Tubular or Tubeless Wheelset?
#26
Senior Member
Likes For Koyote:
Likes For KJ43:
#28
Dead but dreaming
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Bay Area, CA (East Bay - Contra Costa County)
Posts: 423
Bikes: 2020 Santa Cruz Stigmata, 2022 Cannondale Synapse
Liked 326 Times
in
186 Posts
Thanks for the pointer. It's funny...I do carry around a tubolito tube for emergencies if I run out of plugs or things are so bad that I have to go that route. I might give that a try but once I have some time free to fiddle around more I'm going to work on getting my higher pressure tubeless setup dialed in.
#30
A lot of the posters in this forum have no experience with tubulars or road riding, so some remedial education is required. And a lot come recently from mountain biking backgrounds, so think that inappropriate, heavy and slow bike features such as disc brakes, suspension elements and fat tires are desirable on road bikes. And that a 20 pound bike road is 'light'; it is not and a huge handicap with things get steep.
Again, the OP wants a bike that is light and climbs, and not for jumping curbs or riding gravel.
Here is a brief chronology of how the sorry bike industry arrived at tubeless and hookless for the road:
For those pros whose results matter and are not just disposable domestiques or riding for marketing, you’ll be on tubulars. Stealth relabeled to not piss off your sponsors.
Again, the OP wants a bike that is light and climbs, and not for jumping curbs or riding gravel.
Here is a brief chronology of how the sorry bike industry arrived at tubeless and hookless for the road:
- 20 years ago tubulars completely dominated all aspects of competitive cycling, even MTB.
- Tubulars are a hard sell to weekend warriors and platinum-card yuppies, due to the messy gluing thing.
- A concerted effect is made to lighten up clinchers, yet clinchers suffer due to an insurmountable weight, fragility and safety handicap. It is not the tires, but the rims; the clincher rim profile is simply inferior. Plus the sharp rim hooks cause pinch flats, requiring high inflation pressures.
- In order to make clinchers more pinch-flat resistant and comfortable, higher-volume tires become more common. Of course, larger tires are heavier, less aero, and feature higher rolling resistance.
- Pinch flats are still a problem: so tubeless is the next development. Makes sense on an MTB, but on road bikes on first-world pavement?
- Clincher rims are still too heavy to be competitive. So next development is reducing the size of the rim ‘hooks’, hence ‘hookless’. Of course the huge handicap here is that you are constrained to a very narrow range of tires and low pressures. Big bonus to the industry is that hookless is cheaper to manufacture.
- Safety: clinchers (tubeless or otherwise) are still terrifying in a sudden blowout, so the next plan is to install a foamy pool noodle inside the tire. Yes, I’m serious here. To overcome the inherent safety disadvantage of clinchers, you need to install lots of messy sealant that dries out every few months plus a pool noodle.
For those pros whose results matter and are not just disposable domestiques or riding for marketing, you’ll be on tubulars. Stealth relabeled to not piss off your sponsors.
Likes For PeteHski:
#31
Many years ago I rode and raced on tubulars. Never had puncture issues that were problematic. I simply stopped riding them because cheapo models became unavailable, only the premium stuff was available. Back to clinchers I went and still do not suffer from excessive punctures. Maybe once every other year or so.
Never lived with tubeless, but installed many, many sets for customers. They loved them and I suspect they suffered flat issues or something. Today I think tubulars are very tempting and if I already had tubeless wheels most certainly it makes sense to give tubulars a try.
Never lived with tubeless, but installed many, many sets for customers. They loved them and I suspect they suffered flat issues or something. Today I think tubulars are very tempting and if I already had tubeless wheels most certainly it makes sense to give tubulars a try.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,929
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,053 Posts
Wow ... interesting range of character studies ...
here is my input (I say that to warn everyone to scroll past the rest of this post):
I have never ridden tubulars but have ridden tubeless and tubes.
Tubulars have always offered a safer (run-flat) and generally superior ride (lighter, more supple) but were less durable and required a major hassle to repair in the field (my understanding, supported only by many, many anecdotes.) On another hand a lto of people think changing a tube is a major hassle ... and anyone who has triedd to wrestle off an ultra-tight tubeless tie which couldn't be plugged ....
According the The mighty Mooney (who has always struck me very rational) modern tubulars are much more resilient than the old (he is not alone in reporting this)---which makes sense, as All tire tech has improved. Also with tape and sealant, tubulars apparently can be fixed or replaced roadside a lot more easily.
