but for most people, clinchers are easier and just about the same as tubulars.
the method of gluing in the BTR test that give the tubulars a slight edge, whatever it may be, makes it very hard to get the tire off the rim.
which means you might not want to do that in a triathlon unless you have an all or nothing strategy =)
it basically needs to be “welded” to the rim, …
Isn’t welded a little of a strong word? Where is the data that shows of a tubular performs if it is put on just how the manufacturer says (e.g. using Zipp’s method)?
Tubulars had gotten a bad rap because Bike Tech Review screwed up their first tests on tubulars and did not glue them properly. If they are going to do a test on them, why don’t they just follow the manufacturer’s instructions? Which is what 99% of us will do if we have tubulars.
It is already bad enough that they do not follow inflation guidelines.
Umm… ‘Bike Tech Review’ didn’t ‘screw up’ anything–it’s a forum with some guys (including me) testing tires and reporting the results–nothing more, nothing less. Since Al’s tests were way more thorough and controlled, he compiled them into a comprehensive document, and the site hosts the results. If people want to view it as the perfect holy-grail of tire rolling resistance, that’s on them. I’m Al will be the first to say that wasn’t his intent. That said, my own testing is almost always in relative agreement with his, so I trust his results.
When Al was testing a million different tires, (often times tires which belonged to other people) he typically glued them on pretty lightly in order to keep the base tape in good shape. That said, his gluing method probably wasn’t much different than the manufacturer’s recommendations–but hey, if you want to buy 400 tires and perform your own tests in a manner which you feel is more suitable, no one is stopping you.
As far as your comments about the inflation guidelines, all you’re doing it demonstrating that you don’t really understand how pneumatic tires work, and how rolling losses come about.
BTW, I don’t think 99% of triathletes use the ‘manufacturer’s recommendations’ for gluing tubulars. I’ve never seen a manufacturer recommend using little to no glue on a section of tire to ease removal.
it basically needs to be “welded” to the rim, …
Isn’t welded a little of a strong word?
Not really. When glued to the level that give the best Crr (and brings them up to equivalent clincher level) it takes a LONG time to remove the tire without risking damage to the rim bed on a carbon wheel.
Where is the data that shows of a tubular performs if it is put on just how the manufacturer says (e.g. using Zipp’s method)?
Don’t forget the Jobst Brandt data from many moons ago…it too showed that “road glue” contributed to tubulars to having higher losses than clinchers when glued “by the book”. Also, and I’ll let Al confirm this, but I’m pretty sure he and others have also tested tires with “typical” glue jobs and found them to be more “lossy” than Al’s now recommended technique of “overgluing”, i.e. up to 3 tubes of glue PER WHEEL, using the stiffest and strongest glue out there (Vittoria Mastik 1). That level of adhesion isn’t going to make for quick tire changes on a tri course. And when you hear of triathletes doing things like leaving sections of the tire unglued to make tire changes easier, you quickly realize that clinchers for triathletes is really a “no-brainer”
Tubulars had gotten a bad rap because Bike Tech Review screwed up their first tests on tubulars and did not glue them properly. If they are going to do a test on them, why don’t they just follow the manufacturer’s instructions? Which is what 99% of us will do if we have tubulars.
BTW, “Bike Tech Review” hasn’t done that testing…they’ve only hosted the results of the testing that Al Morrison has done in his spare time and has so graciously shared with the rest of us. He didn’t have to do that…and, of course, I’m sure he’s learned a few things in the process of testing tires in this manner. Before you go criticizing the info Al has generously shared, perhaps you should put the effort towards doing some of your own testing and making some contributions to the knowledge base, huh?
It is already bad enough that they do not follow inflation guidelines.
Sigh…I’m afraid that just shows how you are misunderstanding not only the purpose of the test, but also the effects of inflation pressure on “real roads” vs. perfectly smooth drums.
i tend to agree with everything that has been said above, **but there is something to be said about the traditions of merckx, bartali and coppi, not that we are not riding carbon and titanium instead of steel, but the tires **. . . but for most people, clinchers are easier and just about the same as tubulars.
I nominate the above for “ironic quote of the month”! 
Oh…and not “just about the same”, but in many cases, actually superior.
When both are done properly with the best available examples…neither gives up anything significant in the performance department.
Of that I am not so sure.
