Go Back  Bike Forums > The Racer's Forum > "The 33"-Road Bike Racing
Reload this Page >

Tubed vs Tubeless Clinchers

Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

Tubed vs Tubeless Clinchers

Old 10-07-09, 12:22 PM
  #1  
Thomas_CAAD9
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tubed vs Tubeless Clinchers

Which is best for training/racing??

Tubeless comes out slightly heavier at 290g than a light race tyre and latex tube 265g (ish)

Tubeless in theory should have less rolling resistance as there is no tube flex to overcome.

Cornering I think should be better with the tubeless as the spring force is acting on and spreading the tyre rather than the tube (I think...)

Both work out about the same price wise.... so which is better??

Got to do something to get rid of the Zaffiro boat anchors I'm riding at present (340g per tyre)
Thomas_CAAD9 is offline  
Old 10-07-09, 09:07 PM
  #2  
rivethead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 117

Bikes: 2008 Felt F85 w/Rival, 2010 Ridley Crossbow EL w/105

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I know a few people riding tubeless on Campy and Fulcrum (yes i know, same company) 2-way fit wheels and they seem to think it's the bees knees.

If I were inclined to buy a new wheelset I'd probably see if I could test ride a set of those with tubeless tires and see what I thought. If I were sticking with standard clinchers I think I'd just keep using tube and tires. The conversion kits just seem like a hassle.
rivethead is offline  
Old 10-07-09, 11:16 PM
  #3  
dmotoguy
Edificating
 
dmotoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,452

Bikes: Spooky + Sachs

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I see its merits more in other applications.. where low pressure is needed.
__________________
Cat 3 // Dylan M Howell
dmotoguy is offline  
Old 10-07-09, 11:18 PM
  #4  
ridethecliche
Batüwü Creakcreak
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The illadelph
Posts: 20,787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked 287 Times in 160 Posts
Originally Posted by dmotoguy
i see its merits more in other applications.. Where low pressure is needed.
crosss!!!!
ridethecliche is offline  
Old 10-07-09, 11:35 PM
  #5  
bikeman68
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
When I tested a Mtn bike with tubeless wheels, what a difference in ride suppleness and acceleration! I can imagine the Dura Ace wheels with compatible tubeless tyres out performing tubulars on their matching alloy rims. Just be aware of the impractical intricities of the puncures.
bikeman68 is offline  
Old 10-08-09, 05:54 AM
  #6  
Hocam
Ho-Jahm
 
Hocam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Acceleration? BS

F=ma, tires don't change any of that.
Hocam is offline  
Old 10-08-09, 07:13 AM
  #7  
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Posts: 9,787
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by ridethecliche
crosss!!!!
The word from trusted sources (mostly Jeremy Powers' roommate) is that tubeless 'cross tires ride like crap.
grolby is offline  
Old 10-08-09, 09:30 AM
  #8  
obra3
Little Pony
 
obra3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Works well for cross (Bulldogs and Pirahnas)- but you're also talking about wider profile tires.

Hutchinson fusion 2 road tubeless are horrible. (Tread life is horrid) Haven't tried the intensive yet though.
obra3 is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 10:37 PM
  #9  
bikeman68
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Ok ** Cam ,whatever you say
anybody with real cycling exp is likely to have experienced the fun of going from a heavier clincher to a race worthy one, and felt a big or quite noticable improvement in acceleration with a better tire, as well as rolling nicer, better handling, more suppleness/comfort, esp with good tubulars.
As far as the Mtn bike test goes, I can vouch for the performance of a popular hi end Cross country wheelset with tubless tires that were so much more lively, and the option to run lower pressure without pinch flats was nice, the only catch is dealing with flats with a tubeless system.For X country racers, its a good gamble for sure.
bikeman68 is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 10:51 PM
  #10  
ridethecliche
Batüwü Creakcreak
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The illadelph
Posts: 20,787
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked 287 Times in 160 Posts
Yo dawg, it's all in your head.

Rolling resistance, PSI, and weight are all very different things.

