# Campy Shamal Ultra Tubulars - REVIEW



## iridepinarello (Feb 22, 2009)

So I finally got my Shamal Ultra Tubulars. I did my fourth ride today... a Century.

The wheels are fantastic. Nice and solid, and very quick. They corner well. 

They are not as aero as some, not as light as other's, but they roll beautifully! The hubs, to say the least, are just wonderful. I have 4 other sets of Campy wheels and the hubs on these might be the nicest (at least nicest looking).

As for the ride on a Century... I thought they are very comfortable. As comfortable as my Hyperon Tubulars, no, but comfortable enough that I would have no apprehension riding another Century on them. 

I weigh about 178 and have tried these wheels pumped up anywhere from 100 to 120. On the century, I put them at 105 and they handled the day very well.

All in all, these are a set of wheels I would consider using as a daily wheel. I could easily see training on them and racing on them for sure. They are VERY solid and instill confidence for sure.

I hope this helps.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Thanks for the review, glad to hear you are enjoying your new wheelset. I agree that the hubs are very nice. When I ordered them I was skeptical about the value of having ceramic bearings, but whatever made the difference it really worked. I also like they feel very reactive, and very stable. 

If you are looking for more comfort perhaps you should consider a set of tubeless Shamals. I run them with Hutch Fusion 3 at 80-85 psi and I weigh about 175 lbs. They feel really awesome at high speeds, really soaking up the bumps. 

I don't have a set of Shamal tubulars to use in comparison, but the Shamal tubeless is more comfortable than even my Neutron / Michelin Pro 3 set run at 95-100 psi.


----------



## iridepinarello (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks for the feedback. I had a set of Tubeless Shamals and got rid of them to get the Tubular version. In my opinion, and I'm no expert by any means, the Tubular versions are a solid step up from the Tubeless. It could be that I'm able to run such nice tires on the Tubulars whereas the Tubeless has limited options. Who knows. For me, I am sticking with Tubulars as I love riding them. I hope you enjoy your Shamals as much as I do mine.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

iridepinarello said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I had a set of Tubeless Shamals and got rid of them to get the Tubular version. In my opinion, and I'm no expert by any means, the Tubular versions are a solid step up from the Tubeless. It could be that I'm able to run such nice tires on the Tubulars whereas the Tubeless has limited options. Who knows. For me, I am sticking with Tubulars as I love riding them. I hope you enjoy your Shamals as much as I do mine.


Hi iridepinarello, if you had had the tubeless version, I'd love to hear your comparison of the two systems. Can you elaborate on why you think that tubular is a solid step up? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

well, I'm going to be a "Negative Nelly".

I train and race on Shamal Ultra *clinchers* (OK, I use a powertap rear wheel a lot now, too), and I can't understand why you'd want _tubular_ tires on Shamal wheels.

Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX-II clinchers + latex tubes are the equal of any tubular in rolling resistance and suppleness... in fact they are _same_ carcass as Open Corsa tubies ... maybe tubies are slightly superior if you race crits and blast thru corners at 30 mph with a 45º lean , or that you can ride tubies "flat" to the pit stop. And if you want ultralight, why even mess with alloy, go straight to shallow depth carbon.

Seems tubies make more sense on a very deep, aero, carbon rim for race day and balls-out hammerfests ... on a medium depth wheel (Shamal = 24mm frt, 27mm rear) -- I don't get it.


----------



## camber66 (May 26, 2009)

Hi iridepinarello, please comparison of the two systems, I want to bye Shamal tubular too.
I have handmade wheelset with Campy record Hub, Sapim CX-ray spokes, and Kinlin clincher XR270 front and XR300 rear. Vittoria evo CX 320 tpi. Wheels very aero but I hate Kinlin rims, because their poor quality. I want to change to Shamal.


----------



## iridepinarello (Feb 22, 2009)

The difference between the two is there for sure. To me, Tubeless tires simply don't ride like Tubular - at least not now. The Tubeless ride way "harder" to me. They don't corner as well, and I think they are a pain to get on and off (Just my opinion - I know other's would say the same about Tubular's). There is no chance I would take the Tubeless over the tubular. In time, when there are more tire options, the overall performance will likely improve, but for me so far, I think the Tubular are a WAY nicer riding wheel!

I hope that helps.



camber66 said:


> Hi iridepinarello, please comparison of the two systems, I want to bye Shamal tubular too.
> I have handmade wheelset with Campy record Hub, Sapim CX-ray spokes, and Kinlin clincher XR270 front and XR300 rear. Vittoria evo CX 320 tpi. Wheels very aero but I hate Kinlin rims, because their poor quality. I want to change to Shamal.


----------



## camber66 (May 26, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## natedg200202 (Sep 2, 2008)

iridepinarello said:


> The Tubeless ride way "harder" to me.


Just curious - what pressure were you running with tubeless?

Thanks.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

What tires did you have on the wheels?


----------



## iridepinarello (Feb 22, 2009)

I've tried both Vittoria Corsa EVO CX 320 TPI (21mm) and Zipp Tangente 290 TPI (23 mm). I've tried tires pressure from 105 to 130. In all cases, the wheels are assume.

