Tubular suggestions

Triathlon Forum
1

I know this gets discussed to death, but I would like some opinions . I have done a search and haven’t seen many opinions.
I typically ride my Kestrel KM40 with 650c Michelin Pro Race clinchers and like the way they ride and handle. I also have a set of Hed3 tubular wheels and also a Renn disc. I have Tufo S3 lite 19mm tires on the race wheels. I don’t use my race wheels very often as I don’t particularly like the way they ride and think they handle rather skittishly.

Do any of you have suggestions? Should I try a larger diameter S3 or other Tufo tire or another brand and size tire entirely?

Thanks,

Richard

2

2 “standout” tubular tires based on various testing would be:

Veloflex Record or Carbon (same basic tire, Records are narrower and more expensive)

Vittoria Open Corsa Evo Chrono

Veloflex tires are made in Italy by the people who stayed on when Vittoria moved their manufacturing facilities to Taiwan

No reason to look at any other tires. The Vittorias are much easier to find and a little cheaper. The Veloflexes aren’t rare (like Dugasts), but often sold out and a little pricey. For the record, those Tufos are among the worst tires tested ;(

3

Conti Competition 22mm
.

4

You might want to rethink that …

My “paid for” data has the Conti Competition tubular 22mm at over 6 watts per tire slower than the best tested Veloflex Record 20mm.

This link is from Continentals own testing facility (see tables at the bottom) that also shows it to be over 6 watts down per tire (not many tires tested here though, only about 12 vs. 50 in the other test)

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-1503651.html

5

I won’t charge to mention Conti Comps are the most winning tire in triathlon! ;o)

I’m not a tire engineer, but figure after the tire is “broken in” (initial tread pattern is worn)…those findings would change. Even if it doesn’t, I’ll take the 6 watt penalty as puncture insurance.

My spare is a Vittoria Corsa Evo though…

6

I used the vittoria corsa and felt that they were a very fast tire. With that being said, I went through 3 of them on 5 rides. It seemed that any type of rock I hit would puncture the tire (I only run 120psi). I just switched to Conti Sprinters and havent had any flat since switching.

7

I agree with rroof. I am also liking my Hutchinsons.

8

Micheline Pro Race 2 Clinchers are way faster than any tubualrs you are going to be able to use in triathlon. The limited amount of glue needed in order to change a flat makes the whole decision such a no brainer…buy clinchers!

9

With those pro race clinchers I notice every bump or crack on the road. With my conti competitions I don’t even remember the road. How much is that worth on race day? If this is such a clear cut issue why do the top tier pro athletes still opt for sew ups? There is more to it than just rolling resistance in a lab and a bunch of n=1 hill roll downs.

10

I just bought and installed the new Vittoria “Triathlon” tubular tire, it has a butyl rubber tube rather than the latex but still weighs in at 190 grams, planning on my first ride on them tonight. They seem pretty supple, I’m not sure how puncture resistant they are though. They are 21mm width which is the width that Zipp recommends to use with their wheels.

11

I 2nd the Veloflex Carbons, ride really nice and no issues with quality/puncture to date.

12

I used the vittoria corsa and felt that they were a very fast tire. With that being said, I went through 3 of them on 5 rides

Wow! My wife is doing her first HIM 8/4 on the Vittoria’s. It will be her first race with tubies/606 set up.

13

I heard good things about tufos.

14

I shouldve added the disclaimer that I went through all of those tires on Louisiana roads where the highway dept is really not known for taking very good care of the roads.

15

Where I will disagree with rroof is on his general TUFO comments. The S3 Lites at higher tire pressures, 160-180 psi, have proven to have less
rolling resistance than the Vittoria Corsa Evo based on Jens and Al Morrison’s test data. In general, he is right about TUFO’s being much slower,
but not in the case of the S3’s. If your TUFO’s are still in good shape, I see no reason to peel them off and replace them with Vittoria’s until
you need to.

Here is the link I posted in another thread a few days ago about this very subject. Look at the bottom of the page to find the test data for
higher tire pressures.

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

BTW, what am I doing wrong with links? I can’t get them to highlight in my posts so people can click through? They just appear as text only.
I’m using the link button, but nothing happens.

tbro

16

Where I will disagree with rroof is on his general TUFO comments. The S3 Lites at higher tire pressures, 160-180 psi, have proven to have less
rolling resistance than the Vittoria Corsa Evo based on Jens and Al Morrison’s test data. In general, he is right about TUFO’s being much slower,
but not in the case of the S3’s. If your TUFO’s are still in good shape, I see no reason to peel them off and replace them with Vittoria’s until
you need to.

Here is the link I posted in another thread a few days ago about this very subject. Look at the bottom of the page to find the test data for
higher tire pressures.

