Tubed vs Tubeless Clinchers
#1
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)
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)
#2
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.
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.
#3
Edificating
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
Cat 3 // Dylan M Howell
#5
Junior Member
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.
#7
Senior Member
#8
Little Pony
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.
Hutchinson fusion 2 road tubeless are horrible. (Tread life is horrid) Haven't tried the intensive yet though.
#9
Junior Member
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.
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.
#10
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.
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.
#11
Writin' stuff
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.
Plus the only tubeless road tires currently available seem to suck pretty bad in the durability department.
#12
Edificating
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
compared to tubular, sure.
__________________
Cat 3 // Dylan M Howell
Cat 3 // Dylan M Howell
#13
Ho-Jahm
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
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.
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.
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.
#14
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
#15
Wheelsuck
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
It kinda makes me angry. It _should_ be a bigger deal. It's just not.
#17
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.
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
#18
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
#19
Resident Alien
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
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.
#20
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
Sometimes TSTWKT is just a tiny little poop.
#21
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.
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.
#22
Making a kilometer blurry
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.
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.
#23
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
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.
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 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.
#24
Gunner.
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
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.
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.