Tubular Tyre Recommendations

Triathlon Forum
1

What TUBULAR tyre do you recommend to pair with Zipp 404 FC tubular?
(Yes, I’m an Aussie and we spell it with a “y” :slight_smile: )

Brand? Size?

The wheels will be for racing only; mostly criteriums and road races. I have a separate set of race wheels for Tri racing.

My priority considerations in order of importance are:

  • low Crr

  • good grip

  • good aero

  • puncture resistance

  • weight

Price is not an issue. These are for racing only and I am willing to pay whatever it costs for the best tyres.

I know this topic has been covered extensively, and I did try to make sense of the info already in this forum (and others), but there is so much info out there it’s hard to make sense of it.

I’m hoping someone who is up to date with the latest data may be kind enough to share their knowledge and point me in the right direction. Many thanks in advance.

2

Continental Compitition…

Yes…Jeff

3

I’ve had good results with the Conti Podium, reasonably good puncture resistance, very good grip, fast enough for racing.

4

If low rr is your first priority then you need a tyre with a latex tube. Contis have butyl tubes so I would avoid them for that reason, although they are very hard wearing and seem to be fairly puncture resistant in my experience.

Vittoria Corsa CX is a great all round tyre and has latex.

Avoid Schwalbe as they apparently switched from latex to butyl tubes some time ago without advertising it (few threads on here discussed it).

Veloflex are supposed to be very fast tyres too and use latex but not sure how durable they are as I haven’t used them personally.

5

Thanks for the suggestions and info guys :slight_smile:

Any thoughts on ideal tyre size for the 404 FC Tubular? I know there is a lot of chat about matching tyre width to rim width on clinchers but I’m not finding much on Tubulars? Is it not so important on tubulars??

6

I’ve used all the mentioned tires. My favorites were always Veloflex Carbons. Super smooth, I believe the are the same width as conti comps (22mm) and would likely work well on Zipps.

7

How about the new Vittoria Corsa Tires, 23 mm on 404 FC?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2d2ap02.jpg

8

My favorite, Veloflex Arenberg. Just rides SOOOO nice

9

Zipp’s are great low Crr and good aero.

10

What I don’t understand is with the “talking” point for new tires being about rolling resistance and pretty common knowledge that latex tubes help with rolling resistance, why make new tublars with butyl ?

Can some explain it to me ? What is the logic to making a low rolling resistance tire and going with a poor tube in it .

11

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

12

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

What do you consider “quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours”? At most it will be only a few psi in that time frame.

Also, got any data/links to back up the statement about the difference between latex and butyl tubes being “insignificant” under “true road conditions”? Everything I have points to the percentage differences holding between roller tests and field test generated Crr values.

13

Veloflex Carbon. Excellent tire for road and crit racing.

14

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

What do you consider “quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours”? At most it will be only a few psi in that time frame.

Also, got any data/links to back up the statement about the difference between latex and butyl tubes being “insignificant” under “true road conditions”? Everything I have points to the percentage differences holding between roller tests and field test generated Crr values.

Have a look at this http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/schwalbe-one-tubeless-clincher, although there is a difference, it is very slight. Further, the coast-down tests we have conducted show the aero effect is much more consequential than the .8 - 1.8watt difference that potentially exists. Further, Latex tubes are much less durable and often dry out and become very fragile long before the tire casing is worn out, especially if one is saving those for race events only.

There have been a number of critiques of rolleer testing as well.
Bill Black

15

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

What do you consider “quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours”? At most it will be only a few psi in that time frame.

Also, got any data/links to back up the statement about the difference between latex and butyl tubes being “insignificant” under “true road conditions”? Everything I have points to the percentage differences holding between roller tests and field test generated Crr values.

Have a look at this http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/specials/schwalbe-one-tubeless-clincher, although there is a difference, it is very slight. Further, the coast-down tests we have conducted show the aero effect is much more consequential than the .8 - 1.8watt difference that potentially exists. Further, Latex tubes are much less durable and often dry out and become very fragile long before the tire casing is worn out, especially if one is saving those for race events only.

There have been a number of critiques of rolleer testing as well.
Bill Black

I’ll take that as a “no” for the question about having data showing “insignificant” differences in real world conditions.

Your last statement about latex tube durability is also in error. IME, the only tubes that dried out and cracked were the old green Michelin tubes, which are no longer produced anyway.

I would also be interested in seeing fact-based critiques of roller testing too, if you have them.

16

Like others said…for low rolling resistance based on stuff around here I also switched for latex tubes which reduced the available tubies a bit.
On my training wheels I use conti competition 22/25 though, the seem to last forever.
Liked the mentioned veloflex carbon which I used in the front.
After the zipp recall i glued the specialized turbo allround in 24 front and rear.
Don’t find a significant improvement over the others, although this is just from the guts with no data.
They just wear down vary fast, not sure if I would choose em again.

17

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

What do you consider “quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours”? At most it will be only a few psi in that time frame.