Therefore it would seem that a lot of the drawbacks of tubulars have been addressed.
The one undeniable benefit of tubulars is that They Weigh Less. (Well, actually some folks have no issue denying facts, but ... )
it is not for us to decide how the OP spends his money ("$X0000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bike, $X0000+1 is a little too much for diminishing returns, and $X0000+2 is Way too much"---how many of these garbage threads have we seen and derided?) nor is it for us to decide how light a bike one should build.
We are not UCI-Lite, dictating standards for other cyclists. if someone wants to build a 5-kg bike and ride it ... or build it and look at it ... or build it and burn it in a fire for that matter .... it is not our business. Maybe that is what will give him that ineffable sense of fulfillment which we each get in different ways from riding, but which we all get ... else we wouldn't ride ... and what is more ridiculous than telling people "Only I (not Grant Peterson) know the "Right" way to ride and to think about riding, so do it my way or you are wrong and stupid and actually secretly anti-bicycle."
If the guy wants a 900-gram wheel set complete with tires ... that is what he wants.
Telling him tubulars are crap (he already rides tubulars,so probably he doesn't agree, eh?) is not helpful. Telling him his wheels are too light already and a safety risk (how would any of us know?) is not helpful. Telling him nobody needs or should want what he wants is asinine.
Many times the mods have told me not to respond to a thread if I had nothing cogent or helpful .... and I daresay a number of posters her would get a little peeved if someone attacked their personal and specific bike- or gear choices for no reason other than they were different from someone else's.
Judging from past responses to certain threads ... telling other people how much to spend and what to spend it on is widely recognized as kind of silly.
I say to the OP ... go with the tubular rims and tubulars. if you are going light, go all-out. You have other wheels for other conditions, but if you are going to spend a bunch of money on a climbing-specific build, get maximum return on the investment---save every gram you can. Why not.
Spending a lot of money to go half-fast is sort of wasteful .... go all-out and all-in. Get the lightest.
Best part is ... thee days from now this thread will be closed and three days after that everyone will have forgotten it and the OP will buy whatever he does and no one will really care ... because it is the internet interaction, not actual cycling experiences, that bring us to BF.
here is my input (I say that to warn everyone to scroll past the rest of this post):
I have never ridden tubulars but have ridden tubeless and tubes.
Tubulars have always offered a safer (run-flat) and generally superior ride (lighter, more supple) but were less durable and required a major hassle to repair in the field (my understanding, supported only by many, many anecdotes.) On another hand a lto of people think changing a tube is a major hassle ... and anyone who has triedd to wrestle off an ultra-tight tubeless tie which couldn't be plugged ....
According the The mighty Mooney (who has always struck me very rational) modern tubulars are much more resilient than the old (he is not alone in reporting this)---which makes sense, as All tire tech has improved. Also with tape and sealant, tubulars apparently can be fixed or replaced roadside a lot more easily.
Therefore it would seem that a lot of the drawbacks of tubulars have been addressed.
The one undeniable benefit of tubulars is that They Weigh Less. (Well, actually some folks have no issue denying facts, but ... )
it is not for us to decide how the OP spends his money ("$X0000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bike, $X0000+1 is a little too much for diminishing returns, and $X0000+2 is Way too much"---how many of these garbage threads have we seen and derided?) nor is it for us to decide how light a bike one should build.
We are not UCI-Lite, dictating standards for other cyclists. if someone wants to build a 5-kg bike and ride it ... or build it and look at it ... or build it and burn it in a fire for that matter .... it is not our business. Maybe that is what will give him that ineffable sense of fulfillment which we each get in different ways from riding, but which we all get ... else we wouldn't ride ... and what is more ridiculous than telling people "Only I (not Grant Peterson) know the "Right" way to ride and to think about riding, so do it my way or you are wrong and stupid and actually secretly anti-bicycle."
If the guy wants a 900-gram wheel set complete with tires ... that is what he wants.
Telling him tubulars are crap (he already rides tubulars,so probably he doesn't agree, eh?) is not helpful. Telling him his wheels are too light already and a safety risk (how would any of us know?) is not helpful. Telling him nobody needs or should want what he wants is asinine.
Many times the mods have told me not to respond to a thread if I had nothing cogent or helpful .... and I daresay a number of posters her would get a little peeved if someone attacked their personal and specific bike- or gear choices for no reason other than they were different from someone else's.
