Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Wheels - lighter weight vs aero

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Wheels - lighter weight vs aero

Old 02-04-23, 09:34 PM
  #26  
Dave Mayer
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,487
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1357 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 272 Posts
Riding solo or at the head of the group? Then aero. Deepish section wheels with narrow high-pressure tires.

Value comfort over speed? Then fat tires (>25mm) at low pressures.

Riding in a fast aggressive group over terrain that includes climbing and hard accelerations out of the corners? Then the lowest rotational mass possible: carbon tubulars with narrow high-pressure tires. Being able to hang onto wheels during a hard acceleration will make the difference between standard suffering, and what could be an hour or more of immense suffering of trying to reconnect with the pack.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Likes For Dave Mayer:
Old 02-05-23, 08:24 AM
  #27  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,709 Times in 2,909 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Riding solo or at the head of the group? Then aero. Deepish section wheels with narrow high-pressure tires.

Value comfort over speed? Then fat tires (>25mm) at low pressures.

Riding in a fast aggressive group over terrain that includes climbing and hard accelerations out of the corners? Then the lowest rotational mass possible: carbon tubulars with narrow high-pressure tires. Being able to hang onto wheels during a hard acceleration will make the difference between standard suffering, and what could be an hour or more of immense suffering of trying to reconnect with the pack.
This is not what many of the pro teams are doing. The classics are now dominated by wider, tubeless tyres and the TDF is heading that way too. Comfort and speed are not mutually exclusive and quite the contrary on less than ideal road surfaces. Tubulars make zero sense for every day riding and are now unnecessary for serious competition.
PeteHski is online now  
Old 02-05-23, 10:36 AM
  #28  
JohnDThompson 
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,935

Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3571 Post(s)
Liked 3,366 Times in 1,915 Posts
Originally Posted by chaadster
Aero trumps weight…when it comes to speed.

Lightweight feels good, but is an illusion.
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Unless you’re a climber. Aero doesn’t help at typical climbing speeds. Dropping weight helps.
Decide based on your riding style. The advantages of light weight apply at all speeds; those of aerodynamics taper off at low speed. If you're a competitive rider, aerodynamics may win out. If you're a recreational rider, light weight may win.
JohnDThompson is online now  
Likes For JohnDThompson:
Old 02-05-23, 12:22 PM
  #29  
Fredo76
The Wheezing Geezer
 
Fredo76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Española, NM
Posts: 995

Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Jamis Citizen 1, Ellis-Briggs FAVORI, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 393 Post(s)
Liked 855 Times in 421 Posts
Sew-Ups for the win!

Originally Posted by PeteHski
This is not what many of the pro teams are doing. The classics are now dominated by wider, tubeless tyres and the TDF is heading that way too. Comfort and speed are not mutually exclusive and quite the contrary on less than ideal road surfaces. Tubulars make zero sense for every day riding and are now unnecessary for serious competition.
I guess I ain't got none of that 'sense' stuff...


Looking Forward With Tubulars

I'll be OK though.
Fredo76 is online now  
Old 02-06-23, 01:00 PM
  #30  
Dave Mayer
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,487
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1357 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 272 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
This is not what many of the pro teams are doing. The classics are now dominated by wider, tubeless tyres and the TDF is heading that way too. Comfort and speed are not mutually exclusive and quite the contrary on less than ideal road surfaces. Tubulars make zero sense for every day riding and are now unnecessary for serious competition.
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled. Tubeless has 3 insurmountable disadvantages for performance riding:
  • Higher rim weights than tubular rims. This is inherent to the cross-section of the rim: clincher/tubeless rims simply require more material.
  • The inability to run at high pressures (yes, higher pressures deliver lower rolling resistance)
  • Far greater safety risks in the event of a sudden deflation. On tubulars, the tire stays stuck tight to the rim, and you can ride it for a considerable distance.

Tubeless is a good choice for sponsor marketing campaigns, or for bikes on the roof racks of the team cars, or for the domestiques on flat inconsequential stages.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:08 PM
  #31  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Tubeless is a good choice for sponsor marketing campaigns, or for bikes on the roof racks of the team cars, or for the domestiques on flat inconsequential stages.
Why would a pro team put their domestiques on tubeless only during flat stages and put tubeless on the backup bikes?
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:13 PM
  #32  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,786

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4831 Post(s)
Liked 7,820 Times in 3,704 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled.
Got any examples of this actually being a thing?