Something with low RR will feel like it accelerates and rolls better than something that is lighter.
ridethecliche is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 10:54 PM
  #11  
ZeCanon
Writin' stuff
 
ZeCanon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 3,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 4 Posts
Like somebody mentioned, tubeless is great for low pressure situations, ie cross or mtb. For road, give me a normal clincher or tubular any day.

Plus the only tubeless road tires currently available seem to suck pretty bad in the durability department.
ZeCanon is offline  
Old 10-13-09, 11:49 AM
  #12  
dmotoguy
Edificating
 
dmotoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,452

Bikes: Spooky + Sachs

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by grolby
The word from trusted sources (mostly Jeremy Powers' roommate) is that tubeless 'cross tires ride like crap.
compared to tubular, sure.
__________________
Cat 3 // Dylan M Howell
dmotoguy is offline  
Old 10-13-09, 11:54 AM
  #13  
Hocam
Ho-Jahm
 
Hocam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikeman68
Ok ** Cam ,whatever you say
anybody with real cycling exp is likely to have experienced the fun of going from a heavier clincher to a race worthy one, and felt a big or quite noticable improvement in acceleration with a better tire, as well as rolling nicer, better handling, more suppleness/comfort, esp with good tubulars.
As far as the Mtn bike test goes, I can vouch for the performance of a popular hi end Cross country wheelset with tubless tires that were so much more lively, and the option to run lower pressure without pinch flats was nice, the only catch is dealing with flats with a tubeless system.For X country racers, its a good gamble for sure.
Oh yeah I must not be experienced enough, that's right.

Put your bike in the biggest gear, pick up the wheel and pedal with your hands. You can get to 90 rpm pretty fast, the only resistance is spinning up your rear wheel. Adding 150+ lbs of bike and body weight to that is another story. 100 grams of tire weight won't change that.
Hocam is offline  
Old 10-13-09, 12:21 PM
  #14  
grolby
Senior Member
 
grolby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BOSTON BABY
Posts: 9,787
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by bikeman68
Ok ** Cam ,whatever you say
anybody with real cycling exp is likely to have experienced the fun of going from a heavier clincher to a race worthy one, and felt a big or quite noticable improvement in the sensation of acceleration with a better tire, as well as rolling nicer, better handling, more suppleness/comfort, esp with good tubulars.
Fixed that for you. Any improvement that you get in acceleration by changing tires is a big fat placebo. As Hocam already said, F = ma. Or, rephrased for your convenience, a = F/m. That's for the entire mass of the bike and rider. So if you go to tires that are 100 grams lighter, you get whatever improvement that 200 grams from that total mass can give you. Given typical rider and bicycle weights, the mathematical improvement in acceleration is what a physicist would call "jack squat." Rotating mass on bicycles amounts to essentially nothing additional over static mass.

Originally Posted by Hocam
Oh yeah I must not be experienced enough, that's right.

Put your bike in the biggest gear, pick up the wheel and pedal with your hands. You can get to 90 rpm pretty fast, the only resistance is spinning up your rear wheel. Adding 150+ lbs of bike and body weight to that is another story. 100 grams of tire weight won't change that.
Isn't it funny how refuting misconceptions and myths with actual fact becomes "lack of experience"?
grolby is offline  
Old 10-13-09, 02:48 PM
  #15  
Fat Boy
Wheelsuck
 
Fat Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bikeman68
anybody with real cycling exp is likely to have experienced the fun of going from a heavier clincher to a race worthy one, and felt a big or quite noticable improvement in acceleration with a better tire,
As you mention, a racing tire will more than likely ride better, but it's always a hell of a reality check for me when I pull off a pair of wire bead training tires and put on a set of fly-weight racing tires. The reality check is how little difference it actually makes.