Judging from past responses to certain threads ... telling other people how much to spend and what to spend it on is widely recognized as kind of silly.
I say to the OP ... go with the tubular rims and tubulars. if you are going light, go all-out. You have other wheels for other conditions, but if you are going to spend a bunch of money on a climbing-specific build, get maximum return on the investment---save every gram you can. Why not.
Spending a lot of money to go half-fast is sort of wasteful .... go all-out and all-in. Get the lightest.
Best part is ... thee days from now this thread will be closed and three days after that everyone will have forgotten it and the OP will buy whatever he does and no one will really care ... because it is the internet interaction, not actual cycling experiences, that bring us to BF.
Likes For Maelochs:
#33
Senior Member
it is not for us to decide how the OP spends his money ("$X0000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bike, $X0000+1 is a little too much for diminishing returns, and $X0000+2 is Way too much"---how many of these garbage threads have we seen and derided?) nor is it for us to decide how light a bike one should build.
I don’t object to lightening a bike, nor to spending money. But I feel the OP should consider that any sub-1000g wheelset will be cutting edge…and that may bring blood. Climbing leads to descending, and if one of your 20 (or 18, or 16) spokes snaps at speed, or your hub flange breaks, then it won’t matter that you got up that three-mile climb a few seconds faster.
Last edited by Koyote; 12-21-23 at 09:20 PM.
Likes For Koyote:
#34
Literally no one in this thread has even mentioned the cost of the wheels… So why are you going on about it? Obvious straw man argument. And only a couple posters have suggested that the weight is irrelevant… Someone even trotted out the ridiculous old trope about how it is easier to lose body weight. So what? Most of the responses seem to reflect honest discussion.
I don’t object to lightening a bike, nor to spending money. But I feel the OP should consider that any sub-1000g wheelset will be cutting edge…and that may bring blood. Climbing leads to descending, and if one of your 20 (or 18, or 16) spokes snaps at speed, or your hub flange breaks, then it won’t matter that you got up that three-mile climb a few seconds faster.
I don’t object to lightening a bike, nor to spending money. But I feel the OP should consider that any sub-1000g wheelset will be cutting edge…and that may bring blood. Climbing leads to descending, and if one of your 20 (or 18, or 16) spokes snaps at speed, or your hub flange breaks, then it won’t matter that you got up that three-mile climb a few seconds faster.
So it’s really all just a game of chicken in how light you can make your bike without risking a serious failure. Personally I wouldn’t ride a wheel set under 1kg down a mountain regardless of tyre choice.
Likes For PeteHski:
#35
Senior Member
A lot of the posters in this forum have no experience with tubulars or road riding, so some remedial education is required. And a lot come recently from mountain biking backgrounds, so think that inappropriate, heavy and slow bike features such as disc brakes, suspension elements and fat tires are desirable on road bikes. And that a 20 pound bike road is 'light'; it is not and a huge handicap with things get steep.
Again, the OP wants a bike that is light and climbs, and not for jumping curbs or riding gravel.
Here is a brief chronology of how the sorry bike industry arrived at tubeless and hookless for the road:
For those pros whose results matter and are not just disposable domestiques or riding for marketing, you’ll be on tubulars. Stealth relabeled to not piss off your sponsors.
Again, the OP wants a bike that is light and climbs, and not for jumping curbs or riding gravel.
Here is a brief chronology of how the sorry bike industry arrived at tubeless and hookless for the road:
- 20 years ago tubulars completely dominated all aspects of competitive cycling, even MTB.
- Tubulars are a hard sell to weekend warriors and platinum-card yuppies, due to the messy gluing thing.
- A concerted effect is made to lighten up clinchers, yet clinchers suffer due to an insurmountable weight, fragility and safety handicap. It is not the tires, but the rims; the clincher rim profile is simply inferior. Plus the sharp rim hooks cause pinch flats, requiring high inflation pressures.
- In order to make clinchers more pinch-flat resistant and comfortable, higher-volume tires become more common. Of course, larger tires are heavier, less aero, and feature higher rolling resistance.
- Pinch flats are still a problem: so tubeless is the next development. Makes sense on an MTB, but on road bikes on first-world pavement?
- Clincher rims are still too heavy to be competitive. So next development is reducing the size of the rim ‘hooks’, hence ‘hookless’. Of course the huge handicap here is that you are constrained to a very narrow range of tires and low pressures. Big bonus to the industry is that hookless is cheaper to manufacture.