What I'm seeing from sources like GCN's review of bikes ridden by the World Tour teams at the Tour Down Under, more teams are running tubeless, and fewer are running tubulars. This has been trending this way for a few years, and is continuing to do so. If you have a source that has conflicting information, I would be curious to see it.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Old 02-06-23, 01:14 PM
  #33  
Dave Mayer
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,487
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1357 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 272 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Why would a pro team put their domestiques on tubeless only during flat stages and put tubeless on the backup bikes?
Because the handicapped performance of these bikes doesn't matter. It does matter is the team leader has to climb 10 miles of steep switchbacks. That is when you use the sub-1,200 g low profile tubular wheels.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:17 PM
  #34  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,786

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4831 Post(s)
Liked 7,820 Times in 3,704 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Because the handicapped performance of these bikes doesn't matter. It does matter is the team leader has to climb 10 miles of steep switchbacks. That is when you use the sub-1,200 g low profile tubular wheels.
So a team will put it's non-leader riders on bikes that make it more difficult for them to do their job helping the leader as effectively as possible? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Do you have a source for this?
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions

Last edited by Eric F; 02-07-23 at 10:41 AM.
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-06-23, 01:19 PM
  #35  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,002

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3335 Post(s)
Liked 3,435 Times in 1,737 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled. Tubeless has 3 insurmountable disadvantages for performance riding:
  • Higher rim weights than tubular rims. This is inherent to the cross-section of the rim: clincher/tubeless rims simply require more material.
  • The inability to run at high pressures (yes, higher pressures deliver lower rolling resistance)
  • Far greater safety risks in the event of a sudden deflation. On tubulars, the tire stays stuck tight to the rim, and you can ride it for a considerable distance.

Tubeless is a good choice for sponsor marketing campaigns, or for bikes on the roof racks of the team cars, or for the domestiques on flat inconsequential stages.
Weight is a non-issue for UCI racers, as their bikes must stay above the UCI limit.

Clinchers can be inflated to optimal pressure. Tubeless tires have very low rolling resitance. And very high pressure (110+ psi) is a disadvantage, as it produce higher rolling resistance on real surfaces. Tubulars offer zero rolling resistance advantage over clinchers.

Last edited by terrymorse; 02-06-23 at 01:24 PM.
terrymorse is offline  
Likes For terrymorse:
Old 02-06-23, 01:19 PM
  #36  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Because the handicapped performance of these bikes doesn't matter. It does matter is the team leader has to climb 10 miles of steep switchbacks. That is when you use the sub-1,200 g low profile tubular wheels.
So, these teams willingly throw away performance when better tires are at hand? Sure thing dude.

Last edited by tomato coupe; 02-06-23 at 02:53 PM. Reason: typo
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 02-06-23, 01:20 PM
  #37  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,174
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4273 Post(s)
Liked 4,709 Times in 2,909 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled. Tubeless has 3 insurmountable disadvantages for performance riding:
  • Higher rim weights than tubular rims. This is inherent to the cross-section of the rim: clincher/tubeless rims simply require more material.
  • The inability to run at high pressures (yes, higher pressures deliver lower rolling resistance)
  • Far greater safety risks in the event of a sudden deflation. On tubulars, the tire stays stuck tight to the rim, and you can ride it for a considerable distance.

Tubeless is a good choice for sponsor marketing campaigns, or for bikes on the roof racks of the team cars, or for the domestiques on flat inconsequential stages.
This ^ is complete bs, but not surprising from this guy.
PeteHski is online now  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-06-23, 01:36 PM
  #38  
Dave Mayer
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,487
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1357 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 272 Posts
Weight is the #1 performance issue, particularly rotating mass. If you have to stick to some arbitrary UCI weight limit, then you'll make every effort to move mass from the wheels/tires to the frame and components. Tubeless/clinchers are inherently heavier than tubulars due to the inferior rim profile.

