Tubs vs clinchers: Clinchers are faster..

[twothirds]

I'll just get this out of the way first. I'm no gear junkie or weight-weenie. My newest bike is eight years old, my track bike is steel, and when I was racing I was regularly beating competitors on "nicer" equipment. Was I meticulous about the condition of my gear and looking after it? Yes, everything was dialed in. This was just as much about efficiency as it was about safety. You don't want anything breaking on you mid F200.

Everything, I mean EVERYTHING else would have to be EQUAL to declare that it was this or that piece of equipment won the race. So with reality as my witness, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Yes, that is true. I never argued that. You're not going to be able to replicate or equalize things perfectly. It's quite possible for the guy on the faster equipment to have his "advantage" negated by a gust of wind (if we're talking about small finishing margins).

There is no constant in cycling, not even the course or track.

Indoors. Two competitors in a pursuit on the "same" track at the "same" time. How are the track surface and environmental conditions not constants? I get that out on a TT course between different riders the wind shifts, the weather conditions can change, riders take different lines. Those aren't constants.

When you have a result like M Sport pointed out, less than a second, the bible thumpers will, like a knee jerk reaction credit the gear instead of realizing that those were actually two different people racing, not clones on different equipment. A bad set up is one thing, but to assume that decimal point of a sec finish is attributed to lets say, tire selection, to stay on topic, you may be a bit brainwashed.

I never said that the finish was attributed SOLELY to equipment choice. I just said that it CONTRIBUTED to it. I get that this isn't a lab test and that the environment is constantly changing.

If you read what I actually wrote in my previous post you would've seen that was the point I was making was that of contribution vs. attribution. The tech geeks can defend the equipment and it's effect all they want. The old school purist will immediately say that the equipment doesn't matter. They are both right and both wrong at the same time.

How efficiently a bicycle outputs the energy that's put through it matters. An improvement or decline anywhere in that system has an effect, no matter the external variables. Brake rub, rolling resistance, it all matters. Physics is physics.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

I'll just get this out of the way first. I'm no gear junkie or weight-weenie. My newest bike is eight years old, my track bike is steel, and when I was racing I was regularly beating competitors on "nicer" equipment. Was I meticulous about the condition of my gear and looking after it? Yes, everything was dialed in. This was just as much about efficiency as it was about safety. You don't want anything breaking on you mid F200.



Yes, that is true. I never argued that. You're not going to be able to replicate or equalize things perfectly. It's quite possible for the guy on the faster equipment to have his "advantage" negated by a gust of wind (if we're talking about small finishing margins).



Indoors. Two competitors in a pursuit on the "same" track at the "same" time. How are the track surface and environmental conditions not constants? I get that out on a TT course between different riders the wind shifts, the weather conditions can change, riders take different lines. Those aren't constants.



I never said that the finish was attributed SOLELY to equipment choice. I just said that it CONTRIBUTED to it. I get that this isn't a lab test and that the environment is constantly changing.

If you read what I actually wrote in my previous post you would've seen that was the point I was making was that of contribution vs. attribution. The tech geeks can defend the equipment and it's effect all they want. The old school purist will immediately say that the equipment doesn't matter. They are both right and both wrong at the same time.

How efficiently a bicycle outputs the energy that's put through it matters. An improvement or decline anywhere in that system has an effect, no matter the external variables. Brake rub, rolling resistance, it all matters. Physics is physics.

So is biology.

A $lotsa$ F1 or GP engine doesn't have the same output hour to hour...don't expect a person to.

 

[simo1733]

These are bicycles, not F1 cars or GP bikes. The "science" only goes so far in our world.

Ron Hayles allegedely once said that when he was doing wind tunnel testing, he put his aero helmet on backwards for a laugh and it made no diifference.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So is biology.

A $lotsa$ F1 or GP engine doesn't have the same output hour to hour...don't expect a person to.

So why don't all you people go and ride with big fat knobby MTB type tyres at 30psi on your TT rigs? According to some on here, it would make no difference to an individual's result.

In the case of my TT, I think our start times were either 1-min or 2-min apart.