- Safety: clinchers (tubeless or otherwise) are still terrifying in a sudden blowout, so the next plan is to install a foamy pool noodle inside the tire. Yes, I’m serious here. To overcome the inherent safety disadvantage of clinchers, you need to install lots of messy sealant that dries out every few months plus a pool noodle.
For those pros whose results matter and are not just disposable domestiques or riding for marketing, you’ll be on tubulars. Stealth relabeled to not piss off your sponsors.
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,929
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,053 Posts
OP has already said he is buying one set or the other .... and none of us knows whether either proposed wheel set is safe or unsafe. None of us knows unless we have actual personal experience with either wheel set or has done research ... and since no one has posted a long list of failures for either of the two wheel sets mentioned ... all we are getting is prejudice. If people want to believe that a wheel of a certain sort cannot be built safely, based on zero real-world information ... go ahead.
If the wheel sets are commercially available, they are almost by definition not "cutting edge," they are regular commercial wheel sets. The idea that "they may bring blood" is pure prejudice.
Further, Any wheel or tire might fail on a fast descent leading to grave injury. I have gotten a flat on a downhill turn which sent me tumbling, and my gear is not "cutting edge' not particularly light weight.
Also ... reading is fundamental.
I said it is not u to us what the OP spends his money on .... which I maintain to be true. I never said anyone said the price was too high.
I then referenced threads where people Do tell others that "that is too much to spend" to illustrate the point that telling others to adopt our values because we value them is asinine.
here is the actual passage in question: figure it out.
"it is not for us to decide how the OP spends his money ("$X0000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bike, $X0000+1 is a little too much for diminishing returns, and $X0000+2 is Way too much"---how many of these garbage threads have we seen and derided?) nor is it for us to decide how light a bike one should build."
By the way, the OP mentioned the cost ... but my remark was about threads where posters criticized the OP because he valued different things.
Mr. Hski, whom I respect very much does it in fact: implying that no one should want a bike significantly lighter than a UCI bike .... and implying that a bike significantly lighter than a UCI -reg-compliant bike is a death trap.
Until you see the built bike, no one knows what it is. No one knows for sure whether the wheels are safe ... or even how much they actually weight, because, as I said, apparently no one has cared enough to research them.
Post the long list of failures of either or both of those wheel sets, please. I am sure the information is out there if a significant majority have failed ... warranty claims, insurance claims, etc. There is a whole website about Shimano cranks failing .... where is the info demonstrating that these two wheel sets are unsafe?
And ... even if these wheels are "cutting edge" in terms of Commercially Available technology---in other words, sufficiently tested that the manufacturers feel sure they will not be bankrupted by lawsuits----then this reminds me of people assuring the world that aluminum wouldn't work because the vibration of riding would cause fatigue failure, or that CF would asplode.
None of us really know how light a bike can be built safely because the market is controlled by bikes which are close to UCI-compliant weight. Who knows, with CF tech being where it is, if a non-UCI-regulated design---not necessarily a diamond frame, a true "blank sheet" rethink of a bike, how light a sufficiently rigid frame could be built? Who knows What could be built? If NASA wanted to build a bike for use on the Moon or Mars, I bet they could beat 6.5 kg. Who knows?
I do know that all the people claiming these wheels are unsafe without a shred of evidence were probably arguing against bikes and cars in a past life---"Horses have served humankind's transportation needs for millennia, these newfangled machines are just going to kill people."
So ... waiting on the data of the hideous wreckage record of "Light Bicycle AR25 laced with Berd spokes to Extralite HyperSmart hubs ..." or "a set of Brisk Tubular Hubs laced with their proprietary carbon-titanium spokes to the same Extralite hubs."
If the wheel sets are commercially available, they are almost by definition not "cutting edge," they are regular commercial wheel sets. The idea that "they may bring blood" is pure prejudice.
Further, Any wheel or tire might fail on a fast descent leading to grave injury. I have gotten a flat on a downhill turn which sent me tumbling, and my gear is not "cutting edge' not particularly light weight.
Also ... reading is fundamental.
I said it is not u to us what the OP spends his money on .... which I maintain to be true. I never said anyone said the price was too high.
I then referenced threads where people Do tell others that "that is too much to spend" to illustrate the point that telling others to adopt our values because we value them is asinine.
here is the actual passage in question: figure it out.
