# Tubular repair on the road



## geomoney (Oct 9, 2005)

I'm in the market for a new set of wheels, and I'm torn between going with a tubular or clincher design. I understand the benefits of the tubular.....in most instances a lighter wheelset than a comperable clincher version (for example, a Reynolds DV tubular vs clincher), the alleged superior ride quality, etc. There's just one major item that concerns me.....I only ride recreationally, and the concern being the moment I get a flat. I realize it's "just" a tire, and can be repaired, but I don't want to spend an hour (or more) on the side of the road in the middle of wherever trying to fix it. Is there someone who can tell me what I would be up against while I am out on the road? Am I calling the wife to pick me up, or can I place a spare tire that I'm carrying on the rim with Tufo tape (in a reasonable amount of time) and cautiously ride home? 

I've read as much as I can about mounting tubulars, and in the workshop it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. But that's with all the tools, cleaners, rags, etc in front of me. I understand that the tire can also be repaired by unthreading the inner tube and patching it, but I've never done this before, and would just like to understand if that's a reasonable option while on the side of the road? 

I know to some it may seem that it shouldn't be an issue, but that comes from experience. I have none when it comes to tubulars. Can anyone offer any feedback on this, or should I stick with what I know and stay with a clincher design.


----------



## ru1-2cycle (Jan 7, 2006)

*Tubular...*

I am planning to carry an extra tubular and a couple of CO2 cartridges
when I get my 50MM carbon Vuelta wheels. I am also planning 
to pre-treat the tubulars with Vittoria pit stop, one can for each tubular,
and this preventive action, and with a little luck and avoiding
bad routes should keep anyone puncture free, a sort of 
having anti-puncture insurance, he-he, with the 2mm gash
limitation. 
Of course, in case all these measures fail, I will try to stay 
on my wife's good side, in case I need her "taxi" services... ru1-2cycle


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

From what I gather and have read, you can replace your tubular with a new tire that's been stretched and has glue on it. This will allow you to get home and remount it more securely and repair the flat if you want.

I had the same worries when switching. I bought a small light weight Tufo as a spare.

but I now add Specialized Air-Lock or NoTubes formula in the tubs after mounting. This will repair most flats on the fly. Then I carry a few CO2s and a can of Vittoria Pit Stop.

My tubulars have had 2 flats fixed on the fly. One during a century ride last year. I just toped off the tire with a bit of air after the hole sealed up.

Now last week I got a 2" cut in the tire and I was flat on the side of the road and asked someone to come get me. It's only the second time I have even cut a tire to the point of getting stranded. On clincher I could have boot it and rode home.

But most flats can and will be repaired with pre-treatment or a can of Pit Stop of FastAir. Or you can carry an extra pre-glued tubular like some still do.

I say think about it then go for it!!


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

A preglued tire can be carried along and used as a spare, as Dirt Boy mentioned. However, it won't be attached as well, so additional riding care is required after a flat. It also means you are carrying an additional tube _and tire, _pretty much negating any weight savings of having the tubs on the bike. I understand using Tufo tape over an existing glue base is a really bad idea. On the plus side, once one has some experience, a tubular change (no tape) is faster than a clincher tube change, though the difference is small. 

The more modern response is to use the self-healing products, but I don't trust them completely for minor punctures, and as mentioned for major kaka, they'll leave you short.

I used tubbies as a pup, and occasionally want to get another set just for old time's sake. But about the time I get to hunting down rims and spokes, I start remembering the hassles, and decide against. Most folks put ride quality at a dead heat for quality rubber. It's arguably true that tubs handle better, but it only matters out on the edges of handling that even mid-cat racers rarely find need for. Some argue that tubulars can't be snakebit, but as a practical matter neither can a properly-inflated clincher. Testing has concluded that clinchers have lower rolling resistance, though the difference is small. Some say that tubulars are safer in the event of a blowout, and it's marginally true. The biggest part of that advantage is in packs - if you are riding alone or in a small group, it matter somewhat less. I've flatted a lot of clinchers out of competition, and never wrecked as a result. Clinchers are undeniably easier to deal with. Personally, I can't recommend tubulars for recreational (or training) riding, unless they are wanted simply for the 'something different' factor. Even for racing, tubbies are probably more in the 'lucky sock' category than a meaningful competitive edge.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*+1 danl1's message*

IMO, not enough advantage to make up for the trouble, for a recreational rider. Not a close call, IMO.


----------



## geomoney (Oct 9, 2005)

Based on the responses above, something else just came to mind......the whole reason I thought of going this route was the approx 200 plus or minus grams of weight with a tubular vs clincher wheel of a comparable manufacturer. If I end up putting sealant in both tires, that reduces (depending on how much is needed) some of the weight benefit. 

I haven't completely eliminated the thought, but as far as the responses I've seen so far, appears that I'm leaning toward what I'm familiar with.....clinchers. Something tells me to keep it simple.......


----------



## Joe Biker (Nov 7, 2007)

I think that whether you ride clinchers or tubular is matter of what works for you. Personally, I have tubular wheelsets and prefer the softer ride of tubulars.

I carry a spare tubular in my underseat pack. I use Tufo Extreme tape and have never had a problem or an issue. I also carry a can of Vittoria Pitt Stop. So in essence, I have two lines of defense. 

In the event of a flat, I use the Pitt Stop. Should it not work or should I get a second flat I can strip off the old tire and install the new tire just as fast as changing a tube in a clincher. However, I really can't undertsand why the speed makes any difference unless you are racing.

Personally, I find that the ride quality I get from tubulars is compatible with my bottom and for me, what really matters is the interpersonal relationship between the two. ;-)


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

geomoney said:


> Based on the responses above, something else just came to mind......the whole reason I thought of going this route was the approx 200 plus or minus grams of weight with a tubular vs clincher wheel of a comparable manufacturer. If I end up putting sealant in both tires, that reduces (depending on how much is needed) some of the weight benefit.
> 
> I haven't completely eliminated the thought, but as far as the responses I've seen so far, appears that I'm leaning toward what I'm familiar with.....clinchers. Something tells me to keep it simple.......


Sealent add 20-50g per tire. The overall ride IMO on tubulars is better.

This is my feeling between the these combos:

24mm Niobium rim/Vittoria Open Corsa CX/Latex tubes

25mm Niobium rim/Vittoria Corsa CX tubular

I will compare the Veloflex carbon tubs with the Velofelx Black 180g clinchers.

I don't and will never race but I am liking tubulars more. I aslo have an addtional wheelset that I use with clinchers for the main ride and a back-up bike with clinchers as well.

My new carbon wheels that I soon hope to get built will also be tubular.

Yes, putting new clinchers on compared to tubulars is faster. But once you learn to mount a tub it's not that hard.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

As someone who rode, trained and raced on tubulars exculsively for the first 24 years of my riding and clinchers for the last 22 years I'll just say this: unless you *need* the n'th degree of speed, lightness, comfort or handling, go with top end clinchers.

For those first 24 years, light clinchers just didn't exists.

See Dan's post #4 for some other opinions I agree with.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Doing simple math*



geomoney said:


> Based on the responses above, something else just came to mind......the whole reason I thought of going this route was the approx 200 plus or minus grams of weight with a tubular vs clincher wheel of a comparable manufacturer. If I end up putting sealant in both tires, that reduces (depending on how much is needed) some of the weight benefit.


You never had that 200 gm savings in the first place. With tubulars, you need to carry a spare tire which weighs around 150 gm more the tube you carry when riding clinchers. Throw in the sealant, and you never saved the weight in the first place. I rode tubies for 30 years and switched to clinchers a decade ago. I have NEVER looked back.