When both are done properly with the best available examples…neither gives up anything significant in the performance department.
Of that I am not so sure.
I’m not either–in part because right now at least, the fastest wheels available are tubulars.
By the way, take a guess what is the fastest tire I’ve yet to test?
I just bought my first set of race wheels, HED Jet 6/9 (clinchers) and I love them. I debated forever on whether to get tubulars or clinchers. In the long run I went with clinchers. I read a lot of the studies and their is very little difference in performance. For me personally it came down to a cost and convenience thing. If I was sponsored I would probably ride tubulars. But I’m not, and the thought of losing a $100 tire every time I flat didn’t make me happy. Plus, if you glue tubulars well enough to prevent losses it’s a pain in the a$$ to get one tire off and put a new one on. With clinchers, a flat is a $5-$10 fix and it takes only a few minutes. If I don’t have a good bike split with my clinchers, I can confidently say it wasn’t the wheels, but instead the engine.
Hope that helps
Chris Thornham
http://www.paintingwithpurpose.com
Roady - New Bontrager Aero TT tire?
To answer the original question: For the average Joe -Very Little.
Slightly more detail is that Tubulars cost more, are harder to mount properly, and are about a pound lighter for an equivilent wheelset (ie 404 Tubie vs Clincher).
I ride Tubies on my road bike because i ‘feel’ like the added rotational weight of a clincher was noticeable when accelerating for sprints. On the Tri bike I can ‘feel’ no difference between the wheelsets, but that is mostly because I do little to no ‘sprinting’ or hard accelerations on the tri bike. Most other ‘feel’ comes from the quality of the tire regardless of wether it is clincher or tubular.
Roady - New Bontrager Aero TT tire?
no-though that was fast… An old VF Record Tubular that was on a 404 I bought of some guy. The tire had some track usage but that was it. I’m guessing the tire is 10 yrs old or so. It tested slow when I got it, because it was barely affixed to the rim. After 3 tubes of glue on a rear disc, it’s crazy fast. Go figure…
Can you guys explain me what is the biggest difference between this two tires? I mean in terms of performance, handle, etc…
thanks
Smarreco
…that said, however, the influence of that sort of weight difference, even when considered as rotating weight, is VASTLY overrated (especially in the context of the overall bike + rider mass)…unless you’re consistently climbing grades of 8-9% or more.
Just my 2 centavos
Just one thing: the impact of the difference in weight on the moving parts, like the wheels, is huge. it´s a totally different thing than losing 1-2 pounds from the frame (or the rider)
the best set up is the one that consistently gets you to the finish line the fastest. I’ve been racing just over 25 years and all of those years have been on sew ups with one exception. I’ve also been using Continental Comp sew ups for the past 10 or so years and have exactly two race day flats with them in all of those years. New bike this year and still haven’t got my new race wheels yet so last weekend raced on my training wheels which are clinchers and got a flat with 2 miles left in the bike. They may have had less rolling resistance then my tubies, but that was of little consequence while they were rolling at walking speed for two miles.
That level of adhesion isn’t going to make for quick tire changes on a tri course. And when you hear of triathletes doing things like leaving sections of the tire unglued to make tire changes easier, you quickly realize that clinchers for triathletes is really a “no-brainer”
16 out of the top 20 men/women in hawaii on tubular…
It s not a no brainer as you call it. Both have good and bad.
I actually own the clincher set of 808 and tubular set also. Playing a lot with them. I have to consider the tubular less prone to pinch flat that is one of the big cause of flat on clincher for many but you…
when you look at the best comparing a zipp tangente tubular to a zipp tangante clincher… both properly install, it comes down to very small different. I pretty much welded my tubular to the rim… you will never take it out of the rim without tools but with a razor blade and completely cutting throught the tubies all the way to the rim… and slowly removing it by one side only… it can be done in 60-90 secondes without damaging the bed rim.
At this point, with both wheelset in my hands…i have a hard time going for one instead of the others as performance are about the same… the only point so far is, i have less chance of flating on tubies and the vittoria pit stop is a interesting option that can get you back on the road in less than 60 sec with Tubies and that wont happen with clincher.
So far in my carrer of over 100s of triathlons and about 60% of tubular…
Clincher flat 5
Tubular flat 1
definitly not a no brainer… but are you a triathlete to start with