Tubs vs clinchers: Clinchers are faster.. - Page 2 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Bikes & Gear > General

General Which tyres for Paris-Roubaix? Whose time trial bike is fastest? Suspension mountain bikes or singlespeeders? Talk equipment here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-05-12, 08:52
Scorpius Scorpius is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 22
Default

Didn't Tony Martin win the 2011 World TT on a pair of limited edition Continental Grand Prix RS clincher tyres.

http://www.conti-online.com/generato...4000rs_de.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-12, 09:18
laziali's Avatar
laziali laziali is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpius View Post
Didn't Tony Martin win the 2011 World TT on a pair of limited edition Continental Grand Prix RS clincher tyres.

http://www.conti-online.com/generato...4000rs_de.html
He sure did. When I pointed that out a number of months ago on another tubs v clinchers thread here the response from one poster was "yeah, one guy" you can't win against that - I still remember folks saying it's only one guy when Lemond used the clip on aero bars in the 89 Tour. Fignon sitting weeping begged to differ ...

Last edited by laziali; 11-05-12 at 10:16.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-12, 14:02
Bustedknuckle's Avatar
Bustedknuckle Bustedknuckle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroDeal View Post
The tests show a range of nearly 20 Watts at 35 km/hr between different tires. That is a rather huge amount.

Not even for racing, for just hanging with a group of bros, you will be doing a lot more work if you choose the wrong tire.
20 watts really isn't a huge amount, and that's from the highest to the lowest. Average differences are teeny, lost in the noise. 'Lot more work'...only if all other things are equal, and they never are. By making blanket statements means one guy has some gadget, the other doesn't, the one with it, automatically wins..which is never the case.

AND if the 'bro stage' is a long one, the comfort of the guy with tubulars will make him fresher at the end of the 200KM ride..which means he will be using less 'wattage' than his rock hard, clincher 'bro'.

BTW-Lemond would have won even if he were on a Schwinn letour...Fignon had a HUGE saddle sore and could barely sit on his saddle..on that last stage in '89.

Last edited by Bustedknuckle; 11-05-12 at 14:04.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-05-12, 15:31
Giuseppe Magnetico's Avatar
Giuseppe Magnetico Giuseppe Magnetico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laziali View Post
He sure did. When I pointed that out a number of months ago on another tubs v clinchers thread here the response from one poster was "yeah, one guy" you can't win against that - I still remember folks saying it's only one guy when Lemond used the clip on aero bars in the 89 Tour. Fignon sitting weeping begged to differ ...
Fred Guesdon won 97 Roubaix on clinchers, didn't seem to make much of an impact on tire choice over the years. Hate to break it to you this way, but Martin would have won that TT on any tire that was available to him. Had it even been a tubeless set up guaranteed all the apologists from that camp would be on here talking about the death of tubulars. It ain't happening anytime soon.

The 89 Tdf aero bar analogy doesn't apply. Thanks to that we found difference between a rider in a TT position and one that isn't is a big, big deal. But with the tires we're comparing apples to apples. Tire performance from clincher to tubular to tubeless is NOT the determining factor for winning or losing races. FFWD back to 2011 Worlds TT. You think Wiggo and Sparticus were thinking "damn, if only were were riding clinchers!" HA-HA!!

You guys put too much faith in equipment. The manufacturers absolutely $$$adore$$$ people like this..
__________________
–––The user formerly known as RDV4ROUBAIX–––

Last edited by Giuseppe Magnetico; 11-05-12 at 17:20.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-05-12, 16:54
Master50's Avatar
Master50 Master50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bustedknuckle View Post
20 watts really isn't a huge amount, and that's from the highest to the lowest. Average differences are teeny, lost in the noise. 'Lot more work'...only if all other things are equal, and they never are. By making blanket statements means one guy has some gadget, the other doesn't, the one with it, automatically wins..which is never the case.

AND if the 'bro stage' is a long one, the comfort of the guy with tubulars will make him fresher at the end of the 200KM ride..which means he will be using less 'wattage' than his rock hard, clincher 'bro'.