Simple fact is, had my competitor used better tyres, his ride in all probability would have been somewhat faster. I can't see how having different tyres would have substantially changes his physiological performance on the day.

In the long run he improved and went on to win a world championship and Gold medal at London 2012. Good on him (nice young guy too).

 

[Tinman]

You guys have any thoughts on coarse chip seal roads and 25 or 23 preferred? Eg. riding in NZ and Australia. Riding GP4000 clinchers on Fulcrum racing zeros mostly, and EVO CX tubs on 50/80 mm carbon rims for the special days. But both wheelsets 23's. Weight 70 kg. Carbon frames; thin seat stay Chinarello roadbike (FM015), Cervelo P2 tribike.

 

[simo1733]

So why don't all you people go and ride with big fat knobby MTB type tyres at 30psi on your TT rigs? According to some on here, it would make no difference to an individual's result.

In the case of my TT, I think our start times were either 1-min or 2-min apart.

Simple fact is, had my competitor used better tyres, his ride in all probability would have been somewhat faster. I can't see how having different tyres would have substantially changes his physiological performance on the day.

In the long run he improved and went on to win a world championship and Gold medal at London 2012. Good on him (nice young guy too).

Wiggins won London 2012 but not the worlds unless you mean Brownlee.Either way I'm impressed.

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

So why don't all you people go and ride with big fat knobby MTB type tyres at 30psi on your TT rigs? According to some on here, it would make no difference to an individual's result.

In the case of my TT, I think our start times were either 1-min or 2-min apart.

Simple fact is, had my competitor used better tyres, his ride in all probability would have been somewhat faster. I can't see how having different tyres would have substantially changes his physiological performance on the day.

In the long run he improved and went on to win a world championship and Gold medal at London 2012. Good on him (nice young guy too).

Knobby's, really? You're grasping at straws now Alex. You have absolutely no way to attribute time gains or losses to a tire because what a lab roller testing tires came up with. This is the perfect case study of what the industry is trying to create, believers. Done with this thread, it's like trying to tell religious fanatics that their god doesn't exist.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Wiggins won London 2012 but not the worlds unless you mean Brownlee.Either way I'm impressed.

Paralympics. I had a leg amputation in 2007 after a training accident and made a competitive comeback, including riding paracycling events, although most of my racing now days is masters age racing.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Knobby's, really? You're grasping at straws now Alex. You have absolutely no way to attribute time gains or losses to a tire because what a lab roller testing tires came up with. This is the perfect case study of what the industry is trying to create, believers. Done with this thread, it's like trying to tell religious fanatics that their god doesn't exist.

?

So relying on actual evidence is akin to being a religious fanatic who holds beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Evidence on the performance of various tyres is quite well established, as are the means to evaluate them. So why on earth would people want to ignore such evidence and believe tyres make no difference? Such an approach would be more akin to the sort of cognitive dissonance religious fanatics are known for.

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

?

So relying on actual evidence is akin to being a religious fanatic who holds beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Evidence on the performance of various tyres is quite well established, as are the means to evaluate them. So why on earth would people want to ignore such evidence and believe tyres make no difference? Such an approach would be more akin to the sort of cognitive dissonance religious fanatics are known for.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are performance differences from tire to tire, never denied that. However, the idea of switching from a Gommitalia Targa K to a Veloflex Record is somehow going to make you faster because the numbers look better on paper is where the flaw is. The Matrix has you.

 

[Polyarmour]

Alex Simmons you are wasting your time here. The evidence based approach works everywhere else except cycling apparently. I must have seen this lab vs real world argument a thousand times now. You get any result in a "test" you are meant to completely ignore it because there are lots of other variables etc etc. What's really happening is people don't understand enough about physics and the relationships between the relevant variables. We'd still be riding around on Penny Farthings if we'd paid too much attention to them.

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

Alex Simmons you are wasting your time here. The evidence based approach works everywhere else except cycling apparently. I must have seen this lab vs real world argument a thousand times now. You get any result in a "test" you are meant to completely ignore it because there are lots of other variables etc etc. What's really happening is people don't understand enough about physics and the relationships between the relevant variables. We'd still be riding around on Penny Farthings if we'd paid too much attention to them.