----------



## djg (Nov 27, 2001)

If you ride roads filled with glass, or in parts of the country where there are thorn-type things all over, you might have an issue. For typical roads, I don't see much of a problem. You should have zero pinch flats with tubular tires. Anybody could have some bad luck -- maybe a streak of bad luck -- but I had all of two flats on the road last year using tubular tires for daily riding.

As for the weight difference -- on a recreational or training ride, why does the difference between a spare tubular and 1 or 2 spare tubes under your saddle matter one way or the other?

I mean, folks should ride what they want. I spent about a decade on clinchers before going back to tubulars -- gradually at first, and then more and more. I like the tires better. I like the ride better. If you don't care, or prefer clinchers, that's fine with me. I just don't see the big deal. You train with a spare tire and a small patch kit. If you get a small puncture, something like pit stop should take care of it. If you get something worse, you can yank the old tire and get the new one (with the base tape already prepped), on in its place. True, you shouldn't corner really hard on the spare until you've had a chance to do a proper glue job, but the tire will stay put just fine otherwise. If things go horribly wrong, you can always to a patch job, but that's something that just doesn't come up all that often for most of us.


----------



## BenR (Dec 14, 2001)

*clinchers make more sense for general riding*

I both train and race on tubulars about half the time - it just happens to be what I'm still using for wheels. Using them isn't a big deal to me, but clinchers have improved substantially and it's understandable why most people don't want to bother with tubulars. I carry one "almost worn out" tire as a spare. When I get a flat, it's either time to head for home or stay in cell phone reception area with a friend/roommate who is willing to be your transportation slave. That said, I very rarely flat on any of the better tires, but bottom end Vittoria Rally's, Hutchinsons, Conti Giro, etc. will bring you nothing but grief. I get sponorship deals and/or know which models to look for and where they might pop up on sale, otherwise cost per mile might also be higher than for clinchers. 

I think that tubulars still ride and handle better than their equivalent model clinchers, but they aren't as convenient. Weight and rolling resistance are a wash, depending on which specific tires are being compared and the test. So, given a choice, I give the nod to clinchers.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

I ALWAYS carry a spare tubie when I'm out training on em. If I know I'm headed for the boonies, I'll carry another in a jersey pocket. 

I've also had to make 'the phone call.' Roommate hadta come get me 'cause the spare I had was untested and guess what?! it had a hole in it. My fault really, but still embarrassing. I've only hadta make that phone call once in 20 years tho, so the chances of you having to do it are pretty slim.

I've gone mtn biking on T34 Tufos in Sandy Eggo. Didn't have a mtn bike and had buddies that wanted to go so my cross bike did double duty for a while. Rode YEARS on those tubies with no problems off-road. Finally wore out the rear. I may have gotten a thorn or two, but the Tufo 'goop' saved the day.

Usedta be that there were several guys in the pack riding tubulars. Not so any more. Iconoclasts and Atavistic mofos are the only ones riding em, making the liklihood that someone has that 3rd spare somewhat less than likely. Sad state of affairs really. GOOD tubulars are a magical thing ride-wise.

M


----------



## ghostzapper2007 (May 22, 2007)

danl1 said:


> A preglued tire can be carried along and used as a spare, as Dirt Boy mentioned. However, it won't be attached as well, so additional riding care is required after a flat. It also means you are carrying an additional tube _and tire, _pretty much negating any weight savings of having the tubs on the bike. I understand using Tufo tape over an existing glue base is a really bad idea. On the plus side, once one has some experience, a tubular change (no tape) is faster than a clincher tube change, though the difference is small.
> 
> The more modern response is to use the self-healing products, but I don't trust them completely for minor punctures, and as mentioned for major kaka, they'll leave you short.
> 
> I used tubbies as a pup, and occasionally want to get another set just for old time's sake. But about the time I get to hunting down rims and spokes, I start remembering the hassles, and decide against. Most folks put ride quality at a dead heat for quality rubber. It's arguably true that tubs handle better, but it only matters out on the edges of handling that even mid-cat racers rarely find need for. Some argue that tubulars can't be snakebit, but as a practical matter neither can a properly-inflated clincher. Testing has concluded that clinchers have lower rolling resistance, though the difference is small. Some say that tubulars are safer in the event of a blowout, and it's marginally true. The biggest part of that advantage is in packs - if you are riding alone or in a small group, it matter somewhat less. I've flatted a lot of clinchers out of competition, and never wrecked as a result. Clinchers are undeniably easier to deal with. Personally, I can't recommend tubulars for recreational (or training) riding, unless they are wanted simply for the 'something different' factor. Even for racing, tubbies are probably more in the 'lucky sock' category than a meaningful competitive edge.



Could not agree with this post anymore. Years and years ago tubulars had a significant ride quality advantage over the best clinchers. That is no longer the case, the best clincher tires now ride with imperceptible quality differences versus most tubulars. Yes in a blowout one can argue that technically a tubular is a bit safer, but this seems much more limited to theory than how it works out in the real world. On the other hand, on really hot days and lots of down hill braking you can theorize just as much, advantage clincher, as you can heat your tubular rim to the point where you roll a tubular right off of it. Indurain used to ride clinchers on stages with steep mountain descents for this very reason. He was a fairly large sized rider and the braking on fast decents would often overheat his rims to the point where the tubular glue would not hold properly. If you flat a tubular out on the road and you replace it with a spare you are now riding a tire which is not 100% mounted the way it should which means you get to limp home or limp to finish your race, whereas if you had replaced a clincher flat you are immediately back riding at 100% with no more worries.

The weight difference is inconsequential. For anyone who isn't directly supported by a team or folllowed by a SAG waggon it a no brainer IMO. Get a good clincher wheelset and don't deal with all the hassle of tubulars. That's just my take on it.


----------



## b24fsb (Dec 21, 2006)

for me the problem is that most deep rims (48-58mm) are going to be tubular only. yes some manufactures make a clincher version but those rims are not as strong as a full carbon rim. 

the whole you save 200g in the wheelset is a valid argument to me. i ride with conti sprint gatorskins, they are tough. now even when i carry a spare tire on me i dont count that, its static weight and thats the same as carrying 2 water bottles instead of one. the lighter wheels will have a lighter rotational weight and thats what really matters. you can feel that because the wheels are lighter and it will take less energy to spin them, its physics


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

> I've read as much as I can about mounting tubulars, and in the workshop it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. But that's with all the tools, cleaners, rags, etc in front of me. I understand that the tire can also be repaired by unthreading the inner tube and patching it, but I've never done this before, and would just like to understand if that's a reasonable option while on the side of the road?


No it's not. When I was riding sew-ups I carried 2 spares. When I got a flat, I just pulled the tire off and put the spare on. If the spare is new, it's easy enough to stretch out.The glue on the rim will hold the tire in place good enough until you get home and reglue the tire on. Just don't think "hey, I'll go around this hairpin corner at 40mph". When you get home, cut the tape, cut the stitching and patch the tube.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

What about tubular repairs for seamless tires like Tufo or Schwalbe Stelvio? Do you folks just throw it away if the size of the puncture exceeds what a sealant can handle?


----------



## mactin (Feb 5, 2007)

MIN in PDX said:


> What about tubular repairs for seamless tires like Tufo or Schwalbe Stelvio? Do you folks just throw it away if the size of the puncture exceeds what a sealant can handle?


