Duh! Checked that first them brakes rub frame etc.
It’s the tires or tape!
Just got in from the road and the tufo are harder to turn over.
And this “harder to turn over” is the result of less then a 30 minute test? Your posts are just over 1/2 hour apart.
I still can’t believe that the difference between tape and glue is all that much, that most of the people on this forum will ride faster with glue then with tape!!
I’ve ridden with the S3s both with and without tape (not glued…just held on by pressure). Speed was the same either way (at the same power).
What is interesting though is that all last year I just had a feeling that I was slower on my race bike (P3, 404s, Tufo S3s, 13 cm drop) than I was on my training bike (beater Raleigh 700, training wheels and aerobars even with seat) at a given wattage. Its one of those things where no single data point was conclusive but I’ll be damned if I don’t firmly believe my race bike is slower because of the aero wheels. But if you bring the tires into it…that might make sense because I just can’t imagine why I’d be the only person slower with aero wheels.
This S3 test is very interesting…let us know what you find out with continued testing. It would be pretty costly for me to experiment with different clinchers so I’m very interested in any results you might get.I’m racing this weekend and I’m so convinced my expensive powertapped aero-wheels are slower that I’m leaving them at home. A P3 without aero wheels just isn’t right…
ot
“It could be tape or the tires.”
It could be many other things, too.
Maybe tri a different tire on the rim? Never used the S3, but I will tell you that the Elite road on my reynolds rim is no question faster than any of the wheels my friends use. Clincher or tubular.
Well!
Both myself and friend found the same thing.
Loss of 60-80 watts on rollers and 30-40 on the trainer.
Rollers 2 wheels to cause an issue, half that amount with the trainer.
???
I don’t know the correct resolution…but it is repeating itself.
Do you mind explaining your methodology a bit more? Did you use the same wheel on the same power device? What specific wheels and tires were used? Were the wheels and tires the same size? Was the power device recalibrated each time? Did you try it with and without tufo tape?
I just took my P3 out for the first spin of the year yesterday without training wheels and I was faster than I was last year with Zipps and S3s…and I wasn’t even going all out. I know, very scientific.
ot
You’re still a long way from concluding anything both interesting and scientifically rigorous. I’m pushing the issue with you because I used Tufo tubular-clinchers last year and for some reason I always felt slower. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but that’s they way I felt. Perhaps it’s more the tire than the mounting medium. Perhaps it has NOTHING to do with the tape. Perhaps Tufo’s are sensitive to over or under-inflation. Perhaps there’s nothing to it. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Your post poses more questions than it answers.
I wish you’d pursue this more objectively. It’s an interesting path to go down.
Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but the hubs are also a source of friction, and if the hubs are thrashed on the Tufo Tape equipped wheels that could explain it as well. I don’t like using the trainer or rollers for a test like this.
Take brand new hubs (same make and model) with one set built up clincher and the other tubular with tape. Take them to an indoor velodrome and do some laps on both set ups and get back to us with the results. …kidding… But that test would actually prove something.
Agreed. There are many variables unaccounted for.
I’ll settle for well-defined anecdotal data at this point. After a year of training and racing with powertaps I’m almost certain my training wheels (Velocity Deep-Vs) are faster than my Zipps w/ S3 tubulars (and, yes, with tufo tape). Any single data point is easy to explain away but a whole years worth…?
ot
I think well-defined is a stretch at this point as he’s not event attempted to isolate any of the variables. Could be the hubs, could be the tires, could be the tire inflation, could be the glue, could be…
It’s interesting. The tools are out there to really learn a lot about this stuff. If I had an SRM I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Which is why I asked for more information. I don’t expect someone to test more because I’m curious but I do want to know the specifics of what he did.
Oh yeah…I forgot to ask about tire pressure :).
ot
Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but the hubs are also a source of friction, and if the hubs are thrashed on the Tufo Tape equipped wheels that could explain it as well. I don’t like using the trainer or rollers for a test like this.
Take brand new hubs (same make and model) with one set built up clincher and the other tubular with tape. Take them to an indoor velodrome and do some laps on both set ups and get back to us with the results. …kidding… But that test would actually prove something.
Any significant contribution to power loss by the hubs would be readily discernible, all you need to do is spin the axle. If it is reasonably smooth and friction free, you can pretty much discount the hubs as bearing friction is such a small factor in the scheme of things. Admittedly, the rollers could magnify bearing friction disproportionately compared with riding on the road, but nonetheless you’d still need a noticeable problem to start having a quantifiable effect on power loss.
I’m hoping to do some testing on my race wheels in a couple of weeks, next week I’m away, as I have an A race at the end of May. But when I was rather disappointed with the subjective ‘feel’ of speed, I went back and jacked the pressure up to 145 front and 150 rear, and they felt noticeable faster. They also did not ride as harshly as what I would have expected from my past experience with clinchers.
A few questions that come to mind:
-Do some models of Tufo have unusually high rolling resistance? If so, which ones?
-If, as Jobst Brandt has postulated, hysterisis loss from the glue bond increases the rolling resistance of sew ups, does this have some contribution to the commonly passed on anecdotal reports that sew ups have better shock absorption at the same pressure?
-Does running sew ups at considerably higher pressure than clinchers equalize rolling resistance, not just because of less deformation of the tire but also because the higher pressure results in less hysterisis loss from the glue bond?
-How much does the amount of hop of sew ups contribute to rolling resistance?
-How much does the rolling resistance of sew ups vary depending on the skill of the installer?
-Can the higher rolling resistance for sew ups reported by Brandt and built into the analytic cycling calcs be mitigated, or eliminated, or even reversed, by proper choice of tire with supple casing, and minimal hop, and by using higher pressure? If so, which tires have consistently the least hop and most supple casing?
I’ll pass this along to the Bicycling Science Test Foundation for evaluation, I’m sure they’ll get back to me in a few days… 
The Zipp’s in both cases are almost new 250 miles, as are the tires.
The first thing after brake rub or frame rub, was to check the bearings
The zipp’s wil spin 1/3 longer with the same amount of effort to spin the wheel on my park wheel stand than the wheels that product the 140 watt vs the 225 watt effort. It could be the tires, I tried to take on for the Tufo’s off the tape last night and could not get it off, that darn stuff Tufo Extrem" holds like nothing I have ever seen.
What psi are you running the two sets of tires at?
SRM Pro was used, tires were 180 psi for one test and 210 for another test.
That’s probably half of the problem right there. Not only are you running a very high psi (most tires have the lowest rolling resistance between 110 and 130 psi) but the two tires aren’t running the same psi. Can you try again with say, 120 psi in both?
the correct PSI for these tires is 170-220
.
Those PSIs seem close enough. We would all have problems if a 15% difference in PSI accounts for 80watts!
Are the tires the same size?