In fact, I road them in the rain and wind for 3 hours yesterday and they handled like a dream.



Sherpa23 said:


> What tires did you have on the wheels?


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

Thanks. I just received some gold ones. I was thinking of putting some Conti Competitions on them but both of the tires you used are pretty soft riding tires so maybe I'll go with something like those, although it will be at the expense of better mileage out of the tires.


----------



## Bigborb (Apr 18, 2004)

Okay, so I'm 3 years late to reply to this thread .. Ive had several versions of Campy wheels over the years, as well as a lot of other great wheels - zipp 303, 404, Lightweight Ventoux & standard, Am. Classic, Bontr carbon; the list is large, and growing. I bought the Shamals as a lightweight and reliable 'travel' wheel to go with my couplered titanium road bike, and they have been a dream in every respect!

It seems that everything that Campagnolo makes is, well, perfect. I have the old Shamals from 2001, and I still find them to be among the fastest wheels I have, quicker than 404's despite their shallower depth! The Eurus is a beautiful wheel, and really functions no differently than the Shamal.. I think the rim is identical, the few grams weight difference is in the hub from what I can see. I have never been a Weight Wee, (really does 4 ounces make any difference to anything except the ego?).. But there is something beautiful about a light front wheel from the handling and agility standpoint. It is why I opted for the non-tubeless version (i.e. NOT 2-way), mainly for that nimbleness, plus the available tire choices are still not my favorites.

Same goes for ceramic bearings .. what a crock! The 'leverage' from rim to hub is such that if there were any real difference in bearing friction, it is completely negated.. Anyway, I guess they have to sell you something new every few years. 

My main point is: they have designed this wheel to function beautifully! They are much more 'aero' than they would seem by just looking, and seem to slip through the air about as quickly as American Classic 420 and even nearly as sleekly as 303's ! Between the bladed spokes and other factors, these wheels are not only smooth, solid and reliable, they also feel like they go fast under my not-so-scientific testing routines. 

In short, these are perhaps my favorite wheels, except for maybe the old Shamal tubulars, and Neutrons (note:all Campy). To the guy who couldn't understand why we'd use tubular tires: he obviously doesn't ride tubies .. get some and you'll see. 

As to the reliability aspect: the first trip I took with them to the Alps, I jammed the rear derailleur into the spokes, and of course bent every spoke in the back! I was shocked at my stupidity, but continued to ride them as they seemed to work well. It took a few days to get a new spoke kit in the middle of my Alps tour, but eventually I did get the spokes. 3 years later, I still have not yet changed them ! They are working well and see no need to do so, except cosmetics ..

If you're torn about buying them.. wait no longer! If budget is an issue, get the Eurus; they are really the same wheel.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Well, people will buy wheels for a lot of different reasons, not all of them objective ... and that's OK.

Couple yrs ago the German magazine, TOUR, did a test of veraious "all around" and "aero" wheels:
TOUR QTR 4-2011

Among their test results,

*aero power loss @ 40 kph (24.9 mph) & 0º yaw* (see graphs for yaw effect)
Campy Zonda 16.3 Watts
Campy Shamal Ultra 17.1 W
Zipp 404 FC _clincher _11.0 W

*Stiffness Frt & Rear*
Campy Zonda 50/49 Newtons/millimeter
Campy Shamal Ultra 47/44 N/mm
Zipp 404 FC clincher 48/36 N/mm

*Weight (wheels + skewers)*
Campy Zonda 50/49 1616 g (57.0 oz)
Campy Shamal Ultra 1568 g (55.3 oz)
Zipp 404 FC clincher 1582 g (55.80 oz)

The Campy Zonda can often be purchased for less than 1/2 the price of Shamal & substantially less than Eurus.

Essentially a draw on aero (16.3 vs 17.1), Zonda is marginally stiffer, and a mere 48g/2oz heavier.

You're not going to notice a Zipp 404's lower drag (6 watt less @ 25 mph) unless you're racing a TT, or soloing off the front a lot.
The 303 wasn't tested but Zipp has published some data that it's within a couple watts of the 404.

yes, I'm biased ... when I crashed & damaged a Shamal front, I sold the good rear Shamal & bought a set of Zondas for everyday use.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

tom_h said:


> Well, people will buy wheels for a lot of different reasons, not all of them objective ... and that's OK.
> 
> Couple yrs ago the German magazine, TOUR, did a test of veraious "all around" and "aero" wheels:
> TOUR QTR 4-2011
> ...


Yet despite this virtually every professional team uses tubulars exclusively. Given that the wheel manufacturers and tyre manufacturers who sponsor these teams will sell a fraction of their wares in tub format surely they'd insist on the teams using the clinchers to highlight their superiority? Or is it just that tubs are lighter, faster & more comfortable, period?


