Kontact 

Pros aren't riding 23c tires because the aero rims they are given are optimized aerodynamically for wider tires.

Kontact 

They were, right up to the point when sponsors decided to stop making rim brakes on pro level gear. Odd coincidence, that.

rsbob 

.

Yes indeed. It is a well established fact, that farmers and wind love steel frames and thus no stage cancellations. And if you think my logic/causality is spurious…

All sorts of safety protocols have been implemented in pro racing over the years and this one, regardless of frame composition (since riders are the greatest mass/wind catchers) is the latest example of trying to keep riders more safe. On the other hand, deep section rims, regardless of composition, can be safety hazards in forceful cross winds.

And could the farmers possibly be using the Tour as a venue to express their dismay at decreasing revenue due to increase expenses of fuel and fertilizer and not to mention cheaper food imports? Nah, it has to be the carbon frames.

genejockey 

You'll find the cart works better with the horse in front.

phrantic09

But why optimize for wider tires if they’re not objectively better?

tomato coupe

Q1: Why are the pros riding 25-28 mm tires?
A: Because their wheels are aerodynamically optimized for wider tires.

Q2: So, why are they using wheels that are optimized for wider tires?
A: Because they're using 25-28mm tires.

GOTO Q1. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Eddy_G 

My favorite bike is still my now thirteen year old True-Temper S3 Waterford R-33 with rim brakes, but I also accept that there will be no more high end bikes built with rim brakes, 100/130mm QR axles, and fully external cable routings, and that's okay.
At some point in time my beloved Waterford, an engagement gift from the amazing woman who married me, will be relegated to being permanently parked on the indoor trainer, just taken out for the occasional short ride, or maybe just being a well-polished frameset hanging on the wall of our workout/bike room.
There will most likely be a more modern bike that will become my main machine, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I have fond memories of my early 1980's Raleigh Professional. I have no desire to ever ride one again. Friction shifting, a six speed wheel, slotted cleats, steel toe clips, leather soled shoes, double leather toe straps, and a lowest gear of 42x21 is just not practical for a man with the kind of wear and tear on his body that I have today, and years of bikes like that one might actually be responsible for that wear and tear.

I think it's cool that there are people (of all ages) who exclusively ride vintage road bikes from the 1950's-1980's. More power to them. I really enjoy looking at those bikes today. Personally, I have no desire to join their ranks.

One day I will wake up to the epiphany that my beloved Waterford is just as obsolete as a 1969 Peugeot, and just as unridable after having ridden a new unobtainium framed machine with contactless magneto brakes and a 1x22 internal drive train, I will no longer be able to purchase Shimano branded Ultegra or Dura-Ace rim brake pads except at swap meets or on e-bay for $100 per brake, and the only new 11-speed cassettes available will weigh 3lbs and be made by Sunrace.
That hasn't happened yet.
So yeah, new bike again probably in another year or two, maybe three.

We're all in the same boat together, and in spite of the popular belief that we do, we have no control over the technology that the industry powers that be decide to move forward with. We never did.
I say ride the bikes that we enjoy the most, and be friendly to one another.
We are all riding the same roads and trying to avoid being crushed by inattentive or malicious non-cyclist drivers.

Edit: On a side note that perhaps better addresses the OP, I have owned road bikes with frames of steel alloy, titanium alloy, aluminum alloy, and carbon fiber composites. I've had bikes with frames each of those materials that rode well, and bikes of each that rode harshly.
It's not the raw material you select. It's what you do with that material. How you process it, assemble it, and geometry plays a big role as well.

Kontact 

Pros weren't riding 28s until wider wheels. Wider wheels were a response to non-racer interest in wide tires.

PeteHski

At least now the racers and non-racers are united and all benefit from a more comfortable ride and increased grip levels. The pro racers don’t appear to be riding any slower and ordinary riders finally got what they wanted.

I don’t see any conflict of interest here. If you really think an older, rim-braked bike with 23c tyres is faster then you are free to knock yourself out against guys riding the current bikes. Do the leading amateur riders who buy their own bikes actually do that? I very much doubt it.

Trakhak

In the '60's and '70's, I mostly rode the cheapest tubulars I could find. Even the Dunlop tubulars that came on my Helyett track bike in 1964 were pretty wide and heavy (10 oz.). But some of the (richer) guys I rode with liked to use Clement Del Mondo Seta tires for both racing and training.

From this page:

"A year and a half ago I mounted some 30mm Schwalbe Pro Ones on my road bike and I thought those were big. But, truth be told, in the old days (1970s) the tubular tire we rode when we wanted comfort and confidence as well as speed was the Clement Campionato Del Mondo (or just “Del Mondo” for short), and that tire was every bit of 30mm. The Clement “middlin” wide sew-up tire was the Paris Roubaix at 27mm or 28mm, and then the Del Mundo was like riding on a pillow. So, what’s old is new."