I got my first tubular wheelset a few weeks ago (Easton EC90 Aero) and taped on some 
Tufo Elite Road tires. I filled them both with the Tufo sealant, but I expect that if (nay, when) one punctures, I'll have to toss it in the garbage. I haven't opened one up, but it sounds like they are impossible (literally) to repair. Also, I carry a spare Tufo and tape. If that fails, I've got a cell phone and good relations with the girlfriend (support vehicle driver).

FWIW, I love the Easton wheels and the Tufo Elite Roads. And gluing was a cinch.


----------



## rdolson (Sep 2, 2003)

Actually, the weight savings CAN be realized. But mostly during climbs and sprints. That is because you are saving the weight in a critical area, at the circumfrence of the wheel, where rotating mass is amplified the most. The weight in your pockets or under your seat is not as critical. But the difference when it comes to steady state speed on the flats is nil. That is why aero rims can get away with the extra weight penalty on the flats, but suffer in climbs and sprints. I've been riding tubies for over 25 years, and just can't wrap my mind around clinchers. I tried, and at one point found what I thought were the perfect clincher tires, and then Vittoria dropped 'em from the line-up. The only clincher that I found had that magical tubular feel were the old Open All Weather, in 700/23. I think it was dropped when they moved mfg out to Thailand. I tried the Pave, but it's just not the same.

I enjoy working on my bikes, and one of those things I like, is to get a good tubie mounted perfectly to the rim. It's all in the details for me. I'm rarely in too big a hurry, so the extra time makes no big deal to me. Plus, I CAN feel the difference. Is it better? Maybe yes, maybe no. But I like the feel that they give me. Clinchers have always been a bit harsher to me (except for those Open All Weather's) and I rarely get flats anyway, so it's no biggie. (That taunt to the tire gods will no doubt result in a season of flats!)

I do keep a used tubie in my bag to pop on, just in case. The residual glue on the used tire is enough to limp home on. I used to keep a pump on my bikes, but once CO2 came along, I keep a couple of 16g cartridges in the bag with the spare. Of my 4 road bikes, 3 are tubular and one is clincher.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Weight effects*



rdolson said:


> Actually, the weight savings CAN be realized. But mostly during climbs and sprints.


Yes, rotating weight is meaningful in a sprint, though virtually any case you can describe favors aero wheels because of the speed of sprints. In climbing, weight is weight, and it makes no difference whether it is rotating or not. And remember, unless you have a support car or a wheel pit, the weight of carrying a spare tire cancels the savings in rim weight. Understanding physics can be useful.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

So... first ride on the new Zipps on Stelvio tires. 1 mile from home. Glass puncture flat. Use Vittoria Pit Stop. Does not hold. Walk home in road shoes. Kick the bike over in frustration. 

I am going to go buy new tires now. Ugh.


----------



## Dave_Stohler (Jan 22, 2004)

For myself, weight considerations were only secondary. Tubulars just ride better, plus they are less likely to pinch-flat. You can run a good tubular at any pressure from 50 psig to 150 psig, to match the need. A clincher won't let you go under about 80 psig without you having to worry about pinch-flatting, or over 120 psig without you having to worry about it blowing off the rim.

I carry a pre-glued tubular, usually inside a plastic bag (which has been tied tightly) under my seat. I would never use Tufo tape, because, frankly, I wouldn't want to spend an hour removing the stuff from the rim. On exceptionally long rides, I may even carry 2 spares, or even just 1 spare and a patch kit, altough I haven't actually patched a tubular on the roadside since I was 17 and could only afford 2 good Vittorias....


----------



## ru1-2cycle (Jan 7, 2006)

*Too bad, man...*



MIN in PDX said:


> So... first ride on the new Zipps on Stelvio tires. 1 mile from home. Glass puncture flat. Use Vittoria Pit Stop. Does not hold. Walk home in road shoes. Kick the bike over in frustration.
> 
> I am going to go buy new tires now. Ugh.


But next time try the Vittoria Evo CX's, pre-treated with the
Vittoria Pit Stop, and avoid bad roads, and with more
luck, and don't forget the spare, you shoul be better off.


----------



## b24fsb (Dec 21, 2006)

conti sprint gatorskin


----------



## Joe Biker (Nov 7, 2007)

Learned a good lesson last weekend. Vittoria Pit Stop DOES NOT work through ZIPP Valve Extenders!

Jeez, but the good news is it was lovely day for a 5 mile walk home.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

Joe Biker said:


> Learned a good lesson last weekend. Vittoria Pit Stop DOES NOT work through ZIPP Valve Extenders!
> 
> Jeez, but the good news is it was lovely day for a 5 mile walk home.


In what way does it not work?


----------



## Joe Biker (Nov 7, 2007)

MIN in PDX said:


> In what way does it not work?


The Zipp valve extenders filled up with the latex but very little or nothing went into the tire. Works fine with standard valve extenders. I think the problem is that the presta valve is not at the end of the Zipp extenders.

Go figure.


----------



## mactin (Feb 5, 2007)

I think these Tufo valve extenders are the way to go.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

Funny, I am using Tufo valve extenders with Zipp wheels and Pit Stop still didn't work for me.


----------



## RioFastRacer (Oct 22, 2007)

I ride my Zipp 303 Tubulars with Veloflex Carbon tires and love them. I do NOT carry anything with me. I have ZERO weight penalty. But I'm crazy like that. I love to go fast period. A month ago I was riding Ksyruim SL's at 1580gms and now I ride Zipps at 1108 grams. I used to carry a spare tube and C02. Now I carry nothing. Feels good to feel light on the back. I have a total weight savings of 1.5 lbs....since no extra tire, tube, c02. So, I have 1.1 lbs of it being rotational weight savings. Did my first climb and the difference was night and day. Since I love to go fast, all the cons of Tubulars do not offset what the positives I have gained by going Zipp tubbies!! I love them.

Ok now that the craziness of riding my Zipps with no sealant, spare tire, c02, etc has worn off a bit, I have ordered a nice set of clinchers: Reynolds DV46C with Schwalbe Stelvio Light at 140 psi. I got them yesterday. They rock. So now I will only be crazy about 50% of the time. 

One more thing people. If you gonna go tubular, you gotta go GLUE!! All or nothing.


----------



## geomoney (Oct 9, 2005)

At first, based on the feedback initially received, I thought it would be best to stick with what I know....clinchers. But as I read more and more something told me that I would have never been content until I tried them....so I took the plunge, and have a set of Reynolds DV46T's on the way. I look at it this way.....what's the worst that can happen. I'll glue them up as recommended, take it easy until I'm comfortable it was done correctly, and then hopefully enjoy the season. 

If I flat, I replace it with a spare tubular that I'll be carrying. If that flats, and I have nothing else.....I call the wife and she picks me up. With any luck I'll be stuck in a Fourbucks parking lot and I buy her one of her overpriced skim caramel mocha latte whatever (I only remember it because when she hands over the 4 dollars for it I shake my head) for her to enjoy on the ride back.

I still have the backup bike when I get home....


----------



## RioFastRacer (Oct 22, 2007)

Bravo geomoney!! You only live once. Live dangerously.  I can guarantee you that you will love the tubbies and have way less flats on them then clinchers. 

I've had my Reynolds DV46C for 2 days/2 rides and they are awesome clincher. Really fast. I hit 40mph today on a 5 mile smooth flat section with a little aid from a tailwind. So I have no doubt that you will love your DV46T's. I love the Zipp 303 and will ride them alot still but when I dont feel that brave I'll ride the Reynolds clinchers.

Once again congrats and enjoy!!!


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> You never had that 200 gm savings in the first place. With tubulars, you need to carry a spare tire which weighs around 150 gm more the tube you carry when riding clinchers. Throw in the sealant, and you never saved the weight in the first place. I rode tubies for 30 years and switched to clinchers a decade ago. I have NEVER looked back.


