Clinchers Vs. Tubbies.

[Johan Bornman]

For the first time ever...Bornmann has just set himself up.

I'm gonna challenge you Mr Bornmann...do a little research and tell us who was the last rider to win one of these races using High Pressures...Tour De France' date=' Giro D Italia, Vuelta, Milan San Remo, SA road Champs...

If what you were saying is in fact true, then why would all the Pro teams waste so much money on Tubulars, when they could use much cheaper reusable Clinchers??

I personally prefer POLIBOND glue...I use a minimal amount as well, have glued them 4hours before I raced I might add...never had a problem. Clement, Vittoria and Conti glue's have never worked for me...[/quote']

 

Simon, I think you're confused about what I said about tubbies and what you expect me to have said. Read my posts carefully.

 

You still haven't defined "responsive" in terms of wheels. Please do so.

 

There are two reasons why tubulars are still in use:

1) Weight

2) Ability to pump to high pressure.

 

Some people would add a third point - resistance to pinch flats. I say that comes as a by-product of riding at high pressure in anyway.

 

 It remains a hugely inconvenient, anacronistic system hailing from the early 20th century. Some of us have moved on, others not. So be it.

 

Pliobond glue creates frictional losses between the tyre and rim - this is evident from the black aluminium compound created at the rim when a soft-glued tyre has been in use for a while. This doesn't happen with shellac, something that isn't in use anymore. Not many people have made this connection.

 

What you personally prefer is up to you, what does that prove? What problem do you expect to have? Both soft and hard glue won't give you a problem. However, the one has small frictional losses, the other doesn't. Did you expect to feel that? Hope not.

 

You say this or that glue doesn't work for you. That's a meaningless statement. Rather state the specific problem you experience with that glue so that we all understand.

 

Finally, if you have to address me on my surname, like they do in British public schools, please note that it is spelt Bornman. One N.

 

 

Johan Bornman2008-03-13 13:20:09

[Johan Bornman]

Bob' date=' on the track an HP is a no go. Its slower, and feels dull.
A tubular is far more responsive, and when I say that I mean it is quicker, and more manouverable.
If clinchers were that good, Mavic and Campagnolo would make clincher disc wheels...[/quote']

 

Statement: Tubbies are More Responsive.

Definition of Responsive: Quicker and More Maneuverable.

 

Definition of Quicker..... Now we're stuck. I've heard this term used in Formula 1 as well, but it is meaningless. It's obscure, please be very clear when defining things?

 

Maneuverable? The right definition would be that it is easier to change direction. If you differ, please raise your hand and tell us. However, I'm certain you'll find it difficult to explain how a tubbie makes it easier to change direction than a clincher.

 

I'd like to hear your view on this.

 

 

 

 

[The_Break]

I still reckon permatubes are the way to go!

[GreyOwl]

Firstly, I am British. So that ends that.

 

 

 

Ok, here we go...

 

I have tried glues such as Continental, Vittoria, Tubasti and several others. They did not work for me. I found that they did not stick properly. The Tubular was easy to remove,and on 2 occassions I rolled a tubular with one of these glues mentioned. So I put that down to personal experience.

 

 

 

Responsive...this means that the bike moves easier, accelerates quicker and rolls faster when ridden with tubulars. I was once given a Vittoria Corsa CX Open tyre, which was meant to be an equivalent of the tubular version. The ride was very different, between the tubular and the HP it was very noticeable. The Tubular was by far a better ride.

 

 

 

As I have said, if they could make a HP that could ride like a tubular, I'd be the first to ride it. But they have not, and the testimony to this is the fact that the top pro's still use tubulars. They are simply better.

 

 

 

JB, I accept your points concerning 'pinching'...but not about the tubular being a relic from the 20th century!!!! The wheel has remained the wheel...and the tubular has remained just that. Why? Because they are the best at what they have been designed to do.

