frogman

Maybe a dumb question but are tubular tires used on TDF bikes or are they all clinchers now ?

Germany_chris

Yes they're tubulars and most are probably FMB.

Sy Reene

But sometimes clinchers with tubes
https://www.velonews.com/events/tour...lincher-tires/

Hiro11

Many TDF riders use clichers or tubeless setups on TT bikes. Some are using clinchers or tubeless on road bikes, but that's a bit more rare. Tubulars offer the ability to ride a few miles on a flat relatively safely, something that clinchers don't offer. Also, pro team mechanics don't want to deal with maintaining sealant in the hundreds of wheels they typically bring to races.

Given the proven flat-reduction benefits and rolling resistance reduction of tubeless, I think it's only a matter of time before pro teams migrate to tubeless. Tubeless tires also have much more robust and tighter beads than clinchers and are more likely to stay on the rim even when flat. Cycling Tips reported that EF has apparently been experimenting with tubeless setups with mountain bike style foam inserts (like Cush Core or Huck Norris) for a while. If that's light enough for pro roadies who are notorious weight weenies, I'll bet that would work well.

msu2001la

The fact that Velonews is writing stories about Alaphilippe winning on clinchers is a pretty good indicator of how unusual it is to see pro riders on anything other than tubulars.

Pro riders have embraced electronic shifting, begrudgingly accepted disc brakes, and refuse to give up their tubular tires... unless lots of people start winning on tubeless or clinchers.

Sy Reene

To be fair, we're not sure how much of the decision to ride clinchers was because Specialized insisted since their stock new Tarmac S-Works come this way.

msu2001la

I'm sure the decision to run clinchers on that race was made entirely by sponsors. The articles that followed in cycling media were not spontaneous either. I'm sure the sponsors had press info ready to go the second Alaphilippe crossed the line, letting them all know about it.

There is zero chance Alaphillipe would chose clinchers over tubulars if the choice were left up to him.

rsbob 

Have sewups been relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history?

frogman

I guess it makes sense in the time trials to use tubular tires. They want every little bit of gain they can get.

cxwrench

Not at all. The team I worked for still uses them for road races/crits. Oddly enough though...

They use clinchers for TT. That way the girls can actually train a little on their race wheels and not be afraid of the mechanic killing them when they all flat on the same ride.

surak

Clinchers are more aerodynamic than tubulars. Tubeless tires also tend to offer reduced rolling resistance to equivalent tubulars and tubed tires. That's why both boys and girls will ride clinchers for TTs, where a puncture is going to take you off the podium anyway and speed is the only thing that matters.

​Pros are still afraid of puncturing a clincher and not being able to (slow) pedal until they get a wheel or bike change (see how well that's worked in the Giro for last stage's 2nd place, or GC riders like Pozzovivo and Fuglsang, when using tubeless tires with sealant would have arguably saved them from either working extrenely hard to catch back on or losing crucial time) or having the tire roll off the rim during a descent. They are also stubbornly weight weenies despite mounting evidence that aero matters more.

Pros also adopted wider tires and deep section rims after initial skepticism, and skinsuits were also initially laughed at but are now a common sight even outside of TTs.

Lemond1985

Stupid pros. When will they finally listen to us?

Branko D

It's very hard to get a modern bike to the UCI weight limit without using tubular rims and wheels and uphill weight really does matter. The uphill bits of the race are more critical for most riders, cruising on the flat in the pack the energy required is minimal anyway so whatever savings you get are inconsequential. Plus, it's viewed as safer and more convenient for support.
​
​​​
TTs you fight alone, you're not climbing a mountain, totally different situation, so clinchers with latex tubes or tubeless make sense.

​​​​​​What is better depends on the situation and context. What they ride often depends on sponsors, as well .

surak

Since the entire wheel gets changed, it doesn't matter what kind of tire support has...

And only a few teams have sponsors who can't hit minimum UCI weight, and ironically it's on aero frames, blunting that aero advantage by putting non-aero tires and wheels on. If it were so difficult, there wouldn't be cases where mechanics add weights to hit the minimum. Again, an example of dated thinking that rotational weight matters more than weight elsewhere -- pros shifting weight from wheels to the frame for no speed improvement.

Years ago some pros would take their bidons out of bottle cages and put them in their jerseys before climbs, thinking that was faster too.

dmanthree

I've never ridden tubulars. Are they really that much faster?

Troul 

paying sponsors dictate what is mostly used. If the paying sponsor promoted rocks & sand in place of air in the wheels, you'd see riders gassing it out up a climb ... "because of the money".

cxwrench

You don't think rotational weight is more important than static weight?
They're lighter, they ride better, they stay on the rim if you flat, you can run them at lower pressure on the road for better traction/ride (and higher on the track for speed)...it's not that they're faster, they're just better.

asgelle

Is 9.00002 greater than 9.000015? Of course it is, but is the difference in any way meaningful? It's the same with rotating weight. Technically rotating weight has a greater effect than static weight, but the difference is so small that virtually any other consideration will be much more impactful.

HTupolev

Tubulars aren't about being "faster," at least not on the road. They have a weight advantage, but it doesn't necessarily overcome their marginal penalties to rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. They're nice on the track because they can tolerate extremely high pressures, and they're nice for cyclocross because they can tolerate extremely low pressures.

The #1 reason that they're still dominant in professional mass-start road racing is probably that they're far more capable of being ridden flat than typical clincher setups. This isn't just some hypothetical benefit where it's hard to pinpoint the relevance, either. If you have to wait for a support car, even being a few seconds closer to the group up the road can massively reduce the chasing effort. And then there's this:

aclinjury

Indurain win was a dramatic one

asgelle

Are you thinking of the1995 World Championships in Colombia? It was Abraham Olano who rode the final kilometer on a flat to win. (Indurain was second.) Or was there another incident?

Dave Mayer

Look at a cross section of a clincher rim - tubeless or otherwise. There are two narrow projections ('hooks') on each side of the rim that face downwards towards the road. Let's think this through.. why would anyone design a rim with these projections, as they are fragile, exposed to road impacts, and add weight at the worst possible place on a bike.. Obviously, they exist to hold a clincher tire on.

Now look at a tubular rim.. these two hooks are dispensed with (gone) as the tire is glued onto the rim with a few grams of high-strength glue. Net result is that the rim is lighter, and has a smoother, stronger cross-section. Much more resistant to impacts, and because the rim profile is smoother, far less susceptibility to pinch flats. Plus the tubular rim is isolated from tire inflation pressure, unlike clinchers. On clincher rims, when you inflate the tire, the two hooks are forced apart, and given enough pressure, you split the clincher rim down the middle, or blow the hooks off.

This insurmountable advantage of the tubular rim profile is why they have been used almost exclusively in elite-level competition in the past, present and forever. They are used in track, cross, road, and even MTB. Do your research.

Why would any competitive cyclist who has a lot at stake ride clinchers? No reason, except their sponsors held their feet to the fire.

asgelle

Because they're faster.

rsbob 

No mention of tubeless tires. Are they too heavy compared to tubular even though they have a lower rolling resistance than clinchers?

Found this site which looks at rolling resistance in watts. Very interesting. https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...d-bike-reviews

woodcraft

Those inferior clincher rims! Why sew up car, truck, motorcycle, racecar tires are a thing.