Kontact 

Honestly, I don't think it matters all that much - even though I think that a truly empirical study would demonstrate a slight advantage to lower drag tire sizes. But the belief in the current bike set up is what has taken hold, and it operates no differently than all the previous beliefs about drillium, tubulars, silent friction shifting, 280 gram rims, quick releases, and celibacy. I'm sure all had the patina of science attached to them at the time. We are just in the middle of the current set of pseudo-science when it comes to performance, and where it comes from. We can point at faster speeds and then say it is from a fat tire, ignoring how much the wheel aerodynamics have changed. But those same aerodynamics apply to the rim brake versions - so that ought to be the comparison.

Certainly. "Racing bikes" are now what we call randonneurs. And when we were all riding 20c clinchers, the pros were riding 25c tubulars. Then we went to 23c clinchers, and the pros road 25c tubulars. Then along came the wide format rim like the A23 which was designed to make a 23c ride more like... 25c tubulars.

Long after hydraulic brake equipped pro groupsets were available, pros still were winning all the classics with rim brake bikes and 25c tubulars, despite the supposed disadvantage everyone keeps mentioning. I forget if that was 2019 or 2020 when all the classics were won with short reach rim brakes.

TomM

Forget steel and CF, wood is king.

PeteHski

From a pure performance perspective it probably doesn’t matter. But I still much prefer using wider tubeless tyres at lower pressures. I get far fewer flats (practically zero) and they are easier to plug at the roadside, which I have had to do only once in the last 4 years. Oh and they are more tolerant of bad road surfaces. I have yet to see a disadvantage, but I’m only 4 years in on road tubeless.

cweb99

As a casual cyclist I do not follow what the pros use. pro cyclists do not fix their own flats at the side of the road nor do they have to adjust their rear derailleur when shifting is an issue. They ride…..and when problems arise they have a whole team to fix it and like 4 extra bikes and wheels and tires. Like any sport you should never follow what the pros have because they have unlimited resources

Dave Mayer

The pros hung onto rim brakes and 23-25mm tubular tires for as long as possible, until their equipment sponsors made those options unavailable. The team leaders and GC contenders were allowed the privilege of hanging onto this gear to the very end, under the justification that discs and clinchers/tubeless are uncompetitive on stages that mattered, such as the big climbs.

Pro gear decisions were made by the manufacturers and marketers, not by the riders: since pro sports is fundamentally a marketing venue, the competitors need to ride gear that can be sold to a weekend warrior dentist with a platinum card. So since you cannot sell tubular wheel and tire options, despite the many unquestionable performance advantages, the team sponsors will not provide it.

That was the quandary: the pros who need the performance advantage of tubulars and rim brakes don't pay for gear. Paying customers want tubeless and discs. So that is what the pros are now limited to.

But it is now a level (although degraded) playing field.

tomato coupe

Two hits in one post!

Eric F 

There is no longer a performance advantage to tubulars. Differences in weight between high-end tubulars and high-end tubeless do not make a significant enough improvement to matter. Rolling resistance and aerodynamic gains matter more.

genejockey 

I think "dentist" should probably be another term for the Bingo list, though it might not be so Dave Meyer-specific. After I bought my Litespeed, somebody asked me if I planned on becoming a dentist.

PeteHski

Agreed and “tubulars” too

PeteHski

Yeah, they are just so slow now.

Dave Mayer

Tubulars with latex tubes have the same rolling resistance as clinchers with latex tubes. Regardless, the difference between any good road racing tires is only a few watts, a distant third-order effect.

The real-world difference between tubular wheels/tires and clincher wheels/tires is 200 watts. Reason: having lightweight wheels, only possible with carbon tubulars sans discs, will allow you to hang onto the pack during the constant accelerations and attacks. If you survive these and hang onto the pack, you'll be sheltered and coasting along at 30mph at 100 watts.

In contrast, having heavy high-inertia wheels will eventually result in you getting shed off the back, resulting in suffering solo in a futile attempt to catch up. 300+ cruel watts.

Koyote

You keep using that term incorrectly. You could just say "a very small effect," which would convey the meaning you intend.

big john

This is just silly. So if one uses clinchers, one will certainly get dropped and spend 300 watts, to no avail. While the wheelsucker using tubulars will continue to suck wheel @100 watts. Got it.

Are you racing? Do you know a lot of racers in your cat who use tubulars?

In my experience fitness is key. Whoever is the strongest, fittest rider will be the fastest. Having ridden with hundreds of club riders for 35 years minor changes in equipment, (new bikes, wheels, whatever) makes very little difference in the pecking order. The best wheelsuckers will hang on and never go to the front, their wheel choices make little difference, within reason.

On long climbs watts/kg is everything.

Maybe if everyone is equal, down to the watt, minor equipment changes would make a difference. Or if you never pull and it takes all you have just to hang on and that last little bit of wattage is the difference between sucking wheel or getting dropped....

Atlas Shrugged

Perhaps a few rides out in the real world would be helpful because this alternative reality that you talk about has absolutely no connection with actual cycling either in a group environment or alone.

tomato coupe

So, which is it? Is there no difference between tubulars and clinchers, or is there a 200 W difference between tubulars and clinchers?

As noted more than once, you clearly have no idea what a third order effect is. You should learn some math before you use mathematical terms.