One thing to keep in mind is that it matters WHERE the weight is.

Carrying 200 grams behind your seat is one thing. Carrying 200 extra grams on the outer rim of your wheel is another. It requires more effort to get those 200 grams going when they are on the outside of a wheel compared to just sitting on your body because they have to accelerate around the outer edge of that wheel.

Given the choice, I'd take the 200 grams on my body any day. I'm not saying it makes tubulars better, I'm just saying that the physics involved makes the math a little less simple than you would think. That is why wheel weight is so critical, particularly when you need to climb a lot.


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

Can you use standard valve extenders with Zipp wheels? Sorry to be so ignorant but I can see myself myself buying a pair of nice wheels in a year or two and would like to know.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Understanding physics*



JoeO said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that it matters WHERE the weight is.
> 
> Carrying 200 grams behind your seat is one thing. Carrying 200 extra grams on the outer rim of your wheel is another. It requires more effort to get those 200 grams going when they are on the outside of a wheel compared to just sitting on your body because they have to accelerate around the outer edge of that wheel. . . I'm just saying that the physics involved makes the math a little less simple than you would think. That is why wheel weight is so critical, particularly when you need to climb a lot.


Weight at the rim/tire ONLY has extra significance when accelerating, NOT when climbing. Plus, the extra energy you need to accelerate the rim/tire is returned when you coast. So, the only time to put extra value on rim/tire weight is when you are having to brake regularly to burn off speed, and so you don't get the energy back.

The physics can make understanding the issue more complicated for certain situations, but it is clear that you don't understand the physics, and that is why you think the way you do.


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

moved to proper location


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> Weight at the rim/tire ONLY has extra significance when accelerating, NOT when climbing. Plus, the extra energy you need to accelerate the rim/tire is returned when you coast. So, the only time to put extra value on rim/tire weight is when you are having to brake regularly to burn off speed, and so you don't get the energy back.
> 
> The physics can make understanding the issue more complicated for certain situations, but it is clear that you don't understand the physics, and that is why you think the way you do.


Climbing IS accelerating. It it constant acceleration against the force of gravity. And the amount of extra energy you expend climbing is NOT returned when you coast. If it were, a hilly course that ended up at the same elevation would be just as easy as a perfectly flat course. This is (of course) not the case.

It is clear one of us does not understand the physics. YOU. Go back to school


----------



## AidanM (Aug 11, 2006)

RioFastRacer said:


> I ride my Zipp 303 Tubulars with Veloflex Carbon tires and love them. I do NOT carry anything with me. I have ZERO weight penalty. But I'm crazy like that. I love to go fast period. A month ago I was riding Ksyruim SL's at 1580gms and now I ride Zipps at 1108 grams. I used to carry a spare tube and C02. Now I carry nothing. Feels good to feel light on the back. I have a total weight savings of 1.5 lbs....since no extra tire, tube, c02. So, I have 1.1 lbs of it being rotational weight savings. Did my first climb and the difference was night and day. Since I love to go fast, all the cons of Tubulars do not offset what the positives I have gained by going Zipp tubbies!! I love them.
> 
> Ok now that the craziness of riding my Zipps with no sealant, spare tire, c02, etc has worn off a bit, I have ordered a nice set of clinchers: Reynolds DV46C with Schwalbe Stelvio Light at 140 psi. I got them yesterday. They rock. So now I will only be crazy about 50% of the time.
> 
> One more thing people. If you gonna go tubular, you gotta go GLUE!! All or nothing.


you are an idiot


----------



## BeeCharmer (Apr 30, 2003)

*Two things to make it easier for you*

Be sure to stretch the new tires for a few days,fully inflated but unglued on your new wheels, and use at least two coats of glue on the tires, letting the last dry for a few hours before mounting the tire. You'll save yourself a lot of mess and frustration.



geomoney said:


> At first, based on the feedback initially received, I thought it would be best to stick with what I know....clinchers. But as I read more and more something told me that I would have never been content until I tried them....so I took the plunge, and have a set of Reynolds DV46T's on the way. I look at it this way.....what's the worst that can happen. I'll glue them up as recommended, take it easy until I'm comfortable it was done correctly, and then hopefully enjoy the season.
> 
> If I flat, I replace it with a spare tubular that I'll be carrying. If that flats, and I have nothing else.....I call the wife and she picks me up. With any luck I'll be stuck in a Fourbucks parking lot and I buy her one of her overpriced skim caramel mocha latte whatever (I only remember it because when she hands over the 4 dollars for it I shake my head) for her to enjoy on the ride back.
> 
> I still have the backup bike when I get home....


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Kerry Irons said:


> Weight at the rim/tire ONLY has extra significance when accelerating, NOT when climbing. Plus, the extra energy you need to accelerate the rim/tire is returned when you coast. So, the only time to put extra value on rim/tire weight is when you are having to brake regularly to burn off speed, and so you don't get the energy back.
> 
> The physics can make understanding the issue more complicated for certain situations, but it is clear that you don't understand the physics, and that is why you think the way you do.


So most Pros using lighter wheels during climbing stages make so difference? Especially the climbing specialists are choosing superlight wheels.

Thisis one of the best times to use lighetr wheels. Yes, acclerating with short burts of speed to gain momentum is key with light weights wheels.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Wow!*



JoeO said:


> Climbing IS accelerating. It it constant acceleration against the force of gravity. And the amount of extra energy you expend climbing is NOT returned when you coast. If it were, a hilly course that ended up at the same elevation would be just as easy as a perfectly flat course. This is (of course) not the case.
> 
> It is clear one of us does not understand the physics. YOU. Go back to school


Climbing IS accelerating? How do you come up with that? At constant velocity, the kinetic energy of rotation of the wheels is constant, and therefore it is not requiring additional energy compared to that required to move any other weight up the hill. The energy you expend (against gravity) when climbing IS returned if you coast back down to the same level as when you started the climb. However, sinced you are descending at a higher speed than you were climbing, the aerodynamic drag consumes some of that potential energy you generated by climbing.

It is clear that you need to sit down with the fundamental equations that describe climbing, accelerating, and riding at constant speed. If you understand physics like you claim to, then you will realize how wrong your statements are. You can appologize then.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> Climbing IS accelerating? How do you come up with that? At constant velocity, the kinetic energy of rotation of the wheels is constant, and therefore it is not requiring additional energy compared to that required to move any other weight up the hill. The energy you expend (against gravity) when climbing IS returned if you coast back down to the same level as when you started the climb. However, sinced you are descending at a higher speed than you were climbing, the aerodynamic drag consumes some of that potential energy you generated by climbing.
> 
> It is clear that you need to sit down with the fundamental equations that describe climbing, accelerating, and riding at constant speed. If you understand physics like you claim to, then you will realize how wrong your statements are. You can appologize then.


Take a step back from your equations and realize that you are defending heavier wheels for climbing. I guess pro-tour riders with Lightweight Obermeyers and Lews are just trying to make a fashion statement with ultralight carbon wheels.


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> Climbing IS accelerating? How do you come up with that? At constant velocity, the kinetic energy of rotation of the wheels is constant, and therefore it is not requiring additional energy compared to that required to move any other weight up the hill. The energy you expend (against gravity) when climbing IS returned if you coast back down to the same level as when you started the climb. However, sinced you are descending at a higher speed than you were climbing, the aerodynamic drag consumes some of that potential energy you generated by climbing.
> 
> It is clear that you need to sit down with the fundamental equations that describe climbing, accelerating, and riding at constant speed. If you understand physics like you claim to, then you will realize how wrong your statements are. You can appologize then.