Rolling resistance: an inconsequential factor. The differences in rolling resistance between (good) tires of any kind is a handful of watts, tiny compared to wind resistance. And for the team leaders, wind resistance doesn't matter as 95% of the time, as they are buried in the pack.

The bicycle trades: they exist to help the industry sell expensive bling to dentists.. What are they going to say? Wish I could find the interview with the head of Vittoria, who expressed some frustration that much of the pro peloton is on their latex tube tubular tires, often relabeled.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:42 PM
  #39  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,452 Times in 1,823 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled. Tubeless has 3 insurmountable disadvantages for performance riding:
  • Higher rim weights than tubular rims. This is inherent to the cross-section of the rim: clincher/tubeless rims simply require more material.
  • The inability to run at high pressures (yes, higher pressures deliver lower rolling resistance)
  • Far greater safety risks in the event of a sudden deflation. On tubulars, the tire stays stuck tight to the rim, and you can ride it for a considerable distance.

Tubeless is a good choice for sponsor marketing campaigns, or for bikes on the roof racks of the team cars, or for the domestiques on flat inconsequential stages.
Ummm .... yes, #1 is true.
#2? Where did you invent all that? Actually Right tire pressure---NOT "higher" pressure--delivers lower rolling resistance. This has been tested and proven a decade ago ... hysteresis eats up energy with really hard tires. A little give rolls more smoothly. And ... who told you tubeless couldn't run high pressures ? Particularly since teams are running 25s and 28s nowadays, and not 23s at 120 psi.
#3 is totally true.

So ... you have documentation for the claim that nobody is riding tubeless except domestiques on flat stages?

By the way, if the bikes on the car have tubeless--- then later in the race if the leader needs a new bike in a hurry to hold his lead---he has to use a bike off the car, which has tubeless, which would--according to you---cost him the race. Not sure I see the logic there.

If you can back up your claims with third-party material, I would appreciate it.

I am only personally involved as a part-time photographer in regional pro-level cycling, so I have no direct experience with what World Tour riders do ... but I watch a lot of cycling on TV and online, and I seem to recall hearing about tams running tubeless .... but that is TV and the Internet .... .... If you have valid documentation showing otherwise, please link it or post it. I would like to know the truth, whatever it is.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:43 PM
  #40  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3905 Post(s)
Liked 7,181 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Weight is the #1 performance issue, particularly rotating mass.
Ummmmmmm … no.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 01:51 PM
  #41  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,452 Times in 1,823 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Weight is the #1 performance issue, particularly rotating mass.
Funny, at pro peleton speeds, the pros seem to think aero is the most important factor.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Tubeless/clinchers are inherently heavier than tubulars due to the inferior rim profile.
Ummmm .... okay .... seems to me that any sort of wheel can be made in any shape and that most teams are running much deeper wheels on pretty much all stages .... and even on pure mountain stages, sorry there is no inherent shape benefit to tubular rims over other rim styles. The big benefits with tubeless are lighter weight of the actual tire and the fact that they can be safely ridden flat.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Rolling resistance: an inconsequential factor.
Funny, then, that you quote it as second of the big three reasons tubulars are better.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Wish I could find the interview with the head of Vittoria, who expressed some frustration that much of the pro peloton is on their latex tube tubular tires, often relabeled.
We all wish you could find this. I am not here to win a debate .... people here will keep fighting even if the topic is "Black is different than white" or "Red bikes are faster." I just want accurate information ... and your hit-or-miss logic and contradictory posts are hard to trust. Please do find those third-party sources.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 02:46 PM
  #42  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,786

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4831 Post(s)
Liked 7,820 Times in 3,704 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Clinchers can be inflated to optimal pressure. Tubeless tires have very low rolling resitance. And very high pressure (110+ psi) is a disadvantage, as it produce higher rolling resistance on real surfaces. Tubulars offer zero rolling resistance advantage over clinchers.
On a MTB ride recently, grinding my way over a rocky (but not loose) section, I was vividly reminded of how much power can be lost to vertical deflection. I would expect this plays out in a smaller scale on the road as well (real roads, not theoretical pristine surfaces), which is where the advantage of more compliant (larger/lower pressure) tires pays off. There's also the factor of a smoother ride leaving the rider fresher and able to put out more power at the end of a long race/ride. That said, there's obviously a tradeoff where increased weight and/or increased aerodynamic resistance outweigh other gains. The pro peloton seems to think that it's somewhere around 25-28mm.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is online now  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-06-23, 03:07 PM
  #43  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1217 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times in 653 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Weight is the #1 performance issue, particularly rotating mass. If you have to stick to some arbitrary UCI weight limit, then you'll make every effort to move mass from the wheels/tires to the frame and components. Tubeless/clinchers are inherently heavier than tubulars due to the inferior rim profile.