"it is not for us to decide how the OP spends his money ("$X0000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bike, $X0000+1 is a little too much for diminishing returns, and $X0000+2 is Way too much"---how many of these garbage threads have we seen and derided?) nor is it for us to decide how light a bike one should build."
By the way, the OP mentioned the cost ... but my remark was about threads where posters criticized the OP because he valued different things.
Mr. Hski, whom I respect very much does it in fact: implying that no one should want a bike significantly lighter than a UCI bike .... and implying that a bike significantly lighter than a UCI -reg-compliant bike is a death trap.
Until you see the built bike, no one knows what it is. No one knows for sure whether the wheels are safe ... or even how much they actually weight, because, as I said, apparently no one has cared enough to research them.
Post the long list of failures of either or both of those wheel sets, please. I am sure the information is out there if a significant majority have failed ... warranty claims, insurance claims, etc. There is a whole website about Shimano cranks failing .... where is the info demonstrating that these two wheel sets are unsafe?
And ... even if these wheels are "cutting edge" in terms of Commercially Available technology---in other words, sufficiently tested that the manufacturers feel sure they will not be bankrupted by lawsuits----then this reminds me of people assuring the world that aluminum wouldn't work because the vibration of riding would cause fatigue failure, or that CF would asplode.
None of us really know how light a bike can be built safely because the market is controlled by bikes which are close to UCI-compliant weight. Who knows, with CF tech being where it is, if a non-UCI-regulated design---not necessarily a diamond frame, a true "blank sheet" rethink of a bike, how light a sufficiently rigid frame could be built? Who knows What could be built? If NASA wanted to build a bike for use on the Moon or Mars, I bet they could beat 6.5 kg. Who knows?
I do know that all the people claiming these wheels are unsafe without a shred of evidence were probably arguing against bikes and cars in a past life---"Horses have served humankind's transportation needs for millennia, these newfangled machines are just going to kill people."
So ... waiting on the data of the hideous wreckage record of "Light Bicycle AR25 laced with Berd spokes to Extralite HyperSmart hubs ..." or "a set of Brisk Tubular Hubs laced with their proprietary carbon-titanium spokes to the same Extralite hubs."
Likes For Maelochs:
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 1,413
Bikes: 89 Paramount OS 84 Fuji Touring Series III New! 2013 Focus Izalco Ergoride
Likes: 0
Liked 75 Times
in
55 Posts
Have a set of tubulars that I enjoy riding. Got em just cause I felt like it. I find much less issue with flats than tubed clinchers. Don't have 30 years experience with glue so just went with tape. (Glue also hard to get in Hawaii -- no one will ship it.) But rim selection these days is getting pretty poor so might not be much of an option going forward.
scott s.
.
scott s.
.
#38
Mr. Hski, whom I respect very much does it in fact: implying that no one should want a bike significantly lighter than a UCI bike .... and implying that a bike significantly lighter than a UCI -reg-compliant bike is a death trap.
None of us really know how light a bike can be built safely because the market is controlled by bikes which are close to UCI-compliant weight. Who knows, with CF tech being where it is, if a non-UCI-regulated design---not necessarily a diamond frame, a true "blank sheet" rethink of a bike, how light a sufficiently rigid frame could be built? Who knows What could be built? If NASA wanted to build a bike for use on the Moon or Mars, I bet they could beat 6.5 kg. Who knows?
Your last paragraph actually sums it up nicely. Who knows how light we can safely go below UCI minimum limits? What we do know is that bikes designed at the UCI limit are very well proven and reasonably safe. Being an engineer, I would want to know exactly how they managed to achieve these exceptionally low wheel weights without compromising safety. I would trust the S-Works Aethos frame and lightweight wheel sets from the likes of DT Swiss, Roval etc. but I don’t know about these. I would hope the OP has done plenty of research on them. That’s all I’m saying.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,929
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,053 Posts
My whole point here was that if a guy says, "A or B" and people say "Seven:' or "Letters are wrong" or whatever .... but mostly, you know, I have this big ego to polish and it takes a lot of BF posts to feel validated .....
Likes For Maelochs:
#40
I also found the listed weights to be astoundingly, almost unrealistically, small ...
My whole point here was that if a guy says, "A or B" and people say "Seven:' or "Letters are wrong" or whatever .... but mostly, you know, I have this big ego to polish and it takes a lot of BF posts to feel validated .....
