Bikeradars tubs vs clinchers comparison (spoilers)
ravenvrider
Posts: 198
Interesting results, on a 9.6m TT at a fixed power output the clinchers were 12 seconds faster, on a 2km hill again fixed power output clinchers were 4 seconds faster, only when sprinting from a slow start did the tubs feel "subjectively" faster.
There was always going to