It kinda makes me angry. It _should_ be a bigger deal. It's just not.
Fat Boy is offline  
Old 10-13-09, 03:38 PM
  #16  
robncircus
Gunner.
 
robncircus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 1,735

Bikes: Giant TCR, Spooky Skeletor, Pivot Mach 6

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by bikeman68
Just be aware of the impractical intricities of the puncures.
Or just carry a tube? Many of the tubeless systems can also work with a tube I believe.
robncircus is offline  
Old 10-14-09, 01:27 PM
  #17  
Thomas_CAAD9
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fixed that for you. Any improvement that you get in acceleration by changing tires is a big fat placebo. As Hocam already said, F = ma. Or, rephrased for your convenience, a = F/m. That's for the entire mass of the bike and rider. So if you go to tires that are 100 grams lighter, you get whatever improvement that 200 grams from that total mass can give you. Given typical rider and bicycle weights, the mathematical improvement in acceleration is what a physicist would call "jack squat." Rotating mass on bicycles amounts to essentially nothing additional over static mass.
How does drag coefficient factor into this. Silica compund must have a beneficial effect on acceleration and conservation of momentum although I appreciate it will be a small effect in comparison to a=F/m.

a=F/m is the biggest reason I am losing 20Kg. Giving F an arbitrary value of 100 units for arguments sake.

100F/90Kg = 1.1 a units 100/70Kg = 1.4 a Units 20kg loss = 27% in a for any given F.

Only 20Kgs to go lol
Thomas_CAAD9 is offline  
Old 10-19-09, 01:18 PM
  #18  
enjoi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 804
Posts: 293

Bikes: giant TCR campy-shimano mix/ Trek fuel 80/ Fuji track

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hocam
Acceleration? BS

F=ma, tires don't change any of that.
if you in a vacuum with no friction. A bike with flat tires will not have the same acceleration given the same force and mass.

Though the friction numbers are insignificantly small for tires of the same pressure.
enjoi is offline  
Old 10-19-09, 02:11 PM
  #19  
Racer Ex 
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by grolby
the mathematical improvement in acceleration is what a physicist would call "jack squat."
You guys race funny. So you just accelerate once a race on flat ground?

You might want to throw a couple of multipliers in there to get the net effect of that weight savings, along with some variables to simulate hills, then stir in some physiological effects of wattage reduction/time.

I have lost 12.5 mile time trials by 2 seconds, and won them by the same margin: approximately 1/1000th of the total time of the event.

I have won photo finish sprints by less than a tenth of a second, approximately 1/36,000th of the total time of the event.

I have lost stage races by 5 seconds, around 1/130,000th of the total time of the event.

I've no doubt that these fractions might be characterized as "jack squat" by some. I am of the opinion that "jack squat" is highly underrated as applied to Road Bike Racing, and highly overrated as applied to Road Cycling.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 10-19-09, 02:48 PM
  #20  
Enthalpic
Killing Rabbits
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked 217 Times in 102 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex

I've no doubt that these fractions might be characterized as "jack squat" by some. I am of the opinion that "jack squat" is highly underrated as applied to Road Bike Racing, and highly overrated as applied to Road Cycling.
Good post. Some people fail to understand how small sounding fractions can actually mean a huge amount. “Your drinking water only has 0.005% lead; it’s fine for your kids to drink”

Sometimes TSTWKT is just a tiny little poop.
Enthalpic is offline  
Old 10-20-09, 02:28 PM
  #21  
davids0507
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"I have lost 12.5 mile time trials by 2 seconds, and won them by the same margin: approximately 1/1000th of the total time of the event.

I have won photo finish sprints by less than a tenth of a second, approximately 1/36,000th of the total time of the event.

I have lost stage races by 5 seconds, around 1/130,000th of the total time of the event."




Ok, the time trial I understand your point, but the other two are ridiculous.