My whole point here was that if a guy says, "A or B" and people say "Seven:' or "Letters are wrong" or whatever .... but mostly, you know, I have this big ego to polish and it takes a lot of BF posts to feel validated .....
Likes For PeteHski:
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,929
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,053 Posts
Thanks [MENTION=539125]PeteHski[/MENTION] ... i feel validated now.
#42
I really appreciate all the info here, and the differing opinions- especially regarding the experience with tubulars. While I have over 30 years of competitive riding experience I have just never had much experience riding them.
When I am looking at which wheels to buy, my priorities are:
1. Reliable enough to go out for a long hilly ride. One of the popular rides around here which takes place annually has 130+ miles and 12,000+ feet of elevation. I would like to use the wheels I choose for his type of ride. I don't want to get stuck somewhere with a puncture and not be able to complete the ride. This is where I am worried about the tubulars. I don't know how to patch them, or if I can simply carry an extra one with me and replace when needed... (I have gotten a lot of good info so far on this topic).
2. Comfortable- putting so many miles into a ride, I want to make sure I am not sacrificing ride comfort for lightweight.
3. As light as possible. I have a 3T Strada Due, and a 3T Racemax Italia; but this bike is a project to see how light I can get a "daily rider". I agree that it's cheaper and more effective to lose a few grams from my body rather than the wheels; and that is a separate project I am working on.
4. Price- I want to build this bike with light, but not too exotic parts. For instance- I am not using Darimo or Schmolke (yet). I know there has been a little discussion about this so far in the thread. Both wheelsets will be around $2,100 shipped to USA so this has not really played into my decision at this time. The wheelsets will cost about the same amount until I factor in tires (and tubes if I go that route).
Obviously safety is a concern as well but since I am equally concerned about safety, it is not a differentiating factor here. Lightbicycle assures me that their wheels are overbuilt and are rated for aggressive road AND gravel riding; and the Brisk wheels are rated above the type of riding I plan on doing. Both can be built with 24 spokes, and they are rated for riders heavier than I am.
I think part of the fun of projects like these is deciding what to do. I mean, I COULD just pull out the old American Express and buy both and be done with it; but what's the fun in that... It's much more satisfying to get all the opinions I can, and make the best decision I can with all the info I collect- finally pulling the trigger and hoping I made the right choice. At this point though... I AM STILL NOT SURE!!
When I am looking at which wheels to buy, my priorities are:
1. Reliable enough to go out for a long hilly ride. One of the popular rides around here which takes place annually has 130+ miles and 12,000+ feet of elevation. I would like to use the wheels I choose for his type of ride. I don't want to get stuck somewhere with a puncture and not be able to complete the ride. This is where I am worried about the tubulars. I don't know how to patch them, or if I can simply carry an extra one with me and replace when needed... (I have gotten a lot of good info so far on this topic).
2. Comfortable- putting so many miles into a ride, I want to make sure I am not sacrificing ride comfort for lightweight.
3. As light as possible. I have a 3T Strada Due, and a 3T Racemax Italia; but this bike is a project to see how light I can get a "daily rider". I agree that it's cheaper and more effective to lose a few grams from my body rather than the wheels; and that is a separate project I am working on.
4. Price- I want to build this bike with light, but not too exotic parts. For instance- I am not using Darimo or Schmolke (yet). I know there has been a little discussion about this so far in the thread. Both wheelsets will be around $2,100 shipped to USA so this has not really played into my decision at this time. The wheelsets will cost about the same amount until I factor in tires (and tubes if I go that route).
Obviously safety is a concern as well but since I am equally concerned about safety, it is not a differentiating factor here. Lightbicycle assures me that their wheels are overbuilt and are rated for aggressive road AND gravel riding; and the Brisk wheels are rated above the type of riding I plan on doing. Both can be built with 24 spokes, and they are rated for riders heavier than I am.
I think part of the fun of projects like these is deciding what to do. I mean, I COULD just pull out the old American Express and buy both and be done with it; but what's the fun in that... It's much more satisfying to get all the opinions I can, and make the best decision I can with all the info I collect- finally pulling the trigger and hoping I made the right choice. At this point though... I AM STILL NOT SURE!!
Last edited by Ofsinreno; 12-22-23 at 11:45 AM.
