I’m trying to figure out which setup is lighter…a 404 clincher rim with tire and tube or a 404 tubie with tubular tire. Obviously the tubie rim is much lighter, but is this offset by the tubular tire being heavier?
Never ridden tubular, so I;m not sure how heavy the tires actually are.
Tubulars are still lighter.
Grant
Check this out:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/weights.htm
.
This really comes out to about a wash. If you want real performance, you might go with these tubulars:
Veloflex carbon: 260 grams each
Dugast speed silk: 210 grams each
or the following clincher/tube combos:
Mich. Pro 2 Light & mich latex tube: 190+70 = 260 grams
Veloflex record & mich latex tube: 130+70 = 200 grams
The additional grams for rim tape or glue balance out too.
You could get lighter with some other tubulars (e.g. tufo) but the performance sacrifice would be absurd.
The nice tubular race wheels tend to be several hundred grams lighter than similar clinchers - just look at zipp’s webiste for comparison. Jens posted the weights of tires yet where clinchers catch up is with spares.
Spare tubular weighs about 200 grams more than spare tube…even more if you just carry a patch kit…but then with a tubular you don’t need tire irons…
Then there is the rolling resistance thing. Then there are spare issues - how to carry a spare tubular - how to glue the 1st tubular to min. RR - how to remove it if you flat…
The weight thing is easy to look at (and fairly black and white…) but probably one of the least important things to think about with regards to race wheels…
Dave
True - hadn’t thought about the spare factor. I’m really looking at the options as I shop for race wheels for my wife. She rides 650’s, on a very light 48cm frame, and is quite small herself (small but strong). All of our courses are quite hilly, so in this case the weight of the whole package really is important. Hadn’t thought about the spare, but that’s a great point. I’m generally inclined to stick with clinchers, if not only for the ease of roadside repair.
If it was for myself, I would agree that weight is not all that important. But in this case, it is pretty key.
Personally, I think that Tubbies are the way to go, especially for a smaller person where hills are a factor. Weight is a constant, where a flat happens sometimes. Also, with tubulars you are less likely to flat because there are no pinch flats where the tube will pinch in the rim, creating a hole. With a tubular, if you get a flat, it is also a slow leak and you can keep riding, that won’t happen with a clincher…when your flat your flat.
I don’t know what distance races your wife does, but for shorter distances where weight is more important, you probably will not even have to carry a spare.
She does only long course - 1/2’s and IM’s.
Out of curiosity…do tubies generally flat less than clinchers, or is that just a stupid statement?
This really comes out to about a wash. If you want real performance, you might go with these tubulars:
Veloflex carbon: 260 grams each
Dugast speed silk: 210 grams each
or the following clincher/tube combos:
Mich. Pro 2 Light & mich latex tube: 190+70 = 260 grams
Veloflex record & mich latex tube: 130+70 = 200 grams
The additional grams for rim tape or glue balance out too.
You could get lighter with some other tubulars (e.g. tufo) but the performance sacrifice would be absurd.
Why comparing light clinchers with heavy tubulars? I think it’s more fair with this:
If you look at the Veloflex range - all weights according to the vendor’s web-site:
The lightest (time trial/track):
Clincher: Veloflex record & mich latex tube: 130+70 = 200 grams
Tubular: Veloflex Record = 180 grams
Road racing:
Clincher: Veloflex pave & mich latex tube: 180+70 = 250 grams
Tubular: Veloflex Carbon = 240 grams
Continental:
-Lightest
Clincher: Supersonic: 140 + 70 = 210 g
Tubular: Tempo = 200g
Tubulars are always a bit lighter when comparing same kind of tyre.
There are big differences between the different vendors regarding rim weight difference.
Check vendor’s web-site. Zipp’s are much heavier in clincher version.
Tubulars do flat less because you eliminate a major cause of flats…pinched tubes.
tubulars are quite a bit lighter, not sure on exact weights but I believe 404s are a good 200g difference for the wheelset. This doesn’t seem like much but go find a friend with a 404 tubular and then another friend with a 404 clincher, heft both wheels, and be amazed at how much lighter the tubular “feels,” especially on the fronts it’s pretty crazy…
That being said, just make sure she’s comfy changing a flat on the tubular, it’s not tough but many people find it daunting.
At the risk of jinxing myself…I haven’t had a pinch flat in about 15 years. Proper inflation and decent riding technique almost totally negates that possibility. I’m tired of seeing “pinch flats” listed as something a clincher rider should be overly concerned with.
I’m tired of seeing “pinch flats” listed as something a clincher rider should be overly concerned with.
I agree completely. Where do people get all these pinch flats they fear so much? I’ve ridden over 150,000 miles since I got into cycling seriously a decade ago and I’ve NEVER, EVER had a pinch flat.
Changing subjects, the subject of weight vs. rolling resistance has been discussed by the data/testing freaks over at the Biketechreview.com forum. Comparing top quality clincher setups and top quality tubular setups, you’d have to be riding on a grade steeper than 8% before the losses from the higher rolling resistance of a tubular would be offset by their weight advantage. In other words, for most riding situations, the weight penalty of a clincher would be the lesser evil than the rolling resistance penalty of a tubular.
Don’t shoot me. I’m just the messenger. If you want details, go to the Biketechreview.com forum and read.
.