BTW-Lemond would have won even if he were on a Schwinn letour...Fignon had a HUGE saddle sore and could barely sit on his saddle..on that last stage in '89.
You were doing so great discounting those clinchers until you made a broad sweeping statement about the conditions people use clinchers. What after 200 km the guy with the rock hard tubulars pumped up to 160 is beat by the guy on the 25 clinchers pumped up to 90. Not everyone pumps their tires up to rock hard. I tend to inflate my 23 to 100 ish and the 25 on the rear to 90 ish. Lots of chip seal roads here. The last time I regularly road tubular wheels they were heavy and the tires I could afford were say continental sprinters. My current favourites wheels are lighter than those old 32 spoke Campy C record hubs. Only carbon wheels are lighter than my Shamals and frankly these aluminum wheels are plenty great all rounders which are the same weight in tubular or clincher. Go tubeless and the tubular wheel is maybe 60 grams heavier. I look forward to tubeless when the time comes to replace a rim but I cannot see any real need to go back to tubular. I would rather save another grand and get a pair of mad fibre or lightweight clinchers. Then there is the actual need for all the performance gains. Like I am beating anyone? I have a lot more money now to support tubulars but why? So I can get a flat on a mountain decent? I am 57 years old with a 8000 Km a year habit over the last 27 years. I have never lost a tire after a flat but I have rolled a tubular in a crash. I can hardly imagine how badly I need that little bit of insurance and from what I have read the new tubeless tires stay on the rims a bit better than standard clinchers?
Almost all pro teams use clinchers including in the races but I agree tubulars are by far the most common. In terms of just living with them Clinchers are the leader and I expect that tubeless will get to the top.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-05-12, 17:24
avanti avanti is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: At 1,585 m elevation
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Simmons/RST View Post
...................Tyre weight is of little significance to performance (beyond how it relates to Crr). 2 orders of magnitude less important than aero and Crr.
............................
But minimizing wheel/tire weight is important for races with lots of climbing (where aero drag is less of a factor) or for races where there is lots of deceleration and acceleration.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-06-12, 00:28
M Sport's Avatar
M Sport M Sport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Magnetico View Post
Tire performance from clincher to tubular to tubeless is NOT the determining factor for winning or losing races. FFWD back to 2011 Worlds TT. You think Wiggo and Sparticus were thinking "damn, if only were were riding clinchers!" HA-HA!! .
Whatever they were thinking I doubt they were laughing much after just getting hazed by a minute and a half.

FWIW I didn't need research to tell me my best all round tyre choice was a GP4000s, I worked that out over the last decade of natural selection.
__________________
Lo Sceriffo - To call him the Fabian Cancellara of his day would be more accurate when Fabian wins yet another Paris-Roubaix, a few more classics, the World Championship road race, a Grand Tour and continues to kick @rse for another five years. - Velominati
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-06-12, 03:26
laziali's Avatar
laziali laziali is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuseppe Magnetico View Post
...

You guys put too much faith in equipment. The manufacturers absolutely $$$adore$$$ people like this..
On the contrary, I pay a LOT less now to ride Schwalbe Ultremo clinchers than I used to pay for tubulars when I was racing. (To be honest, I can't tell the difference now, although I sure could back 20 years ago when I last raced on tubs) So I'm spending less, not more - manufacturer's dream you said?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-06-12, 05:12
Giuseppe Magnetico's Avatar
Giuseppe Magnetico Giuseppe Magnetico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Rocky Mountain High
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by laziali View Post
On the contrary, I pay a LOT less now to ride Schwalbe Ultremo clinchers than I used to pay for tubulars when I was racing. (To be honest, I can't tell the difference now, although I sure could back 20 years ago when I last raced on tubs) So I'm spending less, not more - manufacturer's dream you said?
I do like Schwable CX tires, but I'm a Conti fan and they FINALLY released the CycloXKing in tubular form. All over that for next season! Clincher tech has gotten better, more on par with the feel of tubulars, but they will never be the same. It's always been the benchmark, the marketing d-bag that writes descriptions for clincher and tubeless systems is constantly referring to tubulars: "rides like a tubular", "supple like a tubular", "handles like a tubular", and so on. It's no wonder that the most raced tires are tubulars if all the other systems keep on with the comparisons. In the PT it's always been more than 90% tubular, only in the last 10-15 years has tubeless even scratched the surface, clinchers in the PT are much greater of anomaly. The mfg's adoration thing was pointed more at the OP than you. I know you laziali, we go way back, kind of.

Tubulars rule on race day, no if, ands, or buts.
__________________
–––The user formerly known as RDV4ROUBAIX–––
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-06-12, 05:51
BroDeal's Avatar
BroDeal BroDeal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Above 5000 feet
Posts: 12,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bustedknuckle View Post
20 watts really isn't a huge amount, and that's from the highest to the lowest. Average differences are teeny, lost in the noise. 'Lot more work'...only if all other things are equal, and they never are.
Twenty Watts is twenty Watts. It's huge for recreational cycling speeds. The article has many tires that have a ten Watt difference with the better ones. That is also large. As I said, choose the wrong tire and you will be hurting compared to someone who chooses one of the better tires.
__________________
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.