It requires extra energy because you are required to constantly fight the DEcelerating force of gravity, genius.

Be sure to let all the pros know how wrong they are to be so concerned with rotational weight there, Kerry. No doubt they'll be so relieved to have you set them straight. If only Zipp had listened to you, they would have known that their climbing specific 202 wheels were a complete waste of time.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

MIN in PDX said:


> Take a step back from your equations and realize that you are defending heavier wheels for climbing. I guess pro-tour riders with Lightweight Obermeyers and Lews are just trying to make a fashion statement with ultralight carbon wheels.


They should be climbing on DA/Chorus OP32 wheels!


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Sorry I didn't read the entire thread. But let me post with my 2¢

As someone who has ridden both tubulars and clinchers for over 30 years. Both competitively and recreationally, I almost exclusively ride clinchers now, and would not seriously consider tubulars unless I was back riding competitively. And even then, I am not so sure.

First you mention you are a recreational rider: This alone so heavily favors clinchers that there can be no serious discussion. The only downside to clinchers maybe the perceived increase in pinch flats. I say perceived, because in 10s of thousands of miles, to the best of my knowledge I have never suffered one. Learn to mount your tires and tubes correctly and inflate to the proper pressures and learn to bunny hop over rails and pot holes and you should be fine. 

* Wheel Weight should not be an issue. Almost every modern day clincher wheel worth purchasing and suitable for everyday use is sub 2000 grams. Many are sub 1500 grams (10 years ago these were light wheels). And real high end stuff can be found in the 1100 gram neighborhood. Sure tubies are be lighter, but, today, almost always they are carbon, and usually considered race day only wheels. Sure you can get some bomb proof alloy 32 holed tubies that you will last you a lifetime, hell I probably have 10+ sets of those hanging in my garage, but they are not light. My favorite everyday set is a clincher that is 1800 grams, most of it in the rim. I am a really strong climber and they have never been a problem for me. True I wouldn't do Mt Washington with them, (but I have done Ascutney with them, with standard gearing to boot.). Advantage: NEUTRAL

* Performance: I for one could not feel any significant difference in riding performance between a clincher and a tubular. Does one exist? There should, as the tire profiles are different, especially when cornering. But what I am saying is that I couldn't tell. Again you are a recreational rider. You are not trying to corner at speed! Advantage: NEUTRAL

* Flat changes: Both clinchers and tubies are easy to change on the road. Tubies maybe a little easier. Advantage: NEUTRAL

* Both clinchers and tubies can be ridden home after a flat. However clinchers can be ridden hard, tubies well depends on your comfort level. I never ended a ride early because of a tubie flat, and I was comfortable riding a replaced tire. Would I corner at speed...hell no, but you get the idea, and again you are not racing. BTW a flat in a race is generally the end of your day, unless you have immediate support. Advantage: NEUTRAL

* Blowouts/no spare: tubies can be ridden flat in a pinch, clinchers you are walking. However riding a flat tubie will eventually ruin your rim and will ruin the tire. -->Advantage tubie unless you are on expensive rims, then Advantage: NEUTRAL

* Cost: Clinchers M-F, S and twice on Sunday. Tubes are $5, they can be patched or replaced. Clincher tires are $50 they, unless cut or worn can be ridden after flatting. Tubies are $50+ often $75+ They are a pain in the ass to fix, once fixed, the tape never sits well. Many just toss them, leading most to buy cheaper Conti tubulars which suck compared to high end and just as expensive clinchers. You can get them repaired, there is a service in Florida that does this and last time I checked the guy charges about $20/tire including shipping. For me I just tossed them. I used to fix them myself, but I gave that practice up decades ago. Advantage: CLINCHER.

* Group rides: if you ride in a group, or intend to, or intend to ride in charity events and such, you will find that almost everyone has clinchers and support is widely available. If you are on tubies, you will often find that you are the only one. So you must be self supporting. Advantage: CLINCHER.

* Wheel choice: Here is where tubies win over clinchers, but only if you are racing. Again for recreational rider, the clincher choices are better. Advantage: CLINCHER.

I am sure I forgot a bunch, but let me reiterate, if you are a recreational rider, I would never consider or recommend tubulars. If you want to try them, you should eventually, to draw your own conclusions.

Zac


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

JoeO said:


> It requires extra energy because you are required to constantly fight the DEcelerating force of gravity, genius.
> 
> Be sure to let all the pros know how wrong they are to be so concerned with rotational weight there, Kerry. No doubt they'll be so relieved to have you set them straight. If only Zipp had listened to you, they would have known that their climbing specific 202 wheels were a complete waste of time.


The bit you are missing is that unlike inertial acceleration, gravity doesn't give a rat's rump about whether the weight is rotating or not. A raw weight savings - from any source - is of some minor benefit to climbing, but whether it's from the wheels or seatbag matters not-at-all. If your brilliance had any merit, a spinning wheel would be heavier than a still one. That would be of great interest to the perpetual-motion guys.

As for Zipp, the products they choose to market has little to do with what is physically the 'best', and everything to do with what moreons will buy. It's a relatively small matter to prove conclusively that 404's (and even 808's) will be superior to 202's for all but the steepest, slowest hills, if one is willing to spend a bit of time with the math. Alas, tradition and intuition matter more to superstitious athletes than hocus-pocus formulas with little squiggly things in front.

FWIW, scope out the peloton on the next hilly stage. You'll see plenty of deep-section wheels - at least among the leaders.


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

That was an excellent post. Thanks, Zac


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

danl1 said:


> The bit you are missing is that unlike inertial acceleration, gravity doesn't give a rat's rump about whether the weight is rotating or not. A raw weight savings - from any source - is of some minor benefit to climbing, but whether it's from the wheels or seatbag matters not-at-all. If your brilliance had any merit, a spinning wheel would be heavier than a still one. That would be of great interest to the perpetual-motion guys.


No it would not be heavier at all. How exactly does that follow? Ten pounds is ten pounds. But ten pounds at end of a ten foot lever is harder to lift than ten pounds in your hand. And 1000 grams way out at rim of your wheel is harder to *get *spinning than 1000 grams close to the hub. This is undeniable



> As for Zipp, the products they choose to market has little to do with what is physically the 'best', and everything to do with what moreons will buy. It's a relatively small matter to prove conclusively that 404's (and even 808's) will be superior to 202's for all but the steepest, slowest hills, if one is willing to spend a bit of time with the math. Alas, tradition and intuition matter more to superstitious athletes than hocus-pocus formulas with little squiggly things in front.


I know it's cool to slam any company as just "marketing to the masses" and sigh for those poor dumb souls out there who are blinded by the marketing department, buying stuff that's just no good. This allows us all to feel clever for being one of the few to see past the lies and all that. Sorry, no sale. Believe it or not some thought and planning and research actually DOES go into the products that companies like Zipp put out. They're not renting out time in wind tunnels to make their next brochure all that more glossy. 

If it is a "relatively small matter" to prove conclusively that 404s will be superior to 202s, perhaps you could do it for us in a post? Should be that hard for such a small matter? Again, I'm sure Zipp would be fascinated to hear it.



> FWIW, scope out the peloton on the next hilly stage. You'll see plenty of deep-section wheels - at least among the leaders.


I've also seen Jan Ulrich using aerobars on mountain time trial stages. If a smart person does a dumb thing, it's still a dumb thing. But in general, the hillier the stages, the less "deep" the rims tend to get. I've scoped out that fact more than once.