Rolling resistance: an inconsequential factor. The differences in rolling resistance between (good) tires of any kind is a handful of watts, tiny compared to wind resistance. And for the team leaders, wind resistance doesn't matter as 95% of the time, as they are buried in the pack.

The bicycle trades: they exist to help the industry sell expensive bling to dentists.. What are they going to say? Wish I could find the interview with the head of Vittoria, who expressed some frustration that much of the pro peloton is on their latex tube tubular tires, often relabeled.
So you say rolling resistance is a minor issue because it is only a few watts. Then how do you stand behind the ridiculous premise that the difference between a lightweight, tubeless setup and a comparable tubular setup creates a measurable difference in acceleration? This archaic wives tale was debunked years ago, much like the high pressure is faster tripe. Your comments are like hanging around a Cat 5 criterium race in the mid 70's, listening to the veterans about their so-called speed secrets.
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 03:38 PM
  #44  
Dave Mayer
Senior Member
 
Dave Mayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,487
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1357 Post(s)
Liked 462 Times in 272 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged
So you say rolling resistance is a minor issue because it is only a few watts. Then how do you stand behind the ridiculous premise that the difference between a lightweight, tubeless setup and a comparable tubular setup creates a measurable difference in acceleration? This archaic wives tale was debunked years ago, much like the high pressure is faster tripe. Your comments are like hanging around a Cat 5 criterium race in the mid 70's, listening to the veterans about their so-called speed secrets.
Tire rolling resistance test results here:

Part 4B: Rolling Resistance and Impedance – SILCA

Sweet spot is 100-110 psi. We're not talking about a gravel event here, but performance riding on smooth pavement. One of the major benefits of holding a high-level cycling event is that all of the roads around your 'burg get repaved.

Tire rolling resistance data here:

Bicycle Rolling Resistance | Rolling Resistance Tests

For the same tire, the higher the inflation pressure, the lower the rolling resistance, until you hit the hysteresis effects in the reference above. And, for the same tire, using the same construction and materials, a 32mm tire features less rolling resistance than a 23, if inflated to the SAME pressure. The difference is about 3 watts per tires. However, you don't inflate a 32 to 110 psi, you inflate it to 60 psi, which means the fatter tire has a higher RR than the skinny tire inflated to 100 psi.

Tubeless wheel weights. Tubeless is heavier than tubular, due to the inferior rim profile. Tubeless, like all clincher rims, require more rim material, specifically the 2 'hooks' required to hold the tire on the rim. Tubular rims don't need these, so all other things being equal are lighter, and will always be lighter. Show me race-capable set of sub- 1,000g set of tubeless wheels. This is possible with tubular, not with clinchers/tubeless.
Dave Mayer is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 03:50 PM
  #45  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,786

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4831 Post(s)
Liked 7,820 Times in 3,704 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Tire rolling resistance test results here:

Part 4B: Rolling Resistance and Impedance – SILCA

Sweet spot is 100-110 psi. We're not talking about a gravel event here, but performance riding on smooth pavement. One of the major benefits of holding a high-level cycling event is that all of the roads around your 'burg get repaved.

Tire rolling resistance data here:

Bicycle Rolling Resistance | Rolling Resistance Tests

For the same tire, the higher the inflation pressure, the lower the rolling resistance, until you hit the hysteresis effects in the reference above. And, for the same tire, using the same construction and materials, a 32mm tire features less rolling resistance than a 23, if inflated to the SAME pressure. The difference is about 3 watts per tires. However, you don't inflate a 32 to 110 psi, you inflate it to 60 psi, which means the fatter tire has a higher RR than the skinny tire inflated to 100 psi.

