# training on tubulars



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

hi all, any non racers ride on tubulars for long group and solo rides as i have only used clinchers and want to experience lightweight rims?
i am hesitating for fear of the labour involved in result of flatting


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

When I started I used tubulars for everything. Changing a tub on the road was not a big issue unless it was raining so that the glue did not bond.
These days there are things like the Vittoria Pit Stop, and some riders also use flat-preventive goo of some kind in their tubs.

Bottom line: The fear of flatting shouldn't keep you from trying.


----------



## tidi (Jan 11, 2008)

*thanx*



kbwh said:


> When I started I used tubulars for everything. Changing a tub on the road was not a big issue unless it was raining so that the glue did not bond.
> These days there are things like the Vittoria Pit Stop, and some riders also use flat-preventive goo of some kind in their tubs.
> 
> Bottom line: The fear of flatting shouldn't keep you from trying.


do you still train/ride on tubs?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Geezer here who only rode only tubulars for many years until I ditched them (good riddance) when good clinchers became availabe. Unless you go the goo route pointed out by kbwh, the trick to fast flat replacement is to glue your tires on the rim so you can still get them off the rim quickly. On the other hand, you don't want them to roll off in a turn, so it's a matter of getting just the right amount of bonding. FWIW, most people now glue tubulars up so tightly (especially bike shops, for understandable legal reasons) that the only way to get rolling again in a reasonable time is to use goo and reinflate.

Don't really like to post this here, so don't sue me: for training rides, some of us used to take two strips of paper (the width of a rim strip and about two inches long) and place them between the tire and the rim, leaving about a 3" space between the strips. That gave us two separate, unglued fields at which to start pushing the flat tire off the rim with our thumbs. But really, learning to get just the right amount of bond for safety _and_ quick replacement is the better way.

/w


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

I used tubulars for training for years (24) and didn't have any real problems. Back then (pre-1986) there were no good light clinchers so everyone rode tubulars for racing and training. It wasn't too bad rolling one tire off and installing another one. But then along came good light clinchers, I switched and have never looked back. I now ride only top-level clinchers as life is too short to ride el-cheapo tires.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

With the good clinchers and clincher wheels out now, its stupid to do it. Save them for the race season.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> With the good clinchers and clincher wheels out now, its stupid to do it. Save them for the race season.


IMO the term "stupid" is a bit strong but I can't think of one good reason to train on clinchers. I train on an indoor board track on clinchers - maybe the #1 place to use tubulars; right up there with cx.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

tidi said:


> do you still train/ride on tubs?


No/yes. I have 3 wheel sets these days:
1) One training wheelset that's built 32x3 with Mavic Open Pro up front and CXP33 in the rear. I use standard butyl inner tubes and last years racing clinchers on these.
2) An older set of Campagnolo Eurus clinchers for some of the racing. Fresh rubber (Michelin P3R right now) and latex tubes for these.
3) A set of FFWD F2R-240s low profile carbon rimmed tubular wheels with Vittoria Corsa CX glued on. For racing and bling rides.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

There is a lot of talk on this post that needs to be backed up

Clinchers ride well and will be easier to change in any circumstance - cheaper too. 90% of the time a new $5 tube and you're off. Sometimes you do get tears in sidewalls, but hasn't happened to me but every 3 years or so and the folded up bill gets me home.

With that said, tubulars STILL ride way, way better. They corner better, and they just ride better. I'm sorry, but this IS the case even with all the advancements in clinchers. Rotational weight is still horrible weight - physics haven't changed. It's not horrible to change a tubular and with the tape they have now you can do it quickly, too. One note - the tires themselves are more expensive, but the ride is BETTER. No question.

Yes, I train on tubulars - got me Mavic Ultimates and with the MP3 program I ride them all the time.


----------



## iridepinarello (Feb 22, 2009)

I rode clinchers for years and years and have recently switched almost all of my riding to tubulars. I love the feel of them so much more than clinchers. Whether they are better or worse, faster or slower, I could care less. I just like ridding tubulars. I say go for it. Don't let other's scare you away. They are easy to put on, easy to replace on the road, and you can use the "pit stop" products to control "most" flats.

Life is short, ride great wheels 




tidi said:


> hi all, any non racers ride on tubulars for long group and solo rides as i have only used clinchers and want to experience lightweight rims?
> i am hesitating for fear of the labour involved in result of flatting


----------



## jwp3476 (Jun 22, 2010)

I weigh 185 lbs and would have to pump up clinchers to about 120 psi to avoid pinch flats. I ride my tubulars at 90 psi and have a much better ride without pinch flats. I did get thorn in a tire several months ago that a can of Pit Stop fixed and I am still riding on that tire.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

jwp3476 said:


> I weigh 185 lbs and would have to pump up clinchers to about 120 psi to avoid pinch flats. .


Good grief. You using 19mm tires?  I was 200lbs (175 now) and never used more than 100lbs in 25 mm clinchers (on the road anyway) in my life. Love my Vittorias at 90psi.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

ronderman said:


> There is a lot of talk on this post that needs to be backed up
> 
> Clinchers ride well and will be easier to change in any circumstance - cheaper too. 90% of the time a new $5 tube and you're off. Sometimes you do get tears in sidewalls, but hasn't happened to me but every 3 years or so and the folded up bill gets me home.
> 
> With that said, tubulars STILL ride way, way better. They corner better, and they just ride better. I'm sorry, but this IS the case even with all the advancements in clinchers. Rotational weight is still horrible weight - physics haven't changed. It's not horrible to change a tubular and with the tape they have now you can do it quickly, too. One note - the tires themselves are more expensive, but the ride is BETTER. No question.