Look, I'm not trying to convince people to buy tubulars. I lean towards clinchers myself. But rotational weight matters. A lot. This is not some new concept to physics (or the world of cycling) that I just made up.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Intentional misinterpretation?*



MIN in PDX said:


> Take a step back from your equations and realize that you are defending heavier wheels for climbing. I guess pro-tour riders with Lightweight Obermeyers and Lews are just trying to make a fashion statement with ultralight carbon wheels.


Are you doing this just to get a dig in? In no way am I defending heavier wheels for climbing. I am (accurately) pointing out that unless you are changing speed, then weight is weight. If somebody shaves 200 gm off their wheels and then puts 200 gm in their pocket (spare tubular tire) then they gain zero advantage when climbing. If they are a supported rider, then the 200 gm savings will make them faster up a hill, whether they shave it off their wheels, their frame, or their body.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*New concepts in physics*



JoeO said:


> But rotational weight matters. A lot. This is not some new concept to physics (or the world of cycling) that I just made up.


Since you keep invoking physics, how about a basic understanding of what is going on. Your error is that you have totally confused force (F = m*a) and power. Different units, different calculations. 

Accelerating any object requires an increase in kinetic energy (KE). The amount of KE is one half the mass times velocity squared (KE = 1/2 m v^2). Since the rim/tire part of the wheel is rotating at the same speed the bike is going, the total KE of a bike in motion is the sum of the total mass PLUS the KE of the rotating rim/tire. You can ignore the spoke weight since it's so small, and the rotation speed of the hub (or crank and pedals) is so low that it is likewise negligible.

The physics is simple - when you have to accelerate a rim/tire, it takes twice the KE of accelerating the same mass anywhere else on the bike. This is the source of the old "a pound off the wheels equals two pounds off the bike" maxim.

What it means is a little more complicated. Though it is easier to accelerate light rims/tires, they also slow down faster when you quit pedaling because they have less momentum. While riding at steady speed, weight is weight since there is no change in KE. For everything except a crit where you're braking for the corners, saving rim/tire weight is no different than saving weight anywhere else. In the crit, you're burning off the KE every time you brake, but in any other riding situation, you get the KE back when you coast. This applies just as much when your speed is surging with each pedal stroke on a steep hill as when you coast in a pace line to scrub some speed.

Just for reference, light rims/tires would save less than 1% in total energy if you are braking for every corner in a 1 km crit course. Rim/tire weight is significant for crit racers (if they brake a lot) but no different than any other weight for the rest of us.

While people will rave about how much faster they are on lighter wheels, they cannot support the subjective experience with data (like comparing several time trial or hill climb results with the same tires at the same pressure).

Hope this makes a little up for your not paying attention in physics class!


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

Kerry Irons said:


> Just for reference, light rims/tires would save less than 1% in total energy if you are braking for every corner in a 1 km crit course. Rim/tire weight is significant for crit racers (if they brake a lot) but no different than any other weight for the rest of us.
> 
> While people will rave about how much faster they are on lighter wheels, they cannot support the subjective experience with data (like comparing several time trial or hill climb results with the same tires at the same pressure).
> 
> Hope this makes a little up for your not paying attention in physics class!


It's even questionable whether "lighter wheels" will determine the outcome of a crit.

I will dispute one thing, though. Bike wheels do have signficant angular velocities, but they have very, very low moments of inertia, so much so that even with high angular velocities and angular accelerations, differences in kinetic energies and torques are pretty danged small, especially when weighed against the entire system (aka, rider and bike) response.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

Kerry Irons said:


> Are you doing this just to get a dig in? In no way am I defending heavier wheels for climbing. I am (accurately) pointing out that unless you are changing speed, then weight is weight. If somebody shaves 200 gm off their wheels and then puts 200 gm in their pocket (spare tubular tire) then they gain zero advantage when climbing. If they are a supported rider, then the 200 gm savings will make them faster up a hill, whether they shave it off their wheels, their frame, or their body.


It's those little details that people forget. Peoplez, youz almost always needs a set of constitutive equations to define how a system responds: energy and motion equations; energy and momentum equations; blah blah blah. If you gots those, it's painfully obvious what happens at steady state conditions, aka steady velocity. No acceleration? No changeo kinetic energy.


----------



## rdolson (Sep 2, 2003)

First off, I want to say that I greatly respect the opinion of Kerry Irons and a few others on this board.

My problem is that physics class was over thirty years ago, and as they say... you don't use it you lose it.

I was giving this discussion a thought as I was on my "Too many hills" loop yesterday. (I mean, come on, what else am I to think about other than the pain as I grind up a hill next to a ski slope)

As I climb a steep grade, I would say that instead of a nice steady-state spin, it is more of a series of micro-accelerations, as each pedal stroke down is the aceleration, and the in-between times reperesents a micro-deceleration. That is even more greatly evident in out of the saddle climbs (Which I try to avoid like the plague) where the acelerations are more pronounced.

Would it not then make more sense, for someone like myself who is saddled with riding in the short steep hills of north western connecticut, that every effort should be made to minimize weight at the extremities of the wheel? I just don't see the steady state correlation in my climbing that would be implied by the physics as being discussed. My climbing is more a dynamic state of constant accelerations and decelerations that would be more conducive to the lightweight wheel model. 

While there would be some gain in the kinetic energy of the heavier wheel aiding in the reducuction of energy lost due to the deceleration, would it not be a greater drag on the accelerating portion of my pedal stroke, seeing as not only do I have to spin it up, but also overcome it's effect in the whole increased mass being moved up an incline portion of the equation?

As you can see, I spent WAAAYYY too much time climbing in the hills yeasterday!
(That and we have FAR and away moved off the original topic of this thread)


----------



## epicxt (Apr 26, 2005)

*Looking at getting tubies...*

I'm planning on getting some tubies for this next fall/winter racing season...cx racing that is. I've got many, many sets of clinchers, but am attracted to a set or 2 of tubies mostly just for 'cross. Being able to ride lower pressure with less pinch flat danger is _muy_ appealing. Having a slightly deeper cross-section would be nice for getting less mud build-up on my wheels during the particularly gooey courses.

Having said all that, weight isn't a real deciding factor for my choice of wheels. When you finish a race and your bike weighs about 5 pounds more than at the start line it's a moot point. 

The only reason I would buy a light-weight set of tubies would be to double up their use as race-day road wheels. Pretty much all my training will still be done on clinchers. 

-epicxt


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

rdolson said:


> Would it not then make more sense, for someone like myself who is saddled with riding in the short steep hills of north western connecticut, that every effort should be made to minimize weight at the extremities of the wheel? I just don't see the steady state correlation in my climbing that would be implied by the physics as being discussed. My climbing is more a dynamic state of constant accelerations and decelerations that would be more conducive to the lightweight wheel model.
> 
> While there would be some gain in the kinetic energy of the heavier wheel aiding in the reducuction of energy lost due to the deceleration, would it not be a greater drag on the accelerating portion of my pedal stroke, seeing as not only do I have to spin it up, but also overcome it's effect in the whole increased mass being moved up an incline portion of the equation?
> 
> ...


The micro acceleration thing is bubkus. Heavier wheels, or more specifically, wheels with a higher moment of inertia, decelerate less than wheels that have a lower MOI, thus modulating those "micro accelerations." Aero factors are the dominant source of energy loss, on the bike, until the climbing grade exceeds 8-10% or so. Then weight starts to dominate aero stuff. On those steep grades, the MOI still isn't a big factor. The big factor is moving the bike/rider system up a larger height interval, or in other words, having a larger increase in potential energy per unit time.

