GeraldChan

If you get a flat you simply peel off the flat tire and mount your spare tire and you are on your way in under 5 minutes.

Many of us old-timers ride sew-ups on the street and most of us don't race.

Carrying a spare tire is a non-issue. It fits under the saddle in a bag with the CO2 cartidges.

This has worked for many, many decades.

patentcad

Essentially. You'd have to live with tubies for a while and decide if the glueing hassles and costs of keeping yourself in fresh tires is worth it overall. Possibly. I decided long ago to use both as described above. I've known a few cyclists who ride sew-ups exclusively.

urbanknight

This is the biggest reason to race on tubulars for me. If I get a flat on the back straight of a crit, I can ride to the wheel pit to get my spare on tubulars. Running 1/4 mile on cleated shoes because I can't ride a flat clincher just doesn't seem like it will work too well.

No more danger than a clincher unseating and rolling off the rim. Actually, probably LESS likely than a clincher.

cruiserhead

Tubulars resist flats better, handle better, corner better, are more comfortable and faster.

this is what a tubular looks like in cross-section ---> O
it is always a perfect circle to the ground no matter if you are cornering or going straight.

this is what a clincher looks like--> U

I like tubulars because they are the best performance upgrade you can add to your bike. People are willing to pay outrageous prices for clincher wheels, $100+ clincher tires and uber lightweight tubes for no gain in real performance. I think too many have bought into the clincher marketing koolaid.

Spend less for a comparable set of tubulars and you get better handling, comfort, lighter weight & a faster bike.

urbanknight

I would venture to say that it's actually about the same cost or less to run tubulars because of how few flats they encounter. My only hesitation is that when you DO get a flat that can't be sealed, you need a whole new tire right there with you. I have never had a flat on a tubular tire in the 4 years I used them... although I primarily did crits, RRs, time trials, and velodrome on them. I spend much more on tubes and patches... and for those of you who use CO2...

flaco

I was going to start a new thread to ask this question, but maybe I can hijack this one instead:

I would like to get a set of tubular wheels for the reasons noted above, but also because I raced cyclocross this year and was jealous of the guys running tubulars, who could run very low psi without fear of pinching. I am also planning to do some road racing this year. It would be great to get a set of wheels that would work for both cross and road. High-end carbon wheels are out of my range and inappropriate to my abilities anyway. It seems like I could just get some wheels built with Ultegra hubs and a Mavic box section rim for pretty cheap. Are there any other inexpensive, durable wheels I should consider? Would I really miss the aero qualities of a deeper section rim while on the road?

thanks.

urbanknight

Ultegra/Mavic would be fine. Also look into Velocity Fusion (?). You might miss the aero benefits while on the road, but I really don't buy into it being as crucial as people make it seem (otherwise I'll be winning every race when I step up to aero wheels).

carpediemracing 

Beloki locked up his rear wheel, slid sideways. Should have been end of story. However his rear tire rolled off the rim and locked up the rear wheel. This appeared to cause him to high side over the bike. Since I don't know Beloki and I've never rolled a tire in that situation, I don't know if he'd have kept it up otherwise. However, I know that I've seen plenty of riders slide at high speeds, release, and recover successfully. If his rear tire hadn't rolled, he'd have had a better chance at recovering from his skid. What's unbelievable is that the mechanic allowed such a glue job to become a primary or even secondary wheel. I guess fatigue, pressure, etc., will bring the worst out from a mechanic.

The argument that the glue melted doesn't hold water with me - if that was true, heavier riders would have been rolling tires earlier. And though I've never descended for more than 3-4 miles at a time on tubulars, I have driven for hours with the wheels sitting in the back of a very hot van/car/wagon, parked for more hours with the sun beating down, etc. The heat's been so intense that I've warped helmets and such. But my glue never "melted". If the glue "melted" it still had solvent in it (or whatever makes it liquid). Therefore it was simply not dry.

When I train on tubulars I don't carry a spare. I can ride 80% as fast on a flat rear and about 60% on a front (except turns, where I have to slow down to perhaps 8-10 mph). I trust a well glued flat tubular a thousand times more than a hurriedly-thrown-on tubular that holds air. I know I'll never roll a tire I've glued on because I know that I won't be able to remove the tire without using screwdrivers or pry bars (seriously). I can't say the same about a tire I just put on the rim on the side of the road.

Tubulars have three major advantages as pointed out before:
1. no pinch flats so you can run whatever pressure you like, high or low, for whatever reason.
2. lighter, usually, and lighter for a given durability
3. ride a flat
A minor advantage is when you look at the exotic carbon rim wheels, tubular carbon rims are a few hundred dollars cheaper than a clincher carbon rim.

Clinchers have one major advantage - when you fix a flat on the road, you have 100% of use of that tire/wheel/bike immediately. You can corner just as fast, brake as aggressively, skid, do whatever your tire can withstand. The tire mount job will be as good as new. It's a relatively quick process (1-2 minutes for a very quick tube change and pump-up), and usually it costs you a tube versus a $50-100 tire.

I race and train on clinchers and tubulars, sometimes one of each.

cdr

cslone

This is an argument that I don't particularly want to get into, but it has to be said.