 

 

 

 

[bob_the_builder]

 

2. Sometimes' date=' pros do things for strange reasons, like superstition & tradition, for example. At some point in history, tubbies had a clear edge over clinchers. Tubby rims are still lighter than clinchers. Pros dont pay for their tyres, so cost wont bother them. Perhaps they do use hard glue when its very omportant, like fir TT's.

3. I think most of the equipment we see in the pro peleton sees extensive lab testing during development, before it gets raced. Lab tests dont lie. How else would they verify the safety of cars, planes etc?

 

And about point no. 1, good luck! hehe  

[/quote']

 

Sorry, the contradiction you use confuses me. You suggest the "pro's" use tubbies out of tradition and superstition, and then infer that they tubbies are subjected to lab tests and approvals before being used?

 

If as you say, "lab tests don't lie", and I get the feeling that you are trying to suggest that "lab tested" is cutting edge, technologically superior etc, then where does the tradition and superstion come in? Is the lab you speak of actually a 17th century alchemists cave or what?

 

I will stick my neck out again for this cause, races are not won or raced in a lab. The best riders in the world, although paid to use some equipment, will not do so if it does not work. They will use what works - lab tested - regardless. Look at David George rididng that Lapierre - oops, sorry, ultralight prototype Raleigh (which if it is they copied from a Lapierre) - in the Giro...

 

Not to start another debate, but Lance did say it best: It's not about the bike.

 

And to really understand that statement is to understand that the sport of cycling is not a science but an art.

bob_the_builder2008-03-13 23:31:54

[fiasm]

  

 

Sorry' date=' the contradiction you use confuses me. You suggest the "pro's" use tubbies out of tradition and superstition, and then infer that they tubbies are subjected to lab tests and approvals before being used?

 

If as you say, "lab tests don't lie", and I get the feeling that you are trying to suggest that "lab tested" is cutting edge, technologically superior etc, then where does the tradition and superstion come in? Is the lab you speak of actually a 17th century alchemists cave or what?

 

I will stick my neck out again for this cause, races are not won or raced in a lab. The best riders in the world, although paid to use some equipment, will not do so if it does not work. They will use what works - lab tested - regardless. Look at David George rididng that Lapierre - oops, sorry, ultralight prototype Raleigh (which if it is they copied from a Lapierre) - in the Giro...

 

Not to start another debate, but Lance did say it best: It's not about the bike.

 

And to really understand that statement is to understand that the sport of cycling is not a science but an art.

[/quote']

 

 

Oh, Bob you said what I believe 100%.  All the fancy schmancy pretty equipment, perceived technical advantages, supplements or whatever people believe in, will not matter one iota if you just can't get on the damn thing and ride it hard!

fiasm2008-03-15 16:23:32

[sebunya]

Just to through a spanner in the works. You can add tubeless road to the list aswell but I would never trust it.

 

 

fully agree

[Sammajoor]

What we must also not forget in this equasion is what we can afford and how serious one is about his racing.

 

I ride maybe 4 or 5 races in a year, because I work in a foreign country, so I do not see the need to spend money on a wheel where in my starting block, a tubby is going to make such a big difference.  For me a carbon clincher is going to do the same work.  For me it is more to bling my bike.

 

A pro on the other hand is going to ride a tubby as he has a support car and is really going to get the full advantage of a tubby, slight as it may be.  Also the team / sponsor pays for evrything, and tubbies are more expensive than clinchers .

 

So you pick what you can afford or want to have and how serious you are about your cycling  and THEN you make your choice.  To me there is nothing wrong with a good clincher wheelset

 

My R0,02 c worth

[ewep]

 

And to really understand that statement is to understand that the sport of cycling is not a science but an art.

 

And this art includes what you like and don't like and what you feel and don't feel! 