Indeed, things need to be backed up. I suppose that you're going to tell me that because I couldn't tell the difference when switching from tubulars back to clinchers (after riding tubulars for 30 years), it must be something wrong with me. Is there any chance that the difference you are experiencing is the wheels, not the tires? I remember some guy named Erik Zabel who said he couldn't tell the difference either.

How do you measure "way, way better"? How are you measuring "corner better"? The only time the rotating weight argument comes into play is when you're constantly accelerating and then having to brake to scrub off the speed. Otherwise, the extra energy needed to spin up a heavier wheel just means you don't slow down as fast when you coast.

On flat roads, the weight difference is meaningless, and 300 gms saved when climbing means about 10 seconds per hour. Significant if you're racing at the top of the professional sport, otherwise not so much.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

ronderman said:


> It's not horrible to change a tubular and with the tape they have now you can do it quickly, too.


Misleading advice to someone concerned about "the labour involved in result of flatting." Some tapes used with some tires can make for an extremely difficult and lengthy removal.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

wim said:


> Misleading advice to someone concerned about "the labour involved in result of flatting." Some tapes used with some tires can make for an extremely difficult and lengthy removal.


So can using Fast Tack. DAMHIK

I've only had to call for a ride 1x in all the years I've ridden tubulars. I got a flat and the spare had a flat too! My own darn fault for not checking before I went out. This was pre-goop days. I prolly wouldn't have that issue with a can of Pit Stop with me.

Right now, I have a pair of wheels set up for tubies. They go on the cross bike. Summer = small tubies. Cross season = big tubies. The other 5 pairs of wheels are all clincher 'cause they're just easier to live with on a daily basis.

M


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

*Who was talking to you - not me, but now I am.*



Kerry Irons said:


> Indeed, things need to be backed up. I suppose that you're going to tell me that because I couldn't tell the difference when switching from tubulars back to clinchers (after riding tubulars for 30 years), it must be something wrong with me. Is there any chance that the difference you are experiencing is the wheels, not the tires? I remember some guy named Erik Zabel who said he couldn't tell the difference either.
> 
> How do you measure "way, way better"? How are you measuring "corner better"? The only time the rotating weight argument comes into play is when you're constantly accelerating and then having to brake to scrub off the speed. Otherwise, the extra energy needed to spin up a heavier wheel just means you don't slow down as fast when you coast.
> 
> On flat roads, the weight difference is meaningless, and 300 gms saved when climbing means about 10 seconds per hour. Significant if you're racing at the top of the professional sport, otherwise not so much.


I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and remember not EVERYTHING is about you. Man. So, with that said, I was mostly talking about using terms like "stupid" and making it seem like changing a tubular is an all day event.

With that said, and given your post, there does need to be a response.

You can not tell me that, say, Vittoria tubular, corners the same as a vittoria clincher. Let me tell you it even more straight - there is NOTHING you can say that's going to change my mind. Going into a corner at speed on a tubular is a big difference. Maybe you don't know how to corner, I don't know, but I'm not talking about training, I'm talking racing. Maybe if I trained 30 hours a week I'd want a clincher so I can make changes quickly, but given I ride 8 to 10 a week I'm fine on tubulars.

Let's keep going, shall, we. I am 6'3" 185 pounds. I can ride my tubulars at under 100 PSI and get a "way better ride" - or I can ride my clinchers and get a pinch flat or pump them up to 120psi and get a way different ride.

We got more - well, let's see, hum, same hubs, same rims - only difference is one wheel is tubular and the other is clincher - that's how I tell. Oh we're not done yet, you want 300 grams on a wheel - you take it. I will bet you dollars to donuts, I can take, say a cannondale CAAD and lighter wheels and go faster uphill than I can on a cannondale susper six with wheels that way 300 grams more. Not sure, but 300 grams on a wheel makes a heck of a difference.

Thanks and done.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

wim said:


> Misleading advice to someone concerned about "the labour involved in result of flatting." Some tapes used with some tires can make for an extremely difficult and lengthy removal.


Incorrect - they can ruin the tire, but you can easily get the tire off.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

ronderman said:


> Incorrect - they can ruin the tire, but you can easily get the tire off.


Try that with belgian tape and glue and come back to us.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Try that with belgian tape and glue and come back to us.


I don't "do" tape and glue, I do tape OR glue. But if I did, yes, I presume it would be hard to get off.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> Indeed, things need to be backed up. I suppose that you're going to tell me that because I couldn't tell the difference when switching from tubulars back to clinchers (after riding tubulars for 30 years), it must be something wrong with me. Is there any chance that the difference you are experiencing is the wheels, not the tires? I remember some guy named Erik Zabel who said he couldn't tell the difference either.


While we're at it, it appears you've been using this whole Zabel thing for a long time (not as long as you've been riding, since you made note on that), but for the better part of five plus years. That's a while - not sure why someone would take such a stance on tubulars, but then people are into foot fetishes too.

With that said, let me give you a more recent quote. It was a win in a TT by some guy named Floyd Landis. I'll let you research Floyd, but in a TT, it's all about speed - trust me on this. Here is what Floyd said;
“I was on somebody else’s road bike with clinchers and no aero clothes. Take that [email protected]*#ers.”

Now, there are 3 main areas Floyd draws out - another person's bike, lack of aero clothes and having to use clinchers. Now, do you think that those three things were positives or negatives?