Tubeless wheel weights. Tubeless is heavier than tubular, due to the inferior rim profile. Tubeless, like all clincher rims, require more rim material, specifically the 2 'hooks' required to hold the tire on the rim. Tubular rims don't need these, so all other things being equal are lighter, and will always be lighter. Show me race-capable set of sub- 1,000g set of tubeless wheels. This is possible with tubular, not with clinchers/tubeless.
Help me understand something...If skinny, high-psi, lightweight, tubular tires are the fastest, why are the riders who get paid the most for being as fast as possible not using this setup? Do you know something they don't know, or is it maybe the other way around?
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions

Last edited by Eric F; 02-06-23 at 03:53 PM.
Eric F is online now  
Old 02-06-23, 04:04 PM
  #46  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,453

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7628 Post(s)
Liked 3,452 Times in 1,823 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
The (elite-level) teams are actually riding tubulars. Often relabeled. Tubeless has 3 insurmountable disadvantages for performance riding: (Edit)
  • The inability to run at high pressures (yes, higher pressures deliver lower rolling resistance)
Keep the story straight from post to post, please.

Last edited by Maelochs; 02-06-23 at 04:33 PM.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 02-06-23, 04:33 PM
  #47  
Ironfish653
Dirty Heathen
 
Ironfish653's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,188

Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times in 534 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
Help me understand something...If skinny, high-psi, lightweight, tubular tires are the fastest, why are the riders who get paid the most for being as fast as possible not using this setup? Do you know something they don't know, or is it maybe the other way around?
Marginal Gains was a false - flag operation.

Explains how Froomie was able to win 4 TdFs on the bounce: making the competition sandbag themselves with heavy aero wheels and slow tubeless tires

Last edited by Ironfish653; 02-06-23 at 04:39 PM.
Ironfish653 is offline  
Likes For Ironfish653:
Old 02-06-23, 07:06 PM
  #48  
RChung
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,395
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 900 Post(s)
Liked 1,122 Times in 482 Posts
Sometimes threads slow down and you think everything that could be said has been said and then boom! they start up again.
RChung is offline  
Likes For RChung:
Old 02-06-23, 07:31 PM
  #49  
base2 
I am potato.
 
base2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,072

Bikes: Only precision built, custom high performance elitist machines of the highest caliber. 🍆

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1764 Post(s)
Liked 1,577 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Dave Mayer
Show me race-capable set of sub- 1,000g set of tubeless wheels. This is possible with tubular, not with clinchers/tubeless.
We went through this already.

957 gram tubeless clincher disc wheelset by Richard Mozzarella, on Flickr

I now also have a 1209 gram 28/24 disc wheelset same as above but made with White Industries hubs.

It's ok to learn new things.
__________________
I shouldn't have to "make myself more visible;" Drivers should just stop running people over.

Car dependency is a tax.
base2 is offline  
Likes For base2:
Old 02-06-23, 08:49 PM
  #50  
venturi95
Firm but gentle
 
venturi95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 588

Bikes: 2005 Litespeed Tuscany, Soma Pescadero, Pure Cycles disc road, Jamis hybrid

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times in 60 Posts
^ Cool looking wheels, and mighty light! I'm not trying to start an argument, but do any pro tour teams ride Berd spokes?
The big advantage for sew ups, beside modest weight savings, seems to me to be:
--Smooth pavement. I don't follow professional road cycling, but what little of it I see looks like it likes place on really smooth roads. Skinny, high-pressure tires would be fastest here, as proven by the same experiments as the argument for wide and soft on the rough stuff, no?
--If it is rough, you can imagine being stuck in the middle of the peloton getting dragged over crap pavement at 30 plus m.p.h. I raced in the 1990s and saw clincher flats frequently in that situation. Do modern tubeless rims carrying low pressure tires get beat to failure? I have no idea.
--Want to go aero? Make my deep aero wheels sew-up.
I like my dirt road and MTB tubless set-ups just fine, love them, they're fabulous. I would like to try a modern road tubless set-up, maybe a Go Fund Me account is in order? JK!
venturi95 is offline  

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.