Also, got any data/links to back up the statement about the difference between latex and butyl tubes being “insignificant” under “true road conditions”? Everything I have points to the percentage differences holding between roller tests and field test generated Crr values.

Have a look at this http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...ne-tubeless-clincher, although there is a difference, it is very slight. Further, the coast-down tests we have conducted show the aero effect is much more consequential than the .8 - 1.8watt difference that potentially exists. Further, Latex tubes are much less durable and often dry out and become very fragile long before the tire casing is worn out, especially if one is saving those for race events only.

There have been a number of critiques of rolleer testing as well.
Bill Black

I’ll take that as a “no” for the question about having data showing “insignificant” differences in real world conditions.

Your last statement about latex tube durability is also in error. IME, the only tubes that dried out and cracked were the old green Michelin tubes, which are no longer produced anyway.

I would also be interested in seeing fact-based critiques of roller testing too, if you have them.

There are quite a number of commentaries re lab testing vs. road testing and I’m sure you could find them if you wished to. This one is a good discussion of testing generally https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/bicycle-quarterly-performance-of-tires/ — as to the drying out of the latex tubes in tubulars, we have had bad luck with Vittorias and ceased using them years ago although perhaps that has been improved. Continental has held forth at length on the subject previously. I’m not interested in proving anyone wrong, I simply responded to a question about Tubulars with latex tubes and presented my view. There are certainly divergent views and if there weren’t, we would all be using one variety of tire.
Bill Black

18

The latex tubes bleed air and the tire can lose quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours. Further, many of the rolling resistance tests are conducted with small diameter steel drums and when tested under true road conditions, the difference is not that significant. The major factor in rolling resistance is the deflection/deformation of the sidewall of the tire (hysteresis).
Bill Black

What do you consider “quite a bit of pressure over 3-4 hours”? At most it will be only a few psi in that time frame.

Also, got any data/links to back up the statement about the difference between latex and butyl tubes being “insignificant” under “true road conditions”? Everything I have points to the percentage differences holding between roller tests and field test generated Crr values.

Have a look at this http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/...ne-tubeless-clincher, although there is a difference, it is very slight. Further, the coast-down tests we have conducted show the aero effect is much more consequential than the .8 - 1.8watt difference that potentially exists. Further, Latex tubes are much less durable and often dry out and become very fragile long before the tire casing is worn out, especially if one is saving those for race events only.

There have been a number of critiques of rolleer testing as well.
Bill Black

I’ll take that as a “no” for the question about having data showing “insignificant” differences in real world conditions.

Your last statement about latex tube durability is also in error. IME, the only tubes that dried out and cracked were the old green Michelin tubes, which are no longer produced anyway.

I would also be interested in seeing fact-based critiques of roller testing too, if you have them.

There are quite a number of commentaries re lab testing vs. road testing and I’m sure you could find them if you wished to. This one is a good discussion of testing generally https://janheine.wordpress.com/...erformance-of-tires/ — as to the drying out of the latex tubes in tubulars, we have had bad luck with Vittorias and ceased using them years ago although perhaps that has been improved. Continental has held forth at length on the subject previously. I’m not interested in proving anyone wrong, I simply responded to a question about Tubulars with latex tubes and presented my view. There are certainly divergent views and if there weren’t, we would all be using one variety of tire.
Bill Black

I said “fact based”. The methodology used in that test you link above is wrought with error. There have been many evaluations pointing that out.

19

Hi Tom A.

Thank you for joining the conversation. Since posting my question I have found my way to your latest Crr Spreadsheet at Blather 'bout Bikes blog. Love you work! Very generous of you to share the results of your (time consuming) testing for the benefit of us amateurs.

I see the Zipp Tangente SL Speed 27C tests out fastest of the tubbies for Crr. And that the same tyre in 24C is close to next best tubular.

Would the 27C be a good match for the 404 FC? Or would the aero penalty of the extra width negate the Crr advantage? Am I better off with the 24C on a 404 FC for its combination of Crr and aero qualities?

How about a 24C on the front - 27C on the rear??

20

Hi Tom A.

Thank you for joining the conversation. Since posting my question I have found my way to your latest Crr Spreadsheet at Blather 'bout Bikes blog. Love you work! Very generous of you to share the results of your (time consuming) testing for the benefit of us amateurs.

I see the Zipp Tangente SL Speed 27C tests out fastest of the tubbies for Crr. And that the same tyre in 24C is close to next best tubular.

Would the 27C be a good match for the 404 FC? Or would the aero penalty of the extra width negate the Crr advantage? Am I better off with the 24C on a 404 FC for its combination of Crr and aero qualities?

How about a 24C on the front - 27C on the rear??

I don’t have aero data of what you are all asking about, but your last statement is probably a good choice.

BTW, remember that I haven’t tested very many tubulars, so my list isn’t very comprehensive for those…

Thanks for the kind words :slight_smile: