Time trial Are tubs faster?
alan overson
Posts: 4
Is it worth converting to Tubs over high quality hp's such as continental supersonics?
0
Comments
-
It all depends what wheels you are using for either option. In theory for a given inflation pressure, tubs are actually slightly slower than clinchers. However the usual reason for switching to them is that many aero wheels are only available for tubs (that and you can pump tubs up harder if you want to be bounced all over the place :roll: ).0
-
aracer wrote:It all depends what wheels you are using for either option. In theory for a given inflation pressure, tubs are actually slightly slower than clinchers. However the usual reason for switching to them is that many aero wheels are only available for tubs (that and you can pump tubs up harder if you want to be bounced all over the place :roll: ).
HI there.
I agree.
Also when you look at the aero wheels that are available as both clinchers and tubs, the clinchers are significantly heavier.
Cheers, Andy0 -
In theory, when tubeless road tyres finally come out, they'll be faster too as there's no energy losses due to the tubes squirming about - that said, woe betide you if you ever get a puncture! A lot of the 'data' in such cases is derived from running tyres on nice smooth rollers in a laboratory, which doesn't really reflect the realities of riding on the road. For a TT, you are far less likely to suffer an impact or snakebite puncture with a tub than with a clincher, which would have a far greater impact on performance than what tyres you are running.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Note also that some tubs have lower RR than almost all clinchers ... away from the test bench ... the pros would ride clinchers if they thought there was any significant advantage. In fact pro teams mostly ride tubs in TTs ... before anyone says pros ride what they're given take a look at the amount of tyre re-badging that goes on!
I'd say get a tyre with a low RR, but don't base your clincher v tub decision on a small difference in laboratory RR.0 -
Well, here's my two cent's worth or worthless. You may be grasping at straws in
your quest for faster time trials, unless you're a top level rider. I'm going to
figure that you're that you're a person, like many, who rides because he likes it and
enjoys the occasional race. That said, I can say from experiance that on a local and
regional level of racing there are usually the "gorillas" that win most time trials. Same
guys week after week trading the top slots back and forth between them. These people
pretty much win by a decent margin and have good time trial bikes. Lots of dollars.
However, most of them could win even on lesser bikes. So what's the difference?
It isn't tubies or clinchers. It's power. These guys also win at the other races.
Horsepower to weight ratio. It's pretty simple in theory hard to put into practice.
Get stronger. Get lighter, if possible
Dennis Noward0 -
Monty Dog wrote:In theory, when tubeless road tyres finally come out, they'll be faster too as there's no energy losses due to the tubes squirming about - that said, woe betide you if you ever get a puncture! A lot of the 'data' in such cases is derived from running tyres on nice smooth rollers in a laboratory, which doesn't really reflect the realities of riding on the road. For a TT, you are far less likely to suffer an impact or snakebite puncture with a tub than with a clincher, which would have a far greater impact on performance than what tyres you are running.
Hi there.
I also doubt very much that a tubeless road tyre will be able to sustain the 140-160psi that I prefer to inflate my tyres to for TTs.
Cheers, Andy
ps Re tubeless and punctures - I think the idea is that you can fit an inner tube as a get-you-home puncture repair, so it should be just as quick as changing a clincher puncture.0 -
Should be much less likely to get a puncture in the first place if you run a bit of sealant inside your tyres as I do with my MTB tubeless tyres (given how much they've reduced my off-road punctures, I reckon most normal people would manage years without a puncture with a similar system on road).
BTW I'm less than convinced that 160psi (or even 140psi) is optimum for speed except on a track. What you gain with less tyre deformation you lose through the whole bike being bounced on every little irregularity.0 -
Yeah I used to go for the high pressures 140+ but I'm happier down nearer 100 or so. It does get very bouncy with the tyres so hard.
I'm kinda thinking like Dennis - its a very small advantage and I doubt you'd win just because of tyre choice. Training is so much more important.0 -
Again I have to point you all to the mythbusters at www.biketechreview.com
Some of you may be doing yourself an injustice if the experiments some of theses guys are reporting are right.
I'll give you a few examples of the may be myths, you'll need to do the reading to make your own mind up.
1) High pressure is faster. Myth
2) Continental tyres are fast. Myth
3) tubs have less rr than clinchers. In most cases myth
oh and pro's know what equipment is the best, why should they? I suppose your average pro has gone out and tested many different tyre brands?0 -
Chris - there was a story about Bjarne Riis tiring his mechanics out with endless sets of tubsm tyres and wheels in an effort to get the best performance. He spent hours taking the wheels on and off and testing them apparently til he got his optimum performance.
And then Jan Ullrich just asked his mechanic to put the same kit onto his bike.0 -
I am actually looking for seconds probably about 20 over 10 miles .then I may come first instead of second i'm working on the power.0
-
alan overson wrote:I am actually looking for seconds probably about 20 over 10 miles .then I may come first instead of second i'm working on the power.
Glad to hear you've raced a bit. It's a hoot. At least you know who the "gorillas"
are that you're up against.
Dennis Noward0 -
chrisw12 wrote:Again I have to point you all to the mythbusters at www.biketechreview.com
oh and pro's know what equipment is the best, why should they? I suppose your average pro has gone out and tested many different tyre brands?
sorry but that's crap. no-one who knows much about professional cycling would be ignorant of the ruthless quest for speed by the top riders in time trials. to imply that they and their teams would ignore something that can be found in a 2 second google search is laughable.
has your average forumite gone out and tested different tyre brands?
0 -
dennisn wrote:Well, here's my two cent's worth or worthless. You may be grasping at straws in
your quest for faster time trials, unless you're a top level rider. I'm going to
figure that you're that you're a person, like many, who rides because he likes it and
enjoys the occasional race. That said, I can say from experiance that on a local and
regional level of racing there are usually the "gorillas" that win most time trials. Same
guys week after week trading the top slots back and forth between them. These people
pretty much win by a decent margin and have good time trial bikes. Lots of dollars.
However, most of them could win even on lesser bikes. So what's the difference?
It isn't tubies or clinchers. It's power. These guys also win at the other races.
Horsepower to weight ratio. It's pretty simple in theory hard to put into practice.
Get stronger. Get lighter, if possible
Dennis Noward
Hi there.
TTs are won and lost by the smallest of margins. I've lost a TT by 8 seconds once, and I've won one by 2 seconds also...
Yes, you need to work on the biggies first - your power output, position, pacing, wheel and helmet choice. But the small things add up too: aero frames, internal cabling, skin suits, bike handling, overshoes, tyre choice and tyre pressure.
Even if any one factor might only count for a fraction of a second, by the time you add them up they can account for a winning (or losing) margin.
Cheers, Andy
ps get yerself across to www.timetriallingforum.co.uk if you want an in depth discussion on this sort of stuff.0