For the finish sprint, do you really think that if you had saved an extra 1/36,000 of your energy the entire race you would have done better in the sprint? No, all that really mattered was the last few seconds of the race. Maybe you would have been a bit fresher, but the effects of workload on your body are highly nonlinear.
davids0507 is offline  
Old 10-20-09, 03:00 PM
  #22  
waterrockets 
Making a kilometer blurry
 
waterrockets's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Austin (near TX)
Posts: 26,170

Bikes: rkwaki's porn collection

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 38 Posts
Yeah, I did a calculation over on the 41 one time, looking at my best acceleration in a 1650W 5" power test. I used that acceleration to estimate what a 4-corner crit would be like, accelerating from 20mph to 30mph, four times per minute. I found that completely eliminating a mediocre tire and rubber tube would save you 0.2% of your energy from the race, assuming you could accelerate at a 1650W pace 240 times. How much difference does it make going from 35 to 40 in the final sprint?

x > 0

So, yeah, it's (very) small, but as RX has illustrated, it's nonzero. Everyone just needs to decide what price/benefit is right for them. I had four road wins this year, and one of them was by 10cm or so. The rest were multiple bike lengths. I lost a place in a TT by 1/4" last year. I won't be shaking my head at a finish line, holding steak knives, wishing I had bought a $180 set of tires, even if they would have made the difference. I just don't spend like that, and my results will pay for the difference -- but it's a concious decision that I'm racing on training gear.

I think it's awesome that some of us pull out all the stops and get the best stuff there is, and set it up the best way possible. It's fun to see, it's fun to read, hear about, and examine. It's amazing in this sport how inexpensively you can get gear better than the pros are racing. Really, if I just added one order of magnitude to my budget, I'd be on a crazy setup. In auto racing, sailboat racing, etc, there are many more zeroes to add from mid-level to top-end.

Last edited by waterrockets; 10-20-09 at 03:04 PM.
waterrockets is offline  
Old 10-20-09, 05:04 PM
  #23  
enjoi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 804
Posts: 293

Bikes: giant TCR campy-shimano mix/ Trek fuel 80/ Fuji track

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
You guys race funny. So you just accelerate once a race on flat ground?

You might want to throw a couple of multipliers in there to get the net effect of that weight savings, along with some variables to simulate hills, then stir in some physiological effects of wattage reduction/time.

I have lost 12.5 mile time trials by 2 seconds, and won them by the same margin: approximately 1/1000th of the total time of the event.

I have won photo finish sprints by less than a tenth of a second, approximately 1/36,000th of the total time of the event.

I have lost stage races by 5 seconds, around 1/130,000th of the total time of the event.

I've no doubt that these fractions might be characterized as "jack squat" by some. I am of the opinion that "jack squat" is highly underrated as applied to Road Bike Racing, and highly overrated as applied to Road Cycling.
at the same time if one less breeze hit you in the TT, or you left the draft of your lead out 1 second sooner or pedaled one stroke more before leaving the final turn, you could have made the same difference.

I think the assumption that 1) you did everything perfect and 2) that there is no random chance and every race will play out with you 1/2 an inch behind the other guy is just looking for a way to buy performance instead of training and improving. There are so, so many more variable that you cannot control that to pretend the only reason you are not winning every race is something mechanical and in your control in beyond absurd. The only way to be consistently faster is be consistently stronger and smarter than the guy next to you.
enjoi is offline  
Old 10-20-09, 05:13 PM
  #24  
robncircus
Gunner.
 
robncircus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 1,735

Bikes: Giant TCR, Spooky Skeletor, Pivot Mach 6

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex
You guys race funny. So you just accelerate once a race on flat ground?

You might want to throw a couple of multipliers in there to get the net effect of that weight savings, along with some variables to simulate hills, then stir in some physiological effects of wattage reduction/time.

I have lost 12.5 mile time trials by 2 seconds, and won them by the same margin: approximately 1/1000th of the total time of the event.

I have won photo finish sprints by less than a tenth of a second, approximately 1/36,000th of the total time of the event.

I have lost stage races by 5 seconds, around 1/130,000th of the total time of the event.

I've no doubt that these fractions might be characterized as "jack squat" by some. I am of the opinion that "jack squat" is highly underrated as applied to Road Bike Racing, and highly overrated as applied to Road Cycling.
I agree. In my last race, 1st place and 23rd (what I got) were about 5 seconds apart. A second or two would have put me in the top 10.
robncircus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.