ljsense

Lost a lot of market share and hype, sure.

Still, the Grand Tour teams that aren't being pressured by sponsors -- Roval and Shimano, namely -- mostly run tubulars.

I could join Dan and spout my arguments, but who cares.

On the other hand, if Jumbo Visma chooses them, there is probably good reason.

Atlas Shrugged

Other than a few Pro Tour Teams, the rest of cycling has moved on. What I find amusing in this debate is the individuals who are strong supporters of tubular reference Pro Tour Teams yet eschew Carbon Fiber, Disc Brakes, Thru Axels, Electronic Shifting, Low Spoke Wheels, and Sealed Bearings, all of which are adopted 100% across the board.

Tubulars were orders of magnitude ahead of all the alternatives back in the late 70's however, that time has gone and they are at best equivalent to top-tier clinchers performance-wise without all the hassle. But like my '68 VW Bug will always be part of a wonderful time in my life. I do have fond memories of patching and resewing a batch of tires watching MASH on Monday nights but frustratingly was never able to get them to run straight again

Trakhak

Are we witnessing the death of the tubular tyre? Why tubeless now rules the Tour de France peloton

merlinextraligh

The 80’s called and want their tires back. Time has moved on, and while there may still be some limited cases for tubulars, such as elite level cyclocross, they just aren’t the answer for road riding. On a performance level, tubeless simply is faster. About the only advantage left for tubulars is you can ride them flat, which is only even an issue in racing.

For people without team mechanics, the ease of use, the decreased likelihood of flatting, and the ease of dealing with flats, makes tubeless a clear win over tubulars.

i raced on tubulars almost 50 years ago, reluctantly sold my Zipp 303 tubulars a couple of years ago, and still have tubulars on my track bike. But there comes a point where you have to admit reality and move on.

PeteHski

That’s not the reality.

Dave Mayer

Tubulars dominate at the highest level of the sport, past, present and forever. The inherent weight, strength, and safety disadvantage of the clincher rim means that regular clinchers will only exist for the following reasons:

• For recreational or low-performance riding where the cost of the tubular tires, and the mess of gluing overwhelms the decision.
• Your third-tier team has no tubular rim or tire sponsor options
• Your second-tier team has a sponsor that wants to push tubeless to weekend warriors and dentists. After all, Pro racing exists to sell banks, lotteries and bike stuff.
• Your first-tier team is supposedly riding tubeless (for marketing) but is actually riding relabeled Vittoria tubulars.

Again, clinchers have no performance advantage over tubulars, and a big safety downside. Rolling resistance is a non-issue, because the riders who matter (team leaders) are buried in the pack 95% of the time until the big climb or the final sprint. Wheel inertia is all-important.

asgelle

Performance art. Poor art, but art nonetheless.

Atlas Shrugged

I will remember this the next time I plan on racing the Tour de France. In the meantime, when I take my next bike trip in France, I’ll be running clinchers like everyone else.

Trakhak

I agree. Tubeless road bike tires (as opposed to lower-pressure tubeless tires on MTBs and gravel bikes) seem to be potentially troublesome, nearly as much so as tubulars, but lots of Bike Forums folk swear by them. For me, 25 years on tubulars was enough. And now, after 30 years on reliable, high-performance clinchers, I see no need to consider switching to tubeless.

PeteHski

The alternative reality show ^

Fredo76

This time it's the tubular scoffers and skeptics that are operating on outdated information, apparently without direct personal experience. More specifically, I am referring to those whose assumption about the PITA factor is forty years old. Nobody can tell me that clinchers are easier, not these days, because my recent experience with both says otherwise. If you still have it figured differently, maybe you're wrong, and out-of-date on this subject.

PeteHski

The only issue for me is this bs claim by @Dave Mayer that tubulars are far superior to modern clinchers and tubeless for high level racing. Tubulars are still clearly competitive in some races, but clinchers and tubeless now dominate at all levels.

Nobody needs to justify their own tyre choice by talking bs about the alternatives. That is just a sign of insecurity.

Dave Mayer

Ha ha... I read the road.cc article linked above, and here is the smoking gun text:"In the peloton, it's quite common for the domestiques to be using tubeless tyres and liners so that they're less likely to puncture and if they do can continue riding and hopefully helping whilst waiting for a spare wheel.


Team leaders, on the other hand, get more free reign and are more likely to be using tubular wheels and tyres because of the small weight advantage and the fact that they rarely have to wait as long for a spare wheel or bike as the team car is closer.


In an ideal world, sponsors would prefer to see riders win on models that the public is likely to buy, and that means wheels that take clinchers and tubeless tyres. The market for tubular wheel/tyre systems is small at best."


Apart from the erroneous spelling of 'tire', this nugget of text reveals all: that tubulars are inherently superior. Summarized it confirms that the disposable domestiques are on tubeless for marketing reasons, but the team leaders (i.e. the one rider that matters) are on tubulars for performance and safety advantages.

So this sorry tire/rim saga - here is are the developments to date:

1. The tubular rims/tire system is superior in every respect - pinch puncture resistance, safety after a flat, critical rotating mass, etc. However, your average weekend warrior/dentist doesn't want to get glue on their hands.
   