You might want to update your Zabel comeback.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

ronderman said:


> I think you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and remember not EVERYTHING is about you. Man. So, with that said, I was mostly talking about using terms like "stupid" and making it seem like changing a tubular is an all day event.
> 
> With that said, and given your post, there does need to be a response.
> 
> ...


Maybe someone else also needs to take a step back. I think the point was there is alot of opinion being slung around without much data to back it up or it is being passed off as "fact", which it pretty clearly isn't.

As far as the 300 gr comment, I was assuming that was for the whole set, not per wheel. Are alot of you tub guys riding 500 and 600 gram rear wheels? I'm again assuming a decent clincher rear wheel is around 900-1000 grams.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Maybe someone else also needs to take a step back. I think the point was there is alot of opinion being slung around without much data to back it up or it is being passed off as "fact", which it pretty clearly isn't.
> 
> As far as the 300 gr comment, I was assuming that was for the whole set, not per wheel. Are alot of you tub guys riding 500 and 600 gram rear wheels? I'm again assuming a decent clincher rear wheel is around 900-1000 grams.


I took 2 steps back.

Fact - Clincher rims require a supporting ridge - tubulars do not
Fact - Clincher tires requires a bead to go under said ridge - tubulars do not
Fact - Clincher tires do not sit ontop or a rim like a tubular and thus have a more pronounced curve.

All 3 of these facts make for a heavier wheel on the outside of the wheel resulting in higher rotational weight - this is the worst weight to have. The last fact results distinct feel when going into a corner fast.

I would contend that 300 grams make a lot of a difference - I was talking the whole wheel, too. My mavic ultimate is 1100 grams for the wheelset and I use it everyday - so yea, the rear is somewhere in the range you said. I have a lot of wheels with 400 gram difference - and you can most certainly factually tell a difference. I presume 300 grams would fall in there, too.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I don't know about training on tubulars, but talking about training on tubulars seems sure to cause a argument, everytime.

FWIW: I raced on tubbies and clinchers never saw a huge enough difference to be swayed very far one way or another, tubbies are slightly nicer but don't make a big difference. Just to head rondermans frothing at the mought rant off, yeah I can and do corner hard tubbies don't buy you that much its mainly having good tires that you trust, glued on or not.


----------



## crankles (Sep 25, 2007)

ronderman said:


> I don't "do" tape and glue, I do tape OR glue. But if I did, yes, I presume it would be hard to get off.


confirmed. For those of us who race cross, tape+glue ensures no rolled tires and low psi at high torques. However, road side removal is a *****.

for my road tubbies ( and, yes I train on them too ), i only glue.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

32and3cross said:


> I don't know about training on tubulars, but talking about training on tubulars seems sure to cause a argument, everytime.
> 
> FWIW: I raced on tubbies and clinchers never saw a huge enough difference to be swayed very far one way or another, tubbies are slightly nicer but don't make a big difference. Just to head rondermans frothing at the mought rant off, yeah I can and do corner hard tubbies don't buy you that much its mainly having good tires that you trust, glued on or not.


This is so silly, why does this cause an argument. Whatever, it's childish. Really. And, yes, I did go over the top - but I'm sorry, "some" other people said some silly stuff that started it all and I'm jsut not one to ignore. With that said, if I am doing a 50 mile zone 3 ride with friends - there is no reason to ride tubulars. However, if I am doing a group ride, and I ride with power, but no more, and I'm going to go after any gap, then it's tubulars every time. If I want that better of a ride, for whatever reason, it's tubulars.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, hasn't ridden them - it's that simple.


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> I now ride only top-level clinchers as life is too short to ride el-cheapo tires.


I ride top-level tubulars all the time. I have them on all three of my road bikes. I even have them on the bike I use to tool around the neighborhood; because life is too short to ride clinchers.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ronderman said:


> This is so silly, why does this cause an argument. Whatever, it's childish. Really. And, yes, I did go over the top - but I'm sorry, "some" other people said some silly stuff that started it all and I'm jsut not one to ignore. With that said, if I am doing a 50 mile zone 3 ride with friends - there is no reason to ride tubulars. However, if I am doing a group ride, and I ride with power, but no more, and I'm going to go after any gap, then it's tubulars every time. If I want that better of a ride, for whatever reason, it's tubulars.
> 
> Anyone who tells you otherwise, hasn't ridden them - it's that simple.


Ok not to further the argument, but yes Tubbies ride a bit better tho ist depends on the tire I have ridden some tubbies that sucked compaired to good clinchers. That said I don't fidn they make any real difference in my performace at least not so much that I have to have em and I have ridden them in hard races (NRC) and done thesame on clinchers the tubbies were nicer to some degree but really did not make any difference.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

ronderman said:


> You can not tell me that, say, Vittoria tubular, corners the same as a vittoria clincher. Let me tell you it even more straight - there is NOTHING you can say that's going to change my mind. Going into a corner at speed on a tubular is a big difference.
> 
> Let's keep going, shall, we. I am 6'3" 185 pounds. I can ride my tubulars at under 100 PSI and get a "way better ride" - or I can ride my clinchers and get a pinch flat or pump them up to 120psi and get a way different ride.
> 
> We got more - well, let's see, hum, same hubs, same rims - only difference is one wheel is tubular and the other is clincher - that's how I tell. Oh we're not done yet, you want 300 grams on a wheel - you take it. I will bet you dollars to donuts, I can take, say a cannondale CAAD and lighter wheels and go faster uphill than I can on a cannondale susper six with wheels that way 300 grams more. Not sure, but 300 grams on a wheel makes a heck of a difference.