----------



## Bigborb (Apr 18, 2004)

I think it's agreed that tubular tires really do work better, hands down. They are just a bit inconvenient and costly, principally that when you puncture you basically have to replace the tire! Sealant does a good job though, and I can usually ride my tires until I see threads.. Given that professional racers have their mechanics do the work for them, the additional time spent gluing them is looked after by someone else. Personally, I love the task of gluing, and it makes me feel more like 'a real cyclist' .. but a lot of people are really afraid to get into it, maybe because they are never shown how it's done. 

Tubies can also be run at a wide range of inflation pressures, without danger or performance loss, and thus can be tailored to suit particular conditions or road surface.. They are a bit lighter, but mostly because the wheel rim doesn't have to contain the pressure of the tire, the rim can also be made lighter.. ah so many reasons.. But clinchers, as good as they have become are still nowhere near the suppleness and subtlety of a good tubular tire, period.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Bigborb said:


> I think it's agreed that tubular tires really do work better, hands down. ... But clinchers, as good as they have become are still nowhere near the suppleness and subtlety of a good tubular tire, period.





ultimobici said:


> ... Or is it just that tubs are lighter, faster & more comfortable, period?


Both you guys might be a little out-of-date concerning modern clinchers. The very best _race _clinchers (eg, Vittoria Open Corsa or similar), when used with latex tubes, are at least the equal of a _race _tubular (eg, Vittoria Corsa).

Many tire rolling resistance tests have confirmed there is no difference. 
Of course, you have to compare tubular & clincher of similar category or casing construction.

"Suppleness" & "feel" is more subjective, but I cannot tell any difference between the Vittoria Corsa (tubular) & Vittoria Open Corsa (clincher).

Having said that, I use tubulars on my race wheels mainly for a few reasons:

-- Properly glued tubulars are more likely to stay on rim and maintain control, if punctured (a big deal if you're descending 40-45 mph in a tight pack).
-- Tubulars can be ridden when flatted without damaging rim (not very fast, but you can get to the wheel pit).
-- Tubular tire + wheels are 200-300 g (7-10 oz) lighter than clincher equivalent. Not a big deal but every little bit helps on race day, even if it's mostly "placebo".

For every day use, clinchers hands down ... and not a "race clincher" ... Vittoria Open Corsa only last 1200-1500 miles on the rear, and cut & puncture relatively easily ... I'd be replacing worn out tires every 6 weeks. Fortunately there are other more durable clinchers on the market that are nearly as high performaing (eg, Conti GP4000s).

FYI, I've read TT world champ Tony Martin usually races TT on clinchers.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

tom_h said:


> Both you guys might be a little out-of-date concerning modern clinchers. The very best _race _clinchers (eg, Vittoria Open Corsa or similar), when used with latex tubes, are at least the equal of a _race _tubular (eg, Vittoria Corsa).
> 
> Many tire rolling resistance tests have confirmed there is no difference.
> Of course, you have to compare tubular & clincher of similar category or casing construction.


Most if not all of these tests are carried out using a metal drum with the wheel perpendicular to it. That gives you the effect of a straight line down a perfectly smooth road. Problem is bicycles are ridden up, down, left & right along far from perfect road surfaces.





> "Suppleness" & "feel" is more subjective, but I cannot tell any difference between the Vittoria Corsa (tubular) & Vittoria Open Corsa (clincher).


FWIW I work in the industry selling, among other things, larger quantities of Vittoria Corsas & Open Corsas than you would believe. Although my own wheels are not carbon rimmed, I can still feel a real difference when I switch to tubs or back to clinchers. The tubs don't need to be run at as high a pressure on damp days for one thing.



> Having said that, I use tubulars on my race wheels mainly for a few reasons:
> 
> -- Properly glued tubulars are more likely to stay on rim and maintain control, if punctured (a big deal if you're descending 40-45 mph in a tight pack).
> -- Tubulars can be ridden when flatted without damaging rim (not very fast, but you can get to the wheel pit).
> ...


To compare a GP4000S to any quality cotton tub in terms of performance is laughable. It may last longer, but it sure as hell won't ride any where near as well as a Corsa SC or Veloflex Criterium. My personal wheels are DT 240S with GL330 and Ambrosio Giro D'Italia rims for Tub and Clincher respectively. Weight difference is approximately 130g per wheel which, I can assure you, is no placebo when climbing for 10km.



> FYI, I've read TT world champ Tony Martin usually races TT on clinchers.


So one rider in a TT who would beat most on any day rides clinchers and it's proved your theory? C'mon!!


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

tom_h said:


> Well, people will buy wheels for a lot of different reasons, not all of them objective ... and that's OK.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


That's interesting, tom_h, as we all agree feel is subjective. I have a set of 2009 Shamal Ultras and 2010 Zonda, both 2-way, and I prefer the Shamal since I feel the front wheel has better braking characteristics (less grabby) and that they feel more sure-footed in side winds. I had thought this must be because the Shamal's spokes are stiffer -- and IIRC Shamal spokes are alu while Zonda are steel -- but the test suggests this isn't what makes the front wheel feel better in side winds. 

Anyway, I like both wheelsets, and now I run Vittoria Open Pave CG III clinchers with latex tubes on the Zonda. Nice ride but I personally prefer tubeless.


----------