Data from tests don't even support the micro acceleration theory of cycling. There will be some average kinetic energy about which the instantaneous kinetic energy will oscillate, but the variance of that oscillation will be very, very, very small


----------



## nrspeed (Jan 28, 2005)

zac said:


> Sorry I didn't read the entire thread. But let me post with my 2¢
> ..
> *I am sure I forgot a bunch*, but let me reiterate, if you are a recreational rider, I would never consider or recommend tubulars. If you want to try them, you should eventually, to draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Zac


Yes, you forgot some of the most important factors and misjudged others:

SAFETY: Tubulars. Do you ever corner on your rides, go fast downhill, have someone else on your wheel? If given the choice, any sane rider would rather have a front flat on a tubular than a clincher, especially a carbon clincher. 

RIDE QUALITY: Tubulars. Those thin race day clinchers ride well but are just as expensive as tubulars. They also wear poorly. Herein lies the magical mystery of tubular tires that cannot be replicated. 

OLD SCHOOL/BLING: Tubulars. WWEMD*? Ever roll up to your local coffee shop ride and hear- Nice clinchers!? 

PINCH FLATS: Tubulars. Why do clincher riders feel inclined to carry 2+ tubes, patches and sealant and count on their riding buddies to carry more? Can you run 80 psi on a clincher over gravel roads and not flat? Every seen a snake bite on a tubular? IME tubualrs just flat a whole lot less than clinchers. Need I say more...

I cannot think of any reason to ride clinchers and don't even own a pair. 

* What Would Eddy Merckx Do?


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

nrspeed said:


> Yes, you forgot some of the most important factors and misjudged others:
> 
> SAFETY: Tubulars. Do you ever corner on your rides, go fast downhill, have someone else on your wheel? If given the choice, any sane rider would rather have a front flat on a tubular than a clincher, especially a carbon clincher.
> 
> ...


You know what nrspeed, you win...but just for the sake of discussion, DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE OP? He is a recreational rider. 

I misjudged nothing:

You just perpetuate some of the myths about clinchers vs tubulars.

Safety: staying up on a high speed blow has nothing to do with clincher or tubie, it is rider skill and luck. You roll a tubie on the front and you are lucky if you don't launch over your bars, if you do it while cornering you are going down PERIOD. I have never seen a clincher roll. And both will flat with equal frequency. So what is your point? Maybe that more experienced riders are on tubies in general and tend to far superior skills? 
EDIT: a carbon clincher? Are you serious? that is your reason for tubies being safer? How many manufacturers are making all carbon clinchers these days? 5, 6, 10. What do they cost again? Yeah and I have never seen a Zipp 303 buckle on a fricken manhole cover either. This is a recreational rider: Carbon Clinchers? That is about .0000001% of the clincher market. Get real.

Ride Quality? maybe, maybe not. Jury is out. There is no question that high end clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubies. But I will restate it, this is a recreational rider. He doesn't care about the subtle differences between cornering at 35kph on a $150 tubie vs. a $65 clincher. Most guys trying tubies are on cheapo Conti's, and as I said, they suck. Oh and by the way, this is what I said: 


> Performance: I for one could not feel any significant difference in riding performance between a clincher and a tubular. *Does one exist? There should, as the tire profiles are different, especially when cornering.* But what I am saying is that I couldn't tell. Again you are a recreational rider. You are not trying to corner at speed! Advantage: NEUTRAL


I emboldened the part about what you said I misjudged just incase you missed it.

Old School Bling? What? Are you serious? You just lost all credibility.

Flats? Your opinion is just that, my opinion is different. While I only carry one tube and some patches (which by the way, the weight of which is less than half of your spare tubular). The point is, is that those items are actually useful on the road. They are easy to carry and use. Tubies? Got your stitch kit, knife, extra glue, latex patches, water tray, hmmmm, didn't think so. Why do I feel like I may have to walk home with just one tubie strapped to my saddle? While the stitch kit part is an extreme view, I am using it to emphasize a point. The point is that you cannot repair a tubular tire on the road. At least not easily. You can replace it, but unless you are carrying two, you no longer have a spare. Patches are useless.
80PSI on a clincher, sure, but tell me first how many miles did you ride on gravel last year that required you to air down to 80? I have riden down Ascutney air'd down...on clinchers...heavy on the brakes...and full through the switch backs...many times, haven't pinched one yet. That is about as extreme a ride that I have pushed clinchers not properly inflated...but I have seen glue melt (interestingly on those very same "old school" - "coffee house" - "blingy" - all carbon tubulars, in fact the guy was crying cause they were his first time on them and the front wheel was ruined. What is Zipps repair policy on rider inflicted damage again?).

"I cannot think of any reason to ride clinchers and don't even own a pair."
While you seemingly have absolutely no experience on clinchers, yet you feel compelled to comment...fyi I have well over quarter of a million miles on bikes. Both on tubies and clinchers, I think I am qualified to comment. 

zac


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Forrest Root said:


> The micro acceleration thing is bubkus. Heavier wheels, or more specifically, wheels with a higher moment of inertia, decelerate less than wheels that have a lower MOI, thus modulating those "micro accelerations." Aero factors are the dominant source of energy loss, on the bike, until the climbing grade exceeds 8-10% or so. Then weight starts to dominate aero stuff. On those steep grades, the MOI still isn't a big factor. The big factor is moving the bike/rider system up a larger height interval, or in other words, having a larger increase in potential energy per unit time.
> 
> Data from tests don't even support the micro acceleration theory of cycling. There will be some average kinetic energy about which the instantaneous kinetic energy will oscillate, but the variance of that oscillation will be very, very, very small



Root and Irons, have more of the physics reasons behind it. But anyone who has seriously ridden many different wheels will tell you that heavier wheels don't hurt them on the hills. I don't know if I said it here by my everyday set is 1800+ grams and I still climb just fine, against guys much younger with and with much lighter wheelsets. If you suck climbing, then it truly doesn't matter what you ride, but wheel weight should be the least of your concerns.


----------



## Davoosie (Mar 17, 2007)

JCavilia said:


> IMO, not enough advantage to make up for the trouble, for a recreational rider. Not a close call, IMO.


The advantage is there, you just have to know what to look for.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

zac said:


> You know what nrspeed, you win...but just for the sake of discussion, DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE OP? He is a recreational rider.
> 
> I misjudged nothing:
> 
> ...


Analogy: the steel vs carbon debate. 

There are exceptional steel bikes as well as carbon. There are exceeding bad steel bikes as well - again, the same with carbon. 

You can argue the merits of clinchers vs tubs til you are blue in the face but it comes down to the fact that it boils down to personal preferences shaped by each riders respective experiences with each.


----------



## nrspeed (Jan 28, 2005)

Zac- I would love to hear your opinions on the best group for a recreational rider- Campagnolo or Shimano or SRAM..., OR the best frame for a recreational rider- Trek, Specialized, Giant...

Yes wheel/tire choice is a personal preference. 

As for repair on the road- It is easier to squirt a can of sealant in a tubular and be on your merry way than to change a clincher while your buddies curse at you while waiting.


----------



## mactin (Feb 5, 2007)

nrspeed said:


> As for repair on the road- It is easier to squirt a can of sealant in a tubular and be on your merry way than to change a clincher while your buddies curse at you while waiting.


IF the sealant works. There are plenty of times when it doesn't. Come on, man.


----------



## nrspeed (Jan 28, 2005)

There aren't plenty but yes there are times.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

nrspeed said:


> Zac- I would love to hear your opinions on the best group for a recreational rider- Campagnolo or Shimano or SRAM..., OR the best frame for a recreational rider- Trek, Specialized, Giant...
> 
> Yes wheel/tire choice is a personal preference.
> 
> As for repair on the road- It is easier to squirt a can of sealant in a tubular and be on your merry way than to change a clincher while your buddies curse at you while waiting.