I'll just leave all the insults to the side. No point in getting into that.

What I can tell you is that there are a number of experienced riders who claim they can't tell the difference between comparable "open tubular" (aka high-end clincher) tires and tubulars from the same company. Clearly this does not apply to you.

I cannot imagine why you needed to pump your clinchers to 120 psi at your weight. I weigh just a bit less and ride at 100 psi. 

Regarding the weight: physics does not lie. 300 gm weight savings, 180 lb rider, 6% grade, 250 watts output, 10 seconds saved per hour.

I'm gratified to know that there is NOTHING that can change your mind. If that is the case, why do you have to argue so vociferously?


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

I got my tubulars last year for race wheels, but... I ended up riding them all the time, they ride much better than my clinchers do and since we have good roads around here, I see no reason not to train on tubulars.

I carry a spare tire and changing them isn't too hard if you keep a tire lever with you to break the tire free


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> I'll just leave all the insults to the side. No point in getting into that.
> 
> What I can tell you is that there are a number of experienced riders who claim they can't tell the difference between comparable "open tubular" (aka high-end clincher) tires and tubulars from the same company. Clearly this does not apply to you.
> 
> ...


Did you read your previous post? Maybe you should, it was rude and condescending. I was totally fair in my initial post, I said there are factual differences and clinchers will always win - they will win even more if you're riding slow. However, there are riders who claim they can't tell the difference between an aluminum and carbon frame - maybe that's you, I don't know, but it's not me and it's the majority of riders I know. Tubulars are the same. 

I can not ride clinchers lower than 100 psi - even light riders don't ride them at that level. I am in New England and we have lots of pot holes and lots of chip seal - you're asking for a pinch flat.

Your physics equation take wight - that's it - all weight is not created equal - rotational weight is worse - especially 250 watts at 6% gradient for 180 pounds - you'd be going about 7 or 6 mph - 300 grams of outer weight would make a big difference.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Simple physics*



ronderman said:


> Did you read your previous post? Maybe you should, it was rude and condescending. I was totally fair in my initial post, I said there are factual differences and clinchers will always win - they will win even more if you're riding slow. However, there are riders who claim they can't tell the difference between an aluminum and carbon frame - maybe that's you, I don't know, but it's not me and it's the majority of riders I know. Tubulars are the same.
> 
> I can not ride clinchers lower than 100 psi - even light riders don't ride them at that level. I am in New England and we have lots of pot holes and lots of chip seal - you're asking for a pinch flat.
> 
> Your physics equation take wight - that's it - all weight is not created equal - rotational weight is worse - especially 250 watts at 6% gradient for 180 pounds - you'd be going about 7 or 6 mph - 300 grams of outer weight would make a big difference.


You were the one saying others needed to back up their statements. I agree. I'd be more than interested in your facts. So far you have offered subjective opinion. 

I hope you are not basing your statement of tubulars being "way, way better" on riding clinchers at 120 psi and tubulars at 100. That's what it sounds like.

You do not understand the physics. Rotational weight is different from other weight ONLY when changing speed. If you are climbing at a steady speed, weight is weight. If you want to argue that your speed surges with each pedal stroke when you're climbing, that's fine, but whatever energy you "invest" when you speed up, it comes back when you slow down between pedal strokes. It's called energy conservation. When you are climbing, weight is weight. Any claim to the contrary is based on something other than what Isaac Newton teaches. BTW, 250 watts for a 180 lb rider on a 6% grade is over 9 mph, not 6-7.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> You were the one saying others needed to back up their statements. I agree. I'd be more than interested in your facts. So far you have offered subjective opinion.
> 
> I hope you are not basing your statement of tubulars being "way, way better" on riding clinchers at 120 psi and tubulars at 100. That's what it sounds like.
> 
> You do not understand the physics. Rotational weight is different from other weight ONLY when changing speed. If you are climbing at a steady speed, weight is weight. If you want to argue that your speed surges with each pedal stroke when you're climbing, that's fine, but whatever energy you "invest" when you speed up, it comes back when you slow down between pedal strokes. It's called energy conservation. When you are climbing, weight is weight. Any claim to the contrary is based on something other than what Isaac Newton teaches.


Oh, jeez, you can't leave well enough alone can you. 

I am a wheel hog - wheels make the ride, not the frame (I have a lot of frames too). I am basing this off of the same wheels at either the same or different PSI. Let's stop this right now, are you going factually argue that as a FACT, sidewalls on clinchers are the same and as good as tubulars. Please, take that argument - I'd love to hear it.

Also, what lalala word do you live in where climbs are one gradient taking at one set speed. See in the real world - hills or climbs vary - they are NEVER the same gradient. Even if I wanted to do a feeble 250 watts, like you said, I will go slower at 9% than I will at 6% and that will be slower than at 3%. Or, better yet, those of us with friends - we do these things called "races" or "group rides" and these rides, well, they eb and flow - that is, the speed, the power, the gradient - whatever - it changes. Here is the one truth - it's NEVER the same.

Thank you for your post - you proved my point - Tubulars are, in FACT, better if one is ONLY looking at ride quality. 

Now, back to LALALA land - they miss you.