 

Then why do I ride clinchers?  One reason only, punctures.  I have ridden on tubbies and would give my left one to be able to ride it more often, but no chance!  And JB, I have to agree with GO on the responsive on this one.  As I said above, it's about the cyclists own perception (ask me what I felt when riding Campy Scirocco vs Fulcrum Racing 7's vs Fulcrum Racing 1's)

 

[ewep]

 

For me a carbon clincher is going to do the same work.  For me it is more to bling my bike.

 

And here I refer to my post again!  I would rather ride a decent Alu clincher.  What's the difference, NOTHING!!!!!

 

[Man with no name]

I still reckon permatubes are the way to go!

 

Seriously, with all the modern advances in technology and materials, why can't this be done for performance road bikes. You insert a compound that reflect a tyre pressure of say 10 bars and add the normal thread on the outside?

 

Or better, a permatube inner tube with a normal road clincher on the outside. Nor more tubes, no more punctures, its all good

[Sammajoor]

I still reckon permatubes are the way to go!

 

Seriously' date=' with all the modern advances in technology and materials, why can't this be done for performance road bikes. You insert a compound that reflect a tyre pressure of say 10 bars and add the normal thread on the outside?

 

Or better, a permatube inner tube with a normal road clincher on the outside. Nor more tubes, no more punctures, its all good

[/quote']

 

This is where the elitists are going to start asking ------- but what is the weight advantage

[Malkie]

As a matter of interest does any body know how many of the local pro teams race clincher and how many race tubbie,or is it a given at that level to race tubbie,and for that matter do any of pro tour teams race on clincher.

[Christie]

@ bob

What Im trying to say is the following:

 

A lot of manufacturers include extensive testing in the development of their products. I'm sure Continental & Michelin have got test data of exactly that the rolling resistance of their tyres are.  Whichever way the data points, there is a good chance that it wil be correct.

 

The next question is: If the data says this or that, why do pros ride A or B? This reason may not always be obvious. Some possibles could be:they get paid to. Perhaps they use hard glue in their tubbies. Perhaps the advantage of one over the other is so small it does not matter. 

[Sammajoor]

@ bob

What Im trying to say is the following:

 

Perhaps they use hard glue in their tubbies. Perhaps the advantage of one over the other is so small it does not matter. 

 

This is the best reply I have heard

[Conti]

hier is n artikel oor die onderwerp in die Ultracyling  Magazine.

 

 

There are clear advantages to both types of tire here, and whichever you use is mostly a matter of personal preference. Tubular tires, overall, provide a better ride (there's a reason that more pros use tubulars!). Quite simply, tubular tires have higher tire pressures, and therefore, lower rolling resistance. This also provides them with a more comfortable ride. Additionally, tubular rims are on average about 100 grams lighter than clincher rims, and tubular tires are about 30-50 grams lighter than the clincher tire/tube combination. So you will also gain a weight advantage by riding tubulars. Practically speaking, they also tend to be more puncture resistant, and pinch-flats are non-existent with tubulars because of the very nature of their construction.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The main advantages of clincher tires is that they are less expensive overall than tubulars, and they are somewhat easier to change (particularly on the fly). The performance gap between clinchers and tubulars has decreased in recent years. A good clincher tire performs almost as well as a tubular these days. So what you choose to ride, in the end, really is a matter of personal preference with respect to juggling these pros and cons.

Accomplished RAAM riders are almost all riding clincher tires. Though most riders recognized that tubular tires provide a better performance, they also noted that the difference between the two types of tires has lessened over the past number of years. Thus they chose to ride clinchers primarily because of their increased convenience, both for training and for racing. There were a couple of tubular tire hold-outs, but they were clearly in the minority among RAAM riders.

The most common brand of tire among those who rode clinchers was Continental. It was the clear favourite, with the Grand Prix series being the preferred model. With respect to tubulars, Vittoria was clearly the company of choice.

There are a number of choices to consider when choosing a wheelset for your bike. In the end, much of it seems to come down to personal preference, based on a finite number of variables, such as weight and aerodynamics. As with your frame selection, the wheels you select for your bike should be chosen with your particular events and goals firmly in mind.