I did come off strong, but campy v shim, & trek v cannondale v de rosa v vanilla is irrelevant, and not the same comparison. If you said Sora v D/A or record v veloce or a trek 1.2 v a pilot v a madone (all for sake of example) then we are more in tune with this thread. You options there are as numerous as wheel choice. BUT we are talking about a binary thing. Only two choices, now aren't there. Tubular or clincher (well I guess that is not really true either) 

The OP obviously is a new and admittedly recreational rider. Are you seriously going to put him on a set of tubies, when in all likelihood he will never need or use what benefits a tubular offers? 

I have since read the entire thread. Its funny there are many of us old timers with countless hours in the saddle who won't go back to riding tubular, b/c finally clinchers are par or better, for what we use them for. You know it's no mistake that many pros train on clinchers.

Zac
(via phone)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Doing the math*



Forrest Root said:


> I will dispute one thing, though. Bike wheels do have signficant angular velocities, but they have very, very low moments of inertia, so much so that even with high angular velocities and angular accelerations, differences in kinetic energies and torques are pretty danged small, especially when weighed against the entire system (aka, rider and bike) response.


Yes, they are pretty danged small. The 1% power difference I noted was based on having to scrub off 10 km/hr (with the brakes) 4 times per lap, 40 laps per hour. That's 160 accelerations per hour, with wheels that weigh 400 grams more EACH! All weight is at the rim/tire/tube. For a more realistic case, assume virtually no difference for normal riding.

For climbing, 200 gm shaved off the bike, wheels, or body is good for about 0.045 mph (0.07 km/hr) on a 6% grade at 250 watts (150 lb/68 kg rider). That's 15 seconds gained and 238 feet/72 meters gap. Significant in a major race, pretty much meaningless to the rest of us.


----------



## Dave_Stohler (Jan 22, 2004)

*Another "Newbie Savant".....*



JoeO said:


> Climbing IS accelerating. It it constant acceleration against the force of gravity. And the amount of extra energy you expend climbing is NOT returned when you coast. If it were, a hilly course that ended up at the same elevation would be just as easy as a perfectly flat course. This is (of course) not the case.
> 
> It is clear one of us does not understand the physics. YOU. Go back to school


Geez- 7 posts to his name, and he already knows EVERYTHING!

Well, not quite everything. Me and my engineering degree both say that you're an ignoramus. I think Kerry would agree.


----------



## JoeO (Mar 28, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> Since you keep invoking physics, how about a basic understanding of what is going on. Your error is that you have totally confused force (F = m*a) and power. Different units, different calculations.
> 
> Hope this makes a little up for your not paying attention in physics class!


Well when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Seriously, I feel every bit as foolish as I should, particularly for getting snooty about something it turns out I really didn't understand. 

Kerry, I apologize to you for my tone. Every once in a while I let my temper get away with me.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Ok*



JoeO said:


> Well when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Seriously, I feel every bit as foolish as I should, particularly for getting snooty about something it turns out I really didn't understand.
> 
> Kerry, I apologize to you for my tone. Every once in a while I let my temper get away with me.


Apology accepted.


----------



## rlmeskimen (Dec 16, 2007)

Wow...what a thread. 

I have been riding tubulars for a couple of months now. I built a set of 36H Velocity Deep V Pro Elites with Ultegra Hubs and Wheelsmith 2.0/1.8 spokes. I built these for commuting and the tires I have on them are from Yellow Jersey and are their generic Tubulars. I have a set of Conti Sprinters for my next set I build (32H White Industry Hubs on Velocity Escape wheels with Wheelsmith 2.0/1.8 spokes). I have ridden on Marvic Cosmic Carbones, Nuevation, Shimano, ROL and some other clinchers and for tires mostly Conti GP4000's. 

I really like the Tubulars. I am a fairly fast rec rider but not setting the world on fire. I really dig them. I am sure some of it is the fact that I built them, I glued them and put them on a cycle that I built and hand chose every part. I can tell the ride is smoother, even with the low line tires and my times commuting from work over 13 miles is faster but that is not a great comparison as traffic and the three lights in between do catch me sometimes.

I have Tufo sealant in them and carry (1) CO2 cartrige and no spare tire. I have a spare but have yet to carry it. They hold air forever and in fact lose less than 5 psi over 2 weeks. 

I think at this point in time is just a personal preference. I want(ed) to know everthing about how to build a bicycle and even though I have a Tarmac S-Works for the fast weekends my favorite bike is my Lemond all Steel Buenos Aires. But I digress....

I guess what I am saying is it "makes" me feel a little more like a Master when I ride my Tubulars vice an enthusiast. I prefer steel but can't see myself every getting to downtube shifters!

Don't think this helped any but wanted to interject my 2 cents.

Ryan


----------



## mjhusted (Jun 23, 2008)

*Well, it's an old thread but...*

I'm thinking of something that I wonder if you guys considered...

Weight is weight and when it comes to going up or going down it is what it is and rotational weight is another thing that applies only to acceleration... ok.

But the subject acceleration is _rotational _acceleration. What I mean is that, given the way a bike works, power is not applied continuously. For most people, power hits some average maximum and some average minimum _twice _for every revolution of the crank.

I suppose it would be a fairly simple matter to figure the inertia of everything and find out what the resultant accelerations are given the power impulses but even if it's small, it's still twice every crank rotation and that adds up.

I don't have a feel for it. Maybe the relatively enormous mass of bike and rider damps it enough, but I would suspect it's more significant than one would expect and since, again, it adds up at the rate of around 160 times per minute, and it doesn't get stored as potential, it might be worth considering.

(?)


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Wasting time and energy?*



mjhusted said:


> I suppose it would be a fairly simple matter to figure the inertia of everything and find out what the resultant accelerations are given the power impulses but even if it's small, it's still twice every crank rotation and that adds up.
> 
> I don't have a feel for it. Maybe the relatively enormous mass of bike and rider damps it enough, but I would suspect it's more significant than one would expect and since, again, it adds up at the rate of around 160 times per minute, and it doesn't get stored as potential, it might be worth considering.


How do you figure that it doesn't get stored as potential energy? If you spin up a flywheel, is there no stored energy there? You're confused because you think that the only potential energy is due to a mass that is elevated, but batteries contain (chemical) potential energy, and so do flywheels. Your wheel serves as a flywheel, so if you speed up slightly with every pedal stroke, that energy is stored as rotational kinetic energy in the wheel, and it is returned as you slow down slightly with every pedal stroke.

This is high school physics, and EXTREMELY SIMPLE high school physics.


----------



## mjhusted (Jun 23, 2008)

So are you saying, in an extended fashion, that the rotational energy of the wheel gives itself up to the momentum of the system (rider, bike, etc)?

Actually, I'd have to agree with that. Still, it seems as though light wheels provide a climbing benefit beyond simply their weight. Maybe it has more to do with biomechanics, system inefficiencies or something else though.

btw - There's no need to be assinine about it.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

*tubeless is the answer*

With more than 2600 miles on dura ace wheels and my first pair of fusion tubeless, I'd have to say that the subject is soon to be irrelevant. Because tube weight has been replaced with a Arimid belt over the entire tire, flats are very rare and usually only show up slowly and long after the puncture. I carry no spare tube or tire (only a small patch kit). Rolling resistance is also reduced by eliminating the tube (compared to clinchers). 

Time to move into the 21st century. Mountain bikers always seem to lead the way for us roadies and they changed over several years ago.


----------