----------



## Gervase (Aug 22, 2009)

I think that there has to be no question to are Tubulars better than Clinchers, clearly they are (in regards to performance) otherwise the Pros would not bother with them, as they are going to ride the best tyres they can, ie Tubulars. 
Surely it is pin pricking to argue anything else, like the best to train on, etc. as this personal opinion, with regards Price, puncturing etc. But when it comes to performance it appears Tubulars are the best. This is obviously not just about the tyre, but the wheelset involved too.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

ronderman said:


> Oh, jeez, you can't leave well enough alone can you.
> 
> I am a wheel hog - wheels make the ride, not the frame (I have a lot of frames too). I am basing this off of the same wheels at either the same or different PSI. Let's stop this right now, are you going factually argue that as a FACT, sidewalls on clinchers are the same and as good as tubulars. Please, take that argument - I'd love to hear it.
> 
> ...


Still just anecdotal opinion. At least Kerry is backing up his claims with science. This science stuff is pretty interesting. You see it takes opinion out of the equation and bases things on measurable observable "facts". Take it with a grain of salt, but the new issue of Bicycling that showed up in the mail for me yesterday has a quick blurb on this very debate and like Kerry they offer up science as the backing of their claims. Who do you think they tend to agree more with?


----------



## Michael15 (Aug 17, 2010)

iridepinarello said:


> I rode clinchers for years and years and have recently switched almost all of my riding to tubulars. I love the feel of them so much more than clinchers. Whether they are better or worse, faster or slower, I could care less. I just like ridding tubulars. I say go for it. Don't let other's scare you away. They are easy to put on, easy to replace on the road, and you can use the "pit stop" products to control "most" flats.
> 
> Life is short, ride great wheels


I couldn't agree more!! I love my Zipp 303's. Sure they are more hassle but IMO its worth it!


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

krisdrum said:


> Still just anecdotal opinion. At least Kerry is backing up his claims with science. This science stuff is pretty interesting. You see it takes opinion out of the equation and bases things on measurable observable "facts". Take it with a grain of salt, but the new issue of Bicycling that showed up in the mail for me yesterday has a quick blurb on this very debate and like Kerry they offer up science as the backing of their claims. Who do you think they tend to agree more with?


Here is another fact - a lot of you people don't read - you see what you want.

Let me give it to you straight - I retract EVERYTHING I said. Tubulars ride the same as clinchers - they corner the same as clinchers - 300 grams on a wheel make ZERO difference as we all ride up hill at the same speed and the same power so the basic premise and factual basis for rotational weight (something they have at the children's science museum - emphasis on children's) is negated. Additionally, bicycling magazine (I can't believe you referred to them, the day I do - I will no longer race and buy a trek with 105) has proven me completely wrong.

Kerry is 100% right - he knows all, do not listen to me, I know nothing, my opinion counts for nothing, I have a low post rate and I haven't been here long - the original poster asked for opinions and even though I said clinchers win every time in maintenance I was wrong, sooo so so wrong to say they ride better.

See you all as we ride uphill at one set and determined speed and we take corners slowly and don't lean the bike over too much.

I have wasted your time I am sorry.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Michael15 said:


> I couldn't agree more!! I love my Zipp 303's. Sure they are more hassle but IMO its worth it!


Hey, you have no facts to back that statement up - did you not read - bicycling magazine says you are wrong, too.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> BTW, 250 watts for a 180 lb rider on a 6% grade is over 9 mph, not 6-7.


This goes to show how little you know - whatever little computer program you are using is incorrect. I will take a screen shot to show you differently - it is clear, but this very statement, you spend little to no time our riding and you instead just plug numbers. That is not how the real world works, but regardless, you are wrong.


----------



## Michael15 (Aug 17, 2010)

ronderman said:


> Hey, you have no facts to back that statement up - did you not read - bicycling magazine says you are wrong, too.


I don't need facts...i'm just stating my opinion. that is why I wrote "IMO" which means "in my opinion". chill out!


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

ronderman said:


> Here is another fact - a lot of you people don't read - you see what you want.
> 
> Let me give it to you straight - I retract EVERYTHING I said. Tubulars ride the same as clinchers - they corner the same as clinchers - 300 grams on a wheel make ZERO difference as we all ride up hill at the same speed and the same power so the basic premise and factual basis for rotational weight (something they have at the children's science museum - emphasis on children's) is negated. Additionally, bicycling magazine (I can't believe you referred to them, the day I do - I will no longer race and buy a trek with 105) has proven me completely wrong.
> 
> ...


I reads good.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ronderman said:


> - it is clear, but this very statement, you spend little to no time our riding and you instead just plug numbers. That is not how the real world works, but regardless, you are wrong.


http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/958648/43._Martin_et_al_J_Appl_Biomech_1998.pdf


----------



## bopApocalypse (Aug 30, 2006)

ronderman said:


> bicycling magazine says you are wrong, too.


quoted for truthiness.

can you give me 10 tips to train for my next century?


----------



## Cbookman (Jul 2, 2009)

ronderman said:


> Here is another fact - a lot of you people don't read - you see what you want.
> 
> Let me give it to you straight - I retract EVERYTHING I said. Tubulars ride the same as clinchers - they corner the same as clinchers - 300 grams on a wheel make ZERO difference as we all ride up hill at the same speed and the same power so the basic premise and factual basis for rotational weight (something they have at the children's science museum - emphasis on children's) is negated. Additionally, bicycling magazine (I can't believe you referred to them, the day I do - I will no longer race and buy a trek with 105) has proven me completely wrong.
> 
> ...



What are you so bent about again? Someone disagreed with you, so what. You haven't provided anything but opinion to this thread. Even in a simple dynamic system, the rotational weight difference of the wheels is going to be minimal up a hill in comparison to the 225lbs my body is carrying. 

To go back to where you can't ride clinchers at under 120psi, I can't really believe that. I ride with my rear tire at 115 psi and the front around 105psi. Never had a pinch flat on the road, ever. Tagged plenty of potholes on some rough Upstate NY roads, and I'm 40+ lbs heavier than you. Picked up glass, and a nail. But never, ever had a pinch flat.This is what makes your claims so difficult to understand and believe. Well, that and the fact you are so irate about all of it.


----------



## Gervase (Aug 22, 2009)

everyone likes to be right!!! that seems to be the problem.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

bopApocalypse said:


> quoted for truthiness.
> 
> can you give me 10 tips to train for my next century?


To be clear, I was being facetious.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Cbookman said:


> What are you so bent about again? Someone disagreed with you, so what. You haven't provided anything but opinion to this thread. Even in a simple dynamic system, the rotational weight difference of the wheels is going to be minimal up a hill in comparison to the 225lbs my body is carrying.
> 
> To go back to where you can't ride clinchers at under 120psi, I can't really believe that. I ride with my rear tire at 115 psi and the front around 105psi. Never had a pinch flat on the road, ever. Tagged plenty of potholes on some rough Upstate NY roads, and I'm 40+ lbs heavier than you. Picked up glass, and a nail. But never, ever had a pinch flat.This is what makes your claims so difficult to understand and believe. Well, that and the fact you are so irate about all of it.


I'm irate because people don't read - you know a PM goes a long way, maybe you should look into it, but I digress.

Not sure what to tell you, I go out in 105 PSI I run a risk of getting a pinch flat. I also have some news for you - we don't ride the same, we don't ride the same roads, I doubt we ride the same tires, or the same rims - so we probably get different results. Am I being irate by saying that, or just stating fact or is it opinion. You tell me. 

For the last time - this is for you and every other cracker out there

Fact, Tubulars weigh less, this is getting less with carbon clinchers, but that is still the case

Fact, Tubualrs are superior to clinchers with pinch flats - your mileage will differ, but regardless of YOUR individual experience, it is a fact.

Fact, Tubulars have a different curve to them that result in better cornering, this of course assumes the rider is taking the corner at speed. Clinchers have closed this gap, but it is still there.

Fact, some people can tell the difference between the two types of tires and some can't - beats me where any one person falls, as for me, I can tell - looks like others can sense it too.

Fact, tubulars suck when compared to clinchers for maintenance and road side changes. Clinchers win every time, tubulars are also more expensive.

These are facts, they have been said multiple times, there are also several nuances that are pro and con, we can go into those, but these are the big ones. Anyone who says otherwise is just making noise. Make up your own mind, I don't care - but it's clear some people do and they get defensive, I get defensive when people pile on and make tripe up. 

Now move along and get off my wheel.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

asgelle said:


> http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/958648/43._Martin_et_al_J_Appl_Biomech_1998.pdf


So I presume you ride an ibike and love yourself the ibike.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ronderman said:


> So I presume you ride an ibike and love yourself the ibike.


For someone who seems so committed to facts, you sure do make a lot of assumptions.

I also notice while you take the easy route of attacking the messenger, you don't address the underlying data.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

asgelle said:


> For someone who seems so committed to facts, you sure do make a lot of assumptions.
> 
> I also notice while you take the easy route of attacking the messenger, you don't address the underlying data.


Oh Jimmy Xmas - now you've done it.

Look, of course you can mathematically determine power. However, there are a ton of variables - a ton. For someone to say 180 pound rider, 6% gradient, 250 watts equals 10 mph or 9 or whatever is what smart people call pure speculation. He does not know - wind speed, my height, the width of my shoulders, the width of my hips, the position on my saddle, the position on my bars, the length of my cranks, the rolling resistance of my tires, the weight of my wheels, where the weight is on my wheels, the quality and condition of the asphalt, my cleat position - the list goes on and on and on. You HAVE to know that and other variables to get an exact read out.

You do know that times changed on the uphill TT on MT Ventoux when they repaved it? Right? Same road, same gradient - the conditions where nothing special - but the smoother pavement made times drop by a lot.

Boonen is my height, but our weight is within 15 to 20 pounds, yet his shoulders and hips are far, far more narrow than mine. His weight distribution is also in his legs and not in his top, unlike me who is not like that.

Anyone who has ever ridden a 1000 gram wheel will say they go faster uphill than a 1500 gram wheel - yes the weight is felt at different variables, but it's certainly there.

I mean, jeez, come on.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ronderman said:


> Oh Jimmy Xmas - now you've done it. ....


In other words, you missed the point of the article.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

I do. I ride em all the time.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Physics FAIL*



ronderman said:


> Also, what lalala word do you live in where climbs are one gradient taking at one set speed. See in the real world - hills or climbs vary - they are NEVER the same gradient. Even if I wanted to do a feeble 250 watts, like you said, I will go slower at 9% than I will at 6% and that will be slower than at 3%. Or, better yet, those of us with friends - we do these things called "races" or "group rides" and these rides, well, they eb and flow - that is, the speed, the power, the gradient - whatever - it changes. Here is the one truth - it's NEVER the same.


I'm going to repeat myself. Rotational weight is the same as any other bike or body weight when climbing. If your speed changes, a lighter wheel takes less energy to accelerate but you get less energy back when you decelerate. Simple physics. A heavier wheel takes more energy to accelerate but gives that energy back when you slow down. Averaged over the climb, weight is weight unless you are using your brakes at some point and turn the kinetic energy of rotation into heat.

The calculations are the same at any gradient or power output, or with changing gradient and powe output - weight is weight and it makes no difference whether it is in the wheels, your bike, or on your body. If the total system weight is the same, the speed over a climb is the same for any kind of varying power output profile.



ronderman said:


> This goes to show how little you know - whatever little computer program you are using is incorrect. I will take a screen shot to show you differently - it is clear, but this very statement, you spend little to no time our riding and you instead just plug numbers. That is not how the real world works, but regardless, you are wrong.


Anyone with a spreadsheet can do these calculations. But just for fun, plug it in to analyticcyling.com, the acknowledged gold standard for on-line calculators. 90 kg bike + rider, 6% grade = 9.5 mph. And yes, saving 300 gm saves about 10 seconds per hour.


----------



## Cbookman (Jul 2, 2009)

ronderman said:


> I'm irate because people don't read - *you know a PM goes a long way*, maybe you should look into it, but I digress.
> 
> Not sure what to tell you, I go out in 105 PSI I run a risk of getting a pinch flat. I also have some news for you - we don't ride the same, we don't ride the same roads, I doubt we ride the same tires, or the same rims - so we probably get different results. Am I being irate by saying that, or just stating fact or is it opinion. You tell me.
> 
> For the last time - this is for you and every other cracker out there


PM's go a long way when they're like this right:



ronderman said:


> I don't believe in pile on people in public - so I send a PM.
> If you weigh as much as you say you do, and you ride your tires are the PSI you said and you never, ever get a pinch.
> Then you either - 1. Are a liar. 2. Don't know how to tell when you got a pich 3. Ride like a grandma
> I don't know you, so I can't tell, but one of those three is a certainty.
> Thank you.


First, I know what a pinch flat is, and no I've never had one on the road. Plenty on my MTB, but not on the road. I ride Continental GP4000's and 4000S's. Claimed weight for each is around 210g. 

Second, I ride on roads in two small US cities that are in the top 5 right now in terms of snow fall in the US. We also use salt on our roads, along with plows to clear them. Do you have any idea what roads here look like in spring? Probably the same or worse than what you ride on in New England. 

What would riding like a grandma consist of? Do you care to quantify it? 

Now that I've covered your condescension, we'll move on. 

I haven't piled on you at all. I asked why you were so bent out of shape over something so minuscule. What do you have to lose here, and why are you so adamant about this? You have thrown insults at everyone here that objects to your opinions. You presented a fact that no one has argued. 

Tubulars are lighter. Ok. You can have that. 


Sure, the reduced weight is noticeable to some, but not to the exaggerated effect you are presenting.

I'm going to climb faster no matter where I lose the weight, all things being equal. I'd rather it came off my body, since that only takes work and little to no money. Sure its a lot slower of a process, and likely won't be noticed unless I look at my averages for speed and HR. 

Wheels may have the most effect as far as losing weight on the bike, because yes, they have a moment of inertia. But, and this is a big but, the lighter wheel is going to decelerate faster when I'm not pedaling or in the power range of the stroke. A heavier wheel will carry more momentum, thus wanting to continue propelling you forward. If you don't understand this, this is where your argument fails. There are two sides to being lighter, and you are only seeing one. 

Everything else has been your opinion, and you sit here espousing that as fact.

This is a fact - You then had an internet temper tantrum, retracted everything you said, and then continued arguing afterward with your contrived facts. 

You might want to stop being so butthurt over a wheel debate. I'm pretty sure no ones life here depends on it.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*

This may be the third dumbest thing people have got upset about here. 

Try to stay on point and omit the insults everyone.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Come on Coolhand, where are we if we can't have a visious Tubluar vs Clincher argument, next you will be telling us we can't get nearly homicidal over helment/no helment threads.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Cbookman said:


> PM's go a long way when they're like this right:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Regardless of all else - I said the point of a PM isn't to bring it out for all to see and pile on - you STILL do that. Hope you feel better for it, pal. 

Dude, go re-read every post I made - I said some notice a difference in the ride, some don't. Some people see a difference between a dale CAAD 9 and a Dale Super Six - if you do, you might notice a difference in tubulars - if you don't then you PROBABLY wont notice a difference. Everything else I stated as fact, which you agreed with, but then you act like I stated other facts, which I didn't. Please show me, be specific, otherwise, get off my back, man.

I acknowledged my outbursts, but you couldn't leave it alone could you. Keep going, here is a fact, I wont back off from you when you make stuff up.

Be specific or leave it alone.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> I'm going to repeat myself. Rotational weight is the same as any other bike or body weight when climbing. If your speed changes, a lighter wheel takes less energy to accelerate but you get less energy back when you decelerate. Simple physics. A heavier wheel takes more energy to accelerate but gives that energy back when you slow down. Averaged over the climb, weight is weight unless you are using your brakes at some point and turn the kinetic energy of rotation into heat.


Hey, Kerry, so . . . you are arguing all weight is the same. Fine I heard you, you are wrong, you are incorrect, you do not have science on your side - here is what I am saying, rotational weight is NOT the same as static weight - I am not giving that statement any more variables than that - it is fact, Kerry, that rotational weight is NOT the same as static weight. I am not qualifying it, I have not qualified it in any of my posts except to say one can feel it when going uphill - you want to throw in your qualifiers and argue otherwise, fine, but I don't have time to argue with someone who twists my post into something there not - jeez man, you cite spreadsheets as determining rides - clearly I know where you stand. Now I have to go ride rollers and then the road tomorrow - I simply don't have time for you.

On a side note - it says a lot about you that you have been arguing this for over five years. Wow, doesn't surprise me given you cite spreadsheets, but it's just an interesting observation, not an insult, just an observation.

Seriously, we can move on. Let's argue if Merckx would beat Lance - cause that's about as logical as this discussion.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

tidi said:


> hi all, any non racers ride on tubulars for long group and solo rides as i have only used clinchers and want to experience lightweight rims?


Many non-racers ride ("train") on tubulars for long group- and solo rides, but some pro teams (Quick Step, et al..) have switched to clinchers for all their training rides. See photos at the link.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-tom-boonens-quick-step-eddy-merckx-emx-7


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*man*

Over on PO there is an argument about religion and atheism that is more civil. 



Coolhand said:


> This may be the third dumbest thing people have got upset about here.
> 
> Try to stay on point and omit the insults everyone.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Fixed said:


> Over on PO there is an argument about religion and atheism that is more civil.


Yea, it's amazing—tubular tire use defended with religious fervor by people who might not even have a racing license.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

ronderman said:


> get off my wheel.


C'mon, this is my line. I used it on a post troll the other day.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

mimason said:


> C'mon, this is my line. I used it on a post troll the other day.


I'll be glad to pay you five cents for the right, though I can't recall where I saw it and not like I haven't said it while on the road - five cents coming your way.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Physics FAIL*



ronderman said:


> Hey, Kerry, so . . . you are arguing all weight is the same. Fine I heard you, you are wrong, you are incorrect, you do not have science on your side - here is what I am saying, rotational weight is NOT the same as static weight - I am not giving that statement any more variables than that - it is fact, Kerry, that rotational weight is NOT the same as static weight. I am not qualifying it, I have not qualified it in any of my posts except to say one can feel it when going uphill - you want to throw in your qualifiers and argue otherwise, fine, but I don't have time to argue with someone who twists my post into something there not.


You still don't understand the physics. If your total weight (bike + rider) is the same, then it makes no difference where that weight is unless you are changing speed. If the weight is shifted away from the rims/tires then the bike wil accelerate more with a given power input, and will decelerate faster when the applied power decreases. You expend energy to spin up the wheel, and you get it back when you slow down, but that averages out over a climb.

A total system weight takes the same amount of energy to climb a hill regardless of where that weight is. The physics is completely clear on this. I am not qualifying anything. You are failing to understand the basic physics. You can continue to insult me as much as you want, but it doesn't change the physics.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> You still don't understand the physics. If your total weight (bike + rider) is the same, then it makes no difference where that weight is *unless you are changing speed*.
> 
> * I am not qualifying anything*. You are failing to understand the basic physics. You can continue to insult me as much as you want, but it doesn't change the physics.


Kerry, really, please it's best to leave this alone - rotational weight is NOT the same as static weight. I put a bold to your statements to show that you are, wait for it, *qualifying* your statements.

I understand physics perfectly well, I also did not insult you, that was a cheap shot on your part and you have taken a lot of cheap shots. I think we should let this be, Kerry. How about this be the last word?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ronderman said:


> Let's argue if Merckx would beat Lance - cause that's about as logical as this discussion.


I'd say this discussion is closer to arguing whether the Earth rotates around the Sun or vice versa.


----------



## ZoomBoy (Jan 28, 2004)

I have used both clinchers and tubulars as my trainers. Yes flatting while riding on a tubular wheel does require more effort to get back on the road but all science aside, I prefer the way a tubular rides over a clincher. Just my choice...both types have good and bad points. I live and ride in New England and road surface quality is a huge variable. For me being able to run lower PSI to smooth things out is a plus. If I save some weight too that is also a plus. I say to the OP: Go for it. 

I would like comment on the post about using the belgian tape method and removing a flatted tub: there is no need to use this method for road wheels unless you happen to be racing Paris-Roubaix with the big boys! If you need belgian tape and glue you are doing something wrong when you mount your road tubs. The belgian tape method should be reserved for mounting cross tubs only IMO. That is unless you happen to like to run 25PSI on the road.


----------



## orlin03 (Dec 11, 2007)

I have 5 sets of wheels, one is tubular. Of these, it takes me longer to change a flat on two of the clincher sets than it does with the tubular, and the other clincher set takes me about the same time due to that set's looser hold on the tire. I use glue on the tubs, but my spare tire is set up with tape already installed. When I get a flat, I roll off the old tire, roll on the one with tape, fill it and ride away. Never had a problem with this method, which was passed on to me from a group of racers who also never have a problem. It's just as quick as pulling out a tube and reinstalling it (on a set of wheels that don't hold the tire super-tight), maybe even quicker- and you don't need to look for sharps stuck in your casing. 
I don't train too often on tubulars anyway because it is so expensive to replace one, but I do love the way they ride. If it was purely a matter of fixing flats, the tubulars land a win for ease with me, but score a loss with the fact that a spare tire is much bigger than a spare tube.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Ok I will throw the A # one reason I don't ride on tubulars, becasue the tires I glue on are not removable easily road side, so much so I seriously doubt anyone could take one of the tubies I glued off a wheel in the time it takes me to change a clincher. They require tools to get off esp if you want the tire to be reuseble that is enough to keep me from training on them. I could glue the tires on less aggressively but them I would worry. This an entirly personal choice based on tubbies being a PIA to fixed flats on.


----------