Ok professor, let's leave the cycling world for a moment. Explain how Valentino Rossi, 7 time Moto GP Champ, though most of his career has been on a slower bike and tires than his competitors, tested and confirmed. On paper, in lab testing, what he's done should be impossible, and yet, he's still a 7 time champ.

 

[Jukebox]

Ok professor, let's leave the cycling world for a moment. Explain how Valentino Rossi, 7 time Moto GP Champ, though most of his career has been on a slower bike and tires than his competitors, tested and confirmed. On paper, in lab testing, what he's done should be impossible, and yet, he's still a 7 time champ.

Right, but Moto GP is very much about cornering skill, compared with track racing, which relies heavily on whoever has the best watts/drag/rolling resistance, etc.

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

Ugggh [big sigh]. All hope is lost.

 

[dsut4392]

Ok professor, let's leave the cycling world for a moment. Explain how Valentino Rossi, 7 time Moto GP Champ, though most of his career has been on a slower bike and tires than his competitors, tested and confirmed. On paper, in lab testing, what he's done should be impossible, and yet, he's still a 7 time champ.

I'm assuming you mean that Rossi is such a superior rider that he could have all sorts of material disadvantages and still win?

In which case, "Gotcha! You have just identified the fatal flaw in your own argument!"

No matter the number of variables, changing only one of them (in your example the rider) can and does affect (note "affect" <> "determine") the result.

How big does a marginal gain have to be before it is no longer "marginal"? As observed in Alex's example, that all depends on the size of the margin.

Alternatively, I accept that I may be completely misunderstanding your point about Rossi. You could equally well be saying "it doesn't matter what else may have changed in those races, Fate/God/Flying Spaghetti Monster determined that Rossi would win", in which case I retract my "Gotcha" and substitute "Religious fanatic yourself!".

 

[Giuseppe Magnetico]

I'm assuming you mean that Rossi is such a superior rider that he could have all sorts of material disadvantages and still win?

In which case, "Gotcha! You have just identified the fatal flaw in your own argument!"

No matter the number of variables, changing only one of them (in your example the rider) can and does affect (note "affect" <> "determine") the result.

How big does a marginal gain have to be before it is no longer "marginal"? As observed in Alex's example, that all depends on the size of the margin.

Alternatively, I accept that I may be completely misunderstanding your point about Rossi. You could equally well be saying "it doesn't matter what else may have changed in those races, Fate/God/Flying Spaghetti Monster determined that Rossi would win", in which case I retract my "Gotcha" and substitute "Religious fanatic yourself!".

Wrong again, you have no "gotcha" moment. In Moto GP the rider is less than 50% of the rider/machine equation. In cycling the rider is attributed over 90%, more like 97% of final performance numbers, so of the remaining 3% I wonder, what fraction is left for a tire?

You need identical clones or robots racing the exact same lines, in the exact same conditions rigged up with sensors to be able to attribute time gains or losses to a tire. Even in the most sterile indoor track.

How did LA win anything on Hutchinson tires? I tried them for one season and they are the worst!!!! Seriously!

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

My case rests Your Honour.

BTW - having coached two riders to hour records on the track, we examine these things very closely. I have another one going for a record attempt in February.

One thing we are going to check (amongst a range of tests) is tyre pressure for the track. Lots a myth surrounds tyre pressure and Crr.

 

[blutto]

My case rests Your Honour.

BTW - having coached two riders to hour records on the track, we examine these things very closely. I have another one going for a record attempt in February.

One thing we are going to check (amongst a range of tests) is tyre pressure for the track. Lots a myth surrounds tyre pressure and Crr.

....it would be great if you could bring your findings to this forum ( though I would understand if you kept anything really ground breaking under your hat to maintain competitive advantage )....and good luck with the prep for that record attempt....

Cheers

blutto

 

[JayKosta]

I wholeheartedly agree that there are performance differences from tire to tire, never denied that. However, the idea of switching from a Gommitalia Targa K to a Veloflex Record is somehow going to make you faster because the numbers look better on paper is where the flaw is.
...

==================================================

Yep!
The truth is that 'everthing makes a difference', but sometimes the difference gets lost in the noise, or there are unexpected consequences that negate the anticipated change.