#43
Why not get the best of both worlds with tubeless tubulars: Donnelly/Clement Strada LGG tubeless tubular
https://www.donnellycycling.com/coll...0-x-25-tubular
Tufo makes tubeless tubulars too
https://www.donnellycycling.com/coll...0-x-25-tubular
Tufo makes tubeless tubulars too
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,321
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,331 Times
in
2,788 Posts
The famous GP4 rims. 400 grams. Everybody know that number. Well, I've picked up around a dozen over the past couple of years. Weights - maybe 3 at 405. Several at 445-455. The rest: 490-505. Yeah, a few have tire glue on them and a couple, brake wear but neither of these are 50g numbers and they cancel each other. All the rims that are close to 400g are the oldest and shallowest. The newer and deeper ones that appear to be off new tooling are all 450 or more.
#46
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,510
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,059 Times
in
1,999 Posts
Likes For terrymorse:
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,321
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,331 Times
in
2,788 Posts
Why not get the best of both worlds with tubeless tubulars: Donnelly/Clement Strada LGG tubeless tubular
https://www.donnellycycling.com/coll...0-x-25-tubular
Tufo makes tubeless tubulars too
https://www.donnellycycling.com/coll...0-x-25-tubular
Tufo makes tubeless tubulars too
#48
#49
I really appreciate all the info here, and the differing opinions- especially regarding the experience with tubulars. While I have over 30 years of competitive riding experience I have just never had much experience riding them.
When I am looking at which wheels to buy, my priorities are:
1. Reliable enough to go out for a long hilly ride. One of the popular rides around here which take splace annually has 130+ miles and 12,000+ feet of elevation. I would like to use the wheels I choose for his type of ride. I don't want to get stuck somewhere with a puncture and not be able to complete the ride. This is where I am worried about the tubulars. I don't know how to patch them, or if I can simply carry an extra one with me and replace when needed... (I have gotten a lot of good info so far on this topic).
I AM STILL NOT SURE!!
When I am looking at which wheels to buy, my priorities are:
1. Reliable enough to go out for a long hilly ride. One of the popular rides around here which take splace annually has 130+ miles and 12,000+ feet of elevation. I would like to use the wheels I choose for his type of ride. I don't want to get stuck somewhere with a puncture and not be able to complete the ride. This is where I am worried about the tubulars. I don't know how to patch them, or if I can simply carry an extra one with me and replace when needed... (I have gotten a lot of good info so far on this topic).
I AM STILL NOT SURE!!
I'm glad you appreciate the advice, but then there is good advice, based on decades of broad experience, such as mine. And then there is naive misinformed advice, such as from the usual hair-on-fire industry cheerleaders and apologists. I don't have to sell anything, or justify any misguided bike purchase. Again, much of the perspectives here are from folks who have no experience with tubulars, or racing, or (good) road bikes, and think that inappropriate ballast ported over from the MTB world is just swell on a road bike. Such as disc brakes, suspension elements, tubeless, hookless and farm-tractor tires.
So you are worried about flats.. There are two main types of flats: pinch flats and punctures. Tubulars do not pinch flat because of the superior rounder rim profile. Clinchers pinch flat because of the 2 sharp 'hooks' required to keep the tire on. The whole thrust of tubeless and hookless in the clincher world is to reduce pinch flats, but this introduces a bunch of additional problems such as high volume wide (heavy and slow) tires, the need for sealant, low pressure ratings, blowoffs etc. The entire pinch flat problem goes away with tubulars. You can ride narrow tubular tires at irresponsibly low pressures on gravel, and not get pinch flats.
Second: punctures. Tubular and clincher tires of the same construction have the same propensity to flat. It is all up to tread thickness and kevlar layers. What makes tubeless more flat resistant to the little stuff is sealant. BUT YOU CAN INSTALL SEALANT IN TUBULARS. Presto. 20cc is enough through the removable valve core. On the long rides you carry a spare tire, in the rare event you hit a tire-killing object.
So on the long rides you are more secure on tubulars than clinchers, as in the event of a big tire impact, you have a complete spare fresh tire. And you don't have to carry a gas-powered compressor to inflate your tires in your backpack, as you have to do with tubeless.
Forgot: third class of tire failures: the new mechanics in our shop test for tubeless/hookless rim/tire compatibility by inflating the tire until it explodes. So if you expect your local shop to be a responsible and safe advisor when it comes to tubeless/hookless tire installations: think again.
Likes For Dave Mayer:
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe: