Koyote

Condescend much?

KJ43

Yeah...ok.

KJ43

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.

Alan K

It’s a lot easier to drop a lb of body weight and gain an additional advantage of 300gm over your 200gm target.

PeteHski

Same old nonsense you always post. I find it hard to believe you are for real.

TiHabanero

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.

Maelochs

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.

Koyote

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.

PeteHski

And if you are not racing, why do those few seconds even matter anyway? An Aethos with a 1300g wheel set is already lighter than what the pros and most amateurs are allowed to race.

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.

Atlas Shrugged

Your ability to discern truth amidst a world of misinformation is a genuine gift. Individuals with similar skills have achieved remarkable success. Consider fully embracing your unique insights on tubular tires by launching a business dedicated to sales and support. Progress into manufacturing tires, rims, and glue. Advocate for a return to soft, unanodized rims, silk tires aged in basements, winter-dying glue, and, notably, Binda steps to secure spares under the saddle. Follow your convictions and reap the rewards.

Maelochs

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."

scott967

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.
.

PeteHski

Really I’m just questioning the logic of potentially pushing the boundaries of safety critical lightweight components on a mountain in a non-competitive situation. I have zero experience of these specific wheelsets. They may be perfectly safe, or not. But they are scarily light compared to what pros are hammering down mountains.

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.

Maelochs

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 .....

PeteHski

Sometimes it’s worth a quick sanity check and a 740g wheel set for mountain descents I think warrants that. As for A vs B I would go tubeless for future-proofing and overall practicality.

Maelochs

Thanks @PeteHski ... i feel validated now.

Ofsinreno

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!!

icemilkcoffee 

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

Alan K

Tubulars are nearly redundant now. They were good 20 years ago.

79pmooney

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.

terrymorse 

For a little perspective the LIGHTWEIGHT MEILENSTEIN OBERMAYER tubular wheelset weighs 935 grams. Very little doubt about their stiffness or sturdiness, with a price to match.

79pmooney

The word I have always heard about the Tufos is that the "magic carpet ride" is not included. I know nothing about the Donnelly.Clement tires so no opinion there.

icemilkcoffee 

Same here. I suspect the Donnelly will also be stiff riding although again no first hand experience.

Dave Mayer

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.

tomato coupe

ftfy