2. Clinchers are for everyday riding, but need to be sold to the 'performance' market. But the clincher rim profile causes pinch flats, and sudden clincher blowouts are a terrifying safety hazard. Tubular tires in contrast stick tight to the rim when flat, and are much safer;
   
3. Solution: make clincher tires fatter with more air volume to reduce pinch flats. Of course, bigger tires (and rims) are heavier, have higher rolling resistance and are less aero;
   
4. Another solution: Tubeless! Fill the tires with slimy goop which reduces most little pinprick flats, but makes the larger flats unrepairable on the field. Better carry a cell phone to call up the Wifey! And you'd better carry a wad of spare cash to buy your riding pals post-ride beers due to you making them wait in the cold rain as you unsuccessfully try and fix a field flat; and
   
5. Problem of sudden clincher deflations remains. Major safety concern. Solution: insert a foam pool noodle inside the tire. Seriously! Of course, this is a major installation hassle, and weight wise, renders the tire/rim combo even more uncompetitive with tubulars. For elite level riding, you want 1,200g or less wheels and 250g or less tires. Can you do that with a heavy clincher rim and tire, and a pool noodle on the inside?
   

Pretty funny actually: the bike industry is turning itself inside out desperately pushing out successive band-aid solutions in an attempt to promote an inherently inferior (clincher/tubeless) solution - for purely marketing reasons.

PeteHski

“Tyre” is the correct spelling for the UK. But I’m not surprised you don’t know that.

venturi95

Perhaps tubeless can now go shoulder to shoulder with sew-ups in some situations, but if I'm wrong please let me know where and how tubeless "DOMINATES"?
My experience: if you actually spent time racing in large pelotons you would see the short comings of clinchers when being dragged through potholes and other crap surfaces that you would never ride over at any speed recreationally, let alone at 30+ m.p.h. during a race.
I no longer race, I no longer ride sew-ups.

PeteHski

We could start with pro tyre choices for Paris Roubaix last year, or any of the Spring Classics. Tubeless totally dominated on rougher roads in 2022. It's still more of a level playing field in the high mountains, but Tom Pidcock did okay on tubeless GP5000S TR tyres at last year's TDF.

At lower levels of racing, clinchers appear to be far more popular than tubulars and tubeless is becoming more widely accepted as people realise they are not so hard to live with.

venturi95

I stand by my earlier statement that tubeless can sometimes go shoulder to shoulder, finally. Use of tubeless does not imply DOMINATION.

Paris-Roubaix crashes spark debate about tubeless tyre safety on the cobbles | Cyclingnews

PeteHski

Given that Paris Roubaix has been won on tubeless tyres for the last 2 years, along with most of the other Spring Classics, and that nearly all the top tier riders ran tubeless last year, I would say they have become dominant.

Tubulars are now a minority in most pro road racing. They are still competitive in the high mountains, but even there they appear to have little or no advantage. Guys are winning on all 3 types of tyre. Most teams are switching to clinchers or tubeless, even those who were previously advocates of tubulars eg Ineos.

I don’t really care, but these are just the facts of what is happening.

Luke Rowe from Ineos was questioning why some teams appeared not to be using safety inserts in their tubeless tyres for Paris Roubaix. He said they cost a couple of Watts but their team thought it was worth it for the cobbles.

Psimet2001 

Too much here to address one on one. Not all tubular rims will run all tubular tires. Point in fact I designed and manufactured 2 rims specifically designed for use in cyclocross that will NOT run a road tubular smaller than a 28 or 30mm. My last rim won't run a road tubular at all.

As someone who has spent piles of my own money in the tech - Tubulars still have a very specific niche. Cyclocross racing and Track. The cross application will eventually die as well. I have more and more athletes that just move to tubeless because of tire availability and the fact that they have been changing the rules regarding tire width.

Avoiding the push to tubeless at the highest level for road is like avoiding disc conversion: it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or what the science or even real lie experience is the change will just happen because of a basic generational shift. In the same way that kids don't like to talk on a phone call there is an entire generation that can't get over the idea of gluing a tire.

Road is the absolute WORST application of tubeless technology but by god they're going to make it standard whether you like it or not. You can tilt at windmills or go enjoy your ride.

Sure I love tubular but I would never ride it as a daily tire for anything except if I rode track daily. If you haven't raced on a tubular then you really don't know wtf you're talking about. Tubeless is a complete sacrifice of tire performance (which encompasses way more than just rolling resistance) but no one cares. I mean people think the GP series of tires from Continental are "nice riding" tires. I am sure they also put ketchup on pasta too. *shrug*

Other things in life to worry about.

Sy Reene

Why wouldn't the arc differ between rims made for narrower tubs vs wider tubs?

JohnDThompson 

No, because only the casing is retaining the pressure, not the rim.

Psimet2001 

Yes the casing holds the tire pressure. The glue and base curve of the rim bed hold the casing. The base curve has a different radius depending on the tire size it is designed for. As I mentioned I have rims I have designed specifically for 33mm tires. You can not run a 25mm tire on it. The gaps on the edges between the tire and the rim are too large to overcome with layering glue.

The same the other way. This is why some people resort to "Belgian Tape" method for gluing large radius tubulars to narrow rims. Simply using glue and a fabric to effectively make the base curve a larger radius to match the tire better.

I mentioned this above and it is why we have different rims for largely different tire sizes. on tubulars.