For example 'faster rolling tires' might result in a traction loss that requires slower corner speed.

But, 'fast rolling tires' should provide a performance improvement as long as they don't hurt other performance considerations. Whether the rider can take advantage of the improvement that the tires give is another question.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[Parera]

Back to the OP, Tour magazine is a ****ing joke. German bike companies ALWAYS come out on top in their stupid product testing. I wish I could get my hands on a print edition so I could wipe my *** with it.

 

[Parera]

Also, I'm done with Continental. I spent way too much their rubber this last year too put up with as many flats/failures as I did. Anyways, Maxxis makes better offroad tires (and Schwalbe for that matter), road tires I kind of don't care at this point. Schwalbe Ultremo is spendy but worth it I guess.

 

[avanti]

..............
For example 'faster rolling tires' might result in a traction loss that requires slower corner speed.
...........................

Very true - I assume that is why some tires use different compounds for the tire center and for tire shoulders.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

==================================================

Yep!
The truth is that 'everthing makes a difference', but sometimes the difference gets lost in the noise, or there are unexpected consequences that negate the anticipated change.

For example 'faster rolling tires' might result in a traction loss that requires slower corner speed.

But, 'fast rolling tires' should provide a performance improvement as long as they don't hurt other performance considerations. Whether the rider can take advantage of the improvement that the tires give is another question.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Hence what I said back here:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1082387&postcount=55

 

[dsut4392]

Wrong again, you have no "gotcha" moment. In Moto GP the rider is less than 50% of the rider/machine equation. In cycling the rider is attributed over 90%, more like 97% of final performance numbers, so of the remaining 3% I wonder, what fraction is left for a tire?

You need identical clones or robots racing the exact same lines, in the exact same conditions rigged up with sensors to be able to attribute time gains or losses to a tire. Even in the most sterile indoor track.

How did LA win anything on Hutchinson tires? I tried them for one season and they are the worst!!!! Seriously!

My "Gotcha" stands. Your argument boils down to "101 is not much bigger than 100, therefore 101 = 100". You can change it to "10001 = 10000", or "small difference = no difference" if you like, but in the real world it just ain't so.

If you truly believe your assertion that the bike is only 3-10% of the equation, stick some fat knobbies on for your next bunch ride (put them on your wheels or stick them up our shorts, either works for me No, I don't care whether or not they fit between your 'seat stays' ). Yes, it's an example you dismissed earlier, but it's only ludicrous because the effect is obviously large. "Of course 100 is bigger than 10, duh. That proves my math is OK! But I still insist 101 = 100!"

The "identical clone" is exactly what you have in Alex's post. He didn't say some other rider, on some other day, riding a different line, on some other course, with different power output would have been faster on a faster tire. He said one particular rider, on one particular day, riding one particular line, on one particular course, at the same power output would have been faster on a faster tire.

Regarding Hutchinson tires, we're on the same page, except that last I checked LA never won very much in his career

 

[simo1733]

My "Gotcha" stands. Your argument boils down to "101 is not much bigger than 100, therefore 101 = 100". You can change it to "10001 = 10000", or "small difference = no difference" if you like, but in the real world it just ain't so.

If you truly believe your assertion that the bike is only 3-10% of the equation, stick some fat knobbies on for your next bunch ride (put them on your wheels or stick them up our shorts, either works for me No, I don't care whether or not they fit between your 'seat stays' ). Yes, it's an example you dismissed earlier, but it's only ludicrous because the effect is obviously large. "Of course 100 is bigger than 10, duh. That proves my math is OK! But I still insist 101 = 100!"

The "identical clone" is exactly what you have in Alex's post. He didn't say some other rider, on some other day, riding a different line, on some other course, with different power output would have been faster on a faster tire. He said one particular rider, on one particular day, riding one particular line, on one particular course, at the same power output would have been faster on a faster tire.

Regarding Hutchinson tires, we're on the same page, except that last I checked LA never won very much in his career

Much like his Bontrager wheels , the Hutchinsons normally come out for the lap of honour on the Champs.Most of the time he was riding tubulars that had been matured in the cellar of Julien De Vries.