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev6.pdf

BTW, what am I doing wrong with links? I can’t get them to highlight in my posts so people can click through? They just appear as text only.
I’m using the link button, but nothing happens.

tbro

Careful…with regards to rolling resistance vs. tire pressure, you need to balance the tire testing on smooth rollers with other data taken from actual road surfaces. For example, here’s Jens’ original testing of S3s vs.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ring=tufo%20;#390031

His “field testing” not only showed the S3s to be slower than Vittoria Open Corsas and some old Michelin Axial Pro Lights, but that the S3s were SLOWER at 160 psi than at 125 psi.

In addition, although their methodology wasn’t the greatest, in the coast down (on an asphalt paved soap box derby hill) test data published by Bicycle Quarterly recently, there was a comparison of a Clement Criterium (21mm) tubular at 105 psi vs. 130 psi…it too was SLOWER at the higher pressure.

The thing to remember is that with increasing tire pressure, the rolling resistance of THE TIRE is reduced. This is great on perfectly smooth surfaces (like a roller drum or a smooth track.) However, a tire also performs the function of suspension, and increasing tire pressure will stiffen up this “suspension” so that on rough surfaces more of the road vibrations will be transmitted through the tire into the rest of the bike+rider system instead of being almost completely elastically absorbed and returned to the road surface by the tire. Transmitting this energy through the tire allows it to be absorbed in other more “lossy” parts of the system, such as the rider’s hands and butt. In the case of tubulars, it’s also possible that making the tire stiffer will cause the glue attachment to be flexed more, which will also increase the losses of the whole system.

So…even though the rolling resistance of THE TIRE may be reduced, you actually may go slower since the “resistance to forward motion” of the whole rider+bike system is increased. YMMV :wink:

Oh yeah…the link button only works for me in the “basic editor”.

17

Tom,

Thanks for the info. I had not put much thought into the practical “real world” application of these tires and how road conditions play a huge
role in the actual results versus how their stats look on paper in a controled testing environment. What about wheel selection? Since I race on
H3’s, would those or other carbon wheels be affected by higher psi levels as much as a deep v aluminum race wheel that doesn’t have the same
energy absorption capabilities? Does weight of the rider make a difference? I know some manufacturers recommend higher psi levels for their
wheels as the weight of the rider increases.

Obviously, a lot of variables to consider.

tbro

18

"No reason to look at any other tires. The Vittorias are much easier to find and a little cheaper. The Veloflexes aren’t rare (like Dugasts), but often sold out and a little pricey. For the record, those Tufos are among the worst tires tested ;( "

FWIW
probikekit.com has the lowest prices on these that I’ve seen.
Also, check out biketiresdirect.com and worldclasscycles.com

19

Tom,

Thanks for the info. I had not put much thought into the practical “real world” application of these tires and how road conditions play a huge
role in the actual results versus how their stats look on paper in a controled testing environment. What about wheel selection? Since I race on
H3’s, would those or other carbon wheels be affected by higher psi levels as much as a deep v aluminum race wheel that doesn’t have the same
energy absorption capabilities? Does weight of the rider make a difference? I know some manufacturers recommend higher psi levels for their
wheels as the weight of the rider increases.

Obviously, a lot of variables to consider.

tbro

Personally, I think the “energy absorption” capabilities of carbon wheels is a bit overstated…and in reality, in order for energy to be absorbed, you need to have distortion. Besides, if energy is being absorbed in the wheels, then IMO the tire isn’t doing part of it’s job :wink:

The problem is that tires are SOO much more flexible than the vertical compliance of wheels, that with those 2 “springs” arranged in series, the spring constant of the tire overwhelms total stiffness of a tire+wheel.

I recall looking at this a little while ago. IIRC, the vertical compliance of wheels can typically range from 8,000 to 20,000 lbs/in. while a tire is typically ~1400 lbs/in. Considering these as 2 springs attached “end to end” (i.e. in series) that means we’d expect the total vertical compliance to be in the range of ~1200-1300 lbs/in. In fact, comparing a 20,000 lbs/in. wheel vs. a wheel that has half the vertical compliance (i.e. 10,000 lbs/in) shows that the reduction in the TOTAL vertical compliance changes on the order of only 6% for a 50% reduction in wheel compliance. As can be seen, it’s REALLY the tire that dominates the vertical compliance of the wheel+tire.

Since good tires are highly elastic and energy efficient, doesn’t it make sense to keep as much compliance as is practical in the tire? In other words, to NOT stiffen them up by running ultra high pressures?

20

Just like a downhill ski racer, you want to maintain as much contact with the snow as possible to keep your speed at an optimum level.
If a tire is overinflated, then I’m assuming based on your comments, you are increasing the “spring effect” and reducing the quality of
road/tire contact in order to reach the tire’s maximum speed potential within the limits of the bike and rider’s capabilities?

tbro