Tubulars are not faster just because they are tubulars. Many a test has shown that a good clincher with latex tube will have a lower RR than a glued tubular. To get them even, the tubular needs to be glued perfectly.
To get them similar in RR, you need a good quality, generally high dollar tubular, with a good glue job.



And I race tubulars and train on clinchers.

lotek 

ok, for the last time.
Beloki's tire rolled because the tar on the road melted, he slid, and the tire/rim caught in
the goo, rim dug into the road surface, tire rolled, rim got a good bite into the surface and
he high sided. Rolling his tire was not the cause of his going down, it was the heat and
the melted tar, end of story. Given the speed, road conditions etc. would have happened
with a clincher too, exert too much force on the side of tire (perpendicular to the rim) and it's
gonna start to peel off (atmo).

Someone really nailed the difference a few posts up, the cross sections of tubular vs clincher
O vs U shape. I seriously doubt the difference in rolling resistance due to glue is going to
make a difference to anyone here ( just saying).
My own experience suggests that tubulars better resist pinch flats caused by bad road surface
etc. than clinchers, but both cut equally as well when presented with glass, goat head thorns,
wire debris from auto tires etc.

fwiw I don't own clinchers, carry a spare tire all the time and have not had any issues that
weren't caused by either debris, or my own stupidity.

Marty

asgelle

~15-20 seconds for a moderately strong rider in a 40 km TT. (tubular being slower)

urbanknight

Either I failed to see the sarcasm again, or could you please tell me why tour riders still do time trials on tubulars if clinchers could save them 15-20 seconds?

I for one don't care. Tubulars corner better because of the cross section, and as someone who primarily does crits, that's reason enough for me. They also "feel" faster to me, but that has no weight in a debate.

asgelle

I think my post is self explanatory. In direct response to the statement that rolling resistance won't make a difference to anyone here, I pointed out the difference between the best tubulars and best clinchers is worth ~15-20 seconds over 40 km. People can judge for themsleves whether that makes a difference to them.

I don't recall saying anything in this thread about why anyone would or would not choose a certain tire; but in answer to your question, you might want to look at the anecdote here: https://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTires_Page.html

cruiserhead

I don't understand how people fall into this little white lie.
Sure, at equal pressure, a clincher will have theoretically better rr. However, tubulars can be run comfortably at 220psi+

Let's pump up a clincher to 240psi and see how long the rim lasts or how many blowouts you have. You also get pretty bad handling characteristics in comparison.

Clinchers are practical but if you want to know what's better, it's tubulars.

asgelle

You know, of course, that rolling resistance increases above ~120 psi; so what's your point?

By the way, if you check the rolling resistance curves, you'd see the rolling resistance of tubulars asymptotes to a constant value even as pressure increases due to losses in the glue. This value is higher than for a quality clincher above ~115 psi

Road Fan

I agree with Urban! Decent vintage rims are $25 to $65, decent tires (I have no problem iwth the Rallyes, Servizios and siblings!!) are $15 to $25 each, I have not had a puncture flat in 4 years, and so-called decent clinchers like Veloflex Pave and latex rims are ~ per bike, with $140/pair for good Veloflex, DT, or Open Pro rims. And then tubulars are usually lighter?

Plus, I have no problem with field tire installations or sewing my own tires.

It's a learning curve, but a nice curve.

Road Fan

cruiserhead

of course it does.

urbanknight

What you failed to say is that the 15-20 second savings is theoretical. I'm sure anyone looking to break a TT record in the tour would love to save 15-20 seconds.

Anyway, I still have no argument against, but real world applications can obviously differ from lab tests.

By the way, on the chart you referenced, it looks like the advantages from raising pressures only go stagnant on tubulars after about 9-10 bar, which iirc is around 140-150 psi. I also don't see anywhere on that chart where rr starts to go up. I do agree that there's no road smooth enough to want more than 140 psi anyway. Maybe velodromes.

patentcad

If you're willing to put up with the hassles of tubulars and fix them when you get flats (or ship them off to one of the Internet elves that do), the cost isn't such an issue. It's the hassle.

asgelle

False. The rolling resistance data have been directly measured and confirmed many times. Similarly, the performance model has been validated over and over again. You might have cause for concern if I had said the benefit is exactly 17.638 seconds, but there is no doubt that the change in rolling resistance between quality tubulars and clinchers is worth at least that much time (analyticcycling.com puts it at four times greater).

asgelle

That's nice, but I didn't write about where the rolling resistance curve flattens out. I was talking about where the asymptotic value for tubulars crosses the clincher rolling resistance line. Further, That 115 psi is for hard track glue. If someone uses road glue, the high pressure tubular rolling resistance limit is about the same as a clincher at 60 psi.

patentcad

Quick, somebody alert every UCI pro team in Europe asgelle says they're racing on the wrong tires.

Whew. Thank God BF is here to save their ignorant know nothing asses.

asgelle

Apparently some have trouble reading as well. Asgelle is saying tubulars have higher rolling resistance than tubulars. Most pro teams have known this for quite a while.

asgelle

It seems strange to me that after rhapsodizing about all the advantages of tubulars over clinchers, none of which I challenged, you would infer that a single quantitative difference in favor of tubulars would overcome all the benefits you listed.

urbanknight

On a time trial course or in a lab?

I did misread your other posts, however. My apologies.