tubs or clinchers for new race wheels

terongi
terongi Posts: 318
edited November 2008 in Workshop
Which is faster?

Which is safer (grip etc)?

Which is more puncture resistant?

How hard is it to repair a tubular puncture on the road? Is there some squirty stuff you can put in to get you home?

How hard is it to repair a tubular puncture at home?

How expensive are the spares?

Comments

  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    The facts (as i understand them) are,
    Clinchers roll better whereas sprint wheels are lighter. Some people say tubs are safer because they are less likely to blow out in the avent of a puncture (I said it too!). I don't think there's much in it as far as grip. I find tubs more comfortable for a given pressure.
    You can't mend them on the road though the fooam would get you home. Usually just change the tub, whiich is slightly quicker than with the tyre but of course then you are stuck if you puncture again and you're less likely to get some one to help you out with another spare.
    You can mend them at home, though it takes a while and is a right faff. Did it for 20 years but don't any more. It's going to more expensive to run tubs.
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    I'd only consider tubs if I had a support vehicle following me everywhere with replacement wheels
  • willbevan
    willbevan Posts: 1,241
    I use tubs for TTs, wouldnt use them on Sportifs (if you consider that racing?)

    mainly becuase thats what came with the bike when i bought it, touch wood, not had a puncture, and is nice to pick up the wheel when changing from training to racing, and thinking 'wow thats light and aero dynamic' :) bet you would have that with a clincher as well mind you as my training wheels are still around 1500g + tyres+skewers etc
    Road - BTwin Sport 2 16s
    MTB - Trek Fuel 80
    TT - Echelon

    http://www.rossonwye.cyclists.co.uk/
  • I use tubs for racing and TTs, clinchers for training and sportives.
    Prefer the feel of tubs and of course you can run much higher pressures. But, as above, if you puncture and have used your spare, you're somewhat knackered. Not too important in a TT or short race, as you're out of contention whichever type of tyre you're having to fix, but you don't want to have the 'no spares left' feeling 40 miles into a big sportive..
  • My Local just weghed out using GP supersonics v Open corsa CX and found that the CLINCHER was lighter including wheels Tyres and Tubes.

    Seems that Clinchers might now be the winner
  • John.T
    John.T Posts: 3,698
    Which is faster. Very little in it if you use Conti Supersonic or similar clinchers. Some say that tubs roll better but the gap is now small.

    Which is safer. In terms of grip, nothing in it. If you should have a flat the tub should stay on the rim (if you glued it on right in the first place) enabling you to stop safely. A flat clincher is a less stable animal.

    How hard to repair on the road. Both a spare tub or an aerosol of sealant are heavier than a spare tube and would not save much time. You have already lost the race so it does not matter.

    Home repair. Do-able but you would probably struggle with the first few repairs (how many do you expect to need).

    Cost. Top tubs are much more expensive than the best clinchers but you can get very good ones for much the same money.

    If you are building a good TT bike with disc/deep rim etc then tubs should be considered as they 'may' save a few seconds. If you are good enough that a few seconds will be the difference between winning and loosing then go for them. If not then they may be too much hastle. The same applies to Road Races.
    For general riding and sportives etc they are not worth the trouble. After all how often do you puncture in summer.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    notriding wrote:
    My Local just weghed out using GP supersonics v Open corsa CX and found that the CLINCHER was lighter including wheels Tyres and Tubes.

    Seems that Clinchers might now be the winner

    Ah yes, but you aren't taking into account how much heavier clincher rims are over their tubular equivalent.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • inseine
    inseine Posts: 5,788
    I think that's what i said :)
    How do you work out from what you said that tubs may be quicker for a TT? Just intersted.
    On the other hand, they are lighter. I just can't see how they can't be. This is especially the case with carbon rims where the clinchers can be a pound heavier for the two wheels. Doesn't affect you in most TTs though.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    inseine wrote:
    I think that's what i said :)

    I missed the "wheels" bit, but I think you'll still find most wheels+tubs are lighter than wheels+clinchers....
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • John.T
    John.T Posts: 3,698
    How do you work out from what you said that tubs may be quicker for a TT?
    inseine. I assume that is aimed at me. The general concensus is that tubs roll better due to the construction being more suple so for a given pressure they will handle road imperfections better. This coupled with the ability to handle higher pressures is reckoned to be a little faster. We are probably only talking about a very few seconds here. At the level I ride it would not be worth the trouble. 5 seconds (if that) off a 25 min 10 is not ground breaking.
  • mathi
    mathi Posts: 110
    There is nothing wrong with using tubs in sportives , i rode a lot of the major sportives last year on tubs and see know reason to change .
    There has been a lot of progress made in modern tubulars compared to a few years back .
    My advice on tubs would be to buy the best you can afford , dont go buying any cheap crap or you may as well stick with clinchers .
    It pays to spend ! 8)
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    Nobody's mentioned tubeless - theoretically offering the lowest rolling resitance - no hysteresis between iiner and tyre - but a complete pain to repair roadside by all accounts - either use foam or need to carry a crowbar for a tyre lever. I still prefer the feel of tubs when racing - there are very few clinchers that give the 'roar' of a fast tyre.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • I don't understand why road tubeless should be any different from the tubeless I've been using on my MTBs for 5 years or so now. Would I ever go back to tubes? no way. I can only remember one puncture in the last three years, that was in the Alps and the sidewall was ripped open.

    If you get a puncture that won't seal then just stick a tube in. Of course the chances of actually getting a puncture are much lower anyway with no tubes to pinch. With MTBs you almost always uses sealant in the tyres anyway, which will seal small punctures e.g. thorns any leaks pretty much instantly. Not sure if anyone has suggested using sealant for road tyres yet. That's before the benefits of rolling resistance. (edit: Weight probably won't be lower than conventional tyre/tube though).

    I'm just amazed it's taken so long for road wheel/tyre manufacturers to get behind the idea.

    Edit2: To the OP. In a sportive last year two out of three tub riders in a group I met had to retire due to punctures. I guess in race, the race is effectively over if you have a puncture though?
  • Hi there!

    I'll try to answer your questions one by one:
    terongi wrote:
    Which is faster?

    The last independent tests I saw (German cycling magazine last year) showed a clincher (Conti GP4000s) to be the fastest tyres, although the selection of tubs wasn't as wide as it could have been. For time trialling those who can afford it by Dugast tubs, whilst second choice are Veloflex Records, neither of which were in the test.

    See this link:
    http://www.conti-tyres.co.uk/conticycle/road_tyres/attack%20force/Resistance%20Fighters.pdf

    terongi wrote:
    Which is safer (grip etc)?

    Depends on the which tyre you pick and the pressure you run it at, rather than tubs or clinchers per se. See the pdf above for recommendations
    terongi wrote:
    Which is more puncture resistant?

    Tubs are practically immune to snakebite punctures - these are usually caused by your tyre bottoming out on the hooked section clincher rim. Generally cause you've hit a small stone or the edge of a pothole.

    Tubs are also great for things like cyclocross, cos you can run really low pressures for better grip in the mud without worrying about snakebites.

    When it comes to sharp pointy things getting stuck in your tyre, they both suffer the same. Faster tyres have softer rubber and more compliant sidewalls which make them more prone to this sort of puncture. Tyres with puncture-resistant linings will be heavier, less supple and hence slower. Tubs v clincher doesn't really affect the choice.
    terongi wrote:
    How hard is it to repair a tubular puncture on the road? Is there some squirty stuff you can put in to get you home?

    Carry a spare with some old glue residue on it already - you simply tear off the punctured tyre and slap on the spare. Job done in less than a minute! (If you've got co2).

    I've never used the slime squirty stuff but others swear by it. You can also put some other squirty stuff in in advance, which is supposed to automagically seal up any punctures as they happen... This adds a bit of weight though.
    terongi wrote:
    How hard is it to repair a tubular puncture at home?

    If you're handy with a needle and thread, then it isn't too difficult... allegedly. I'm not so I send mine off to Peter Burgin from www.tubular-repairs.com £10 a repair including postage back to you. Hence it's only worth doing if you've got expensive tubs, but then there's no point buying cheap tubs is there?
    terongi wrote:
    How expensive are the spares?

    A good clincher (GP4000s or Pro Race 3) will cost you about £25 to £30 each, while tubes will be about a fiver.

    A decent tub (Veloflex Record, Vittoria Evo) will cost about £40 to £50 each.

    The main difference is not in the tyres, but in the wheels. For the same wheelset, the clincher version will undoubtedly be heavier. e.g. Zipp 404 tubs are 1252g, while the clinchers are 1615g.

    The reason is that in order to construct a hooked rim to hold the clincher in place you either need a lot of extra carbon material, or to bond on an aluminium rim to the edge.

    As tubs don't need to be held in place by a hooked rim you can also get them up to much higher pressures. 200psi is not uncommon for track wheels. Not so important on the road, as 120psi in a clincher is more than enough.

    Some say tubs ride better, roll smoother etc - I've not noticed a difference, and I've ridden both for several years now.

    Tubeless... I don't think they've sorted them out to run at high enough pressures for road racing yet? Maybe I'm wrong. The engineering required to hold a big wide mountain bike tyre on at 50psi is one thing, but a skinny 120psi road tyre must be much more difficult.

    The problem with tubs in sportives is that sportives are generally hilly. Once you've put a spare tub in, the glue won't be as firm as one that you've loving applied at home and left to harden fro 48 hours. You stand a good chance of rolling the tub off the rim after you've heated it up by braking on a steep hill then trying to make the tight corner at the bottom. For the average T this is less of an issue. In a road race you'd just take a spare from the service car.

    Personally I ride tubs for TT and triathlons, but clinchers for road racing. I should use tubs for cross, but I don't have a another spare set of wheels...

    Mostly it comes down to wheel choice first, then buy the tyres that fit!

    Cheers, Andy
  • oldwelshman
    oldwelshman Posts: 4,733
    Personally I just use tubs on velodrome ( safer when puncturing as you can just about stay on track but more difficult with clinchers) and clinchers on road.
    For 99.9% of people you would nt notice the difference in performace for speed or handling and it would depend on which you bought anyway as there are loads available.
    I would never use tubs on uk roads as they are so crap.
    The magic white :D stuff you put in tubs may be ok but if you deflate tyre it will stick together.
  • Tubeless... I don't think they've sorted them out to run at high enough pressures for road racing yet? Maybe I'm wrong. The engineering required to hold a big wide mountain bike tyre on at 50psi is one thing, but a skinny 120psi road tyre must be much more difficult.

    Well they have, as both Campagnolo and Shimano are selling tubeless wheels right now and I think some pro tour riders were using them a while back. Unfortunately there is only one tyre choice at the moment though!

    Tubeless tyres traditionally work with a hooked bead and rim which you actually need to inflate to a reasonable pressure to seal initially (which is usually the hard bit unless you use CO2). Because there is no tube there is less rolling resistance so the tyres can be run at a lower pressure giving more grip/comfort (compared to a tubed tyre) without risk of puncture. I guess in racing maybe that isn't so important and outright rolling resistance is?

    However it is early days for tubeless road and I wouldn't go there, yet.

    Sorry for dragging this off topic a bit.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Did Phillipe Gilbert not win Het Volk on tubeless tyres?
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • Choose your wheels first then worry about which tyres you need. Comparing like for like clinchers and tubs (eg Vittoria Open Corsa CX with latex tubes versus Vittoria Corsa EVO CX) there isn't a huge amount of difference in performance but if you want the best wheels you largely need tubulars. Where wheels come either way, clincher versions tend to be more expensive at least for carbon rims (think Lightweight C, Hyperon Ultra clinchers) and/or you're making a significant sacrifice in wheel performance (eg Zipp 404 clincher vs tub) where they're heavier and not as stiff.

    Unless you're buying carbon wheels you probably want clinchers for convenience and cost. Weight savings on alloy tubular wheels are not really significant enough to warrant the cost/hassle of tubs.

    So, the long and short of that is: What's you budget?!
  • notriding wrote:
    My Local just weghed out using GP supersonics v Open corsa CX and found that the CLINCHER was lighter including wheels Tyres and Tubes.

    Seems that Clinchers might now be the winner

    Ah yes, but you aren't taking into account how much heavier clincher rims are over their tubular equivalent.

    INCLUDING WHEELS
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    notriding wrote:
    notriding wrote:
    My Local just weghed out using GP supersonics v Open corsa CX and found that the CLINCHER was lighter including wheels Tyres and Tubes.

    Seems that Clinchers might now be the winner

    Ah yes, but you aren't taking into account how much heavier clincher rims are over their tubular equivalent.

    INCLUDING WHEELS

    READ MY LATER POST....YOU'LL STILL FIND MOST WHEELS+TUBS LIGHTER THAN WHEELS+CLINCHERS.

    e.g. ZIpps, Cosmic Carbone, Hyperon Ultras........and then you'll find a lot of the good wheels only come in Tubs anyway like Boras.....
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • I use both.

    The biggest issue for the OP I suspect is repairs to punctures. Lot of people are worried about tubs in that respect. As Andrew says, you can simply carry a spare with glue residue and get it on very quickly. True, that only allows for one puncture. You can also use products such as Pitstop, which I have used a few times, always with success. But again, it only covers one puncture.

    As others have said, on a like for like basis, tubs are less likely to puncture. In fact I find Conti Competitions phenomenally resistance to punctures for a 270g tub. I've never had one in maybe 20k kms.

    The two big advantages of tubs are the better cornering and the lighter rim weight they allow. They are therefore considerably better for road and criterium racing.

    Further advantage is probably safer on mountain descents, though I am not overly concerned about a good condition clincher in this regard.

    It's horses for courses. Tubs are better for some things but you're not missing that much running the best clinchers, and for some riding they are more suitable IMO.

    PS. on rolling resistance ... there is conflicting data around. Some data suggests tubs have significantly lower RR on an apples with apples and some suggests the opposite. There are some consistencies however - e.g. a latex tube invariably lowers rolling resistance.
  • aracer
    aracer Posts: 1,649
    Monty Dog wrote:
    Nobody's mentioned tubeless - theoretically offering the lowest rolling resitance
    Theoretically. Trouble is the only available tyres at the moment are tubeless versions of ones which perform poorly as normal tyres - though reports I've seen suggest that even so, they are pretty close in speed to the top clinchers. When Michelin/Conti start making tubeless versions of their top tyres, then they'll be the undisputed fastest (all we actually want is a proper tubeless bead, as you can use sealant as with MTB tubeless, but I wouldn't run tubeless on road with a normal bead like I happily do with lower MTB pressures).

    Corima also do a tubeless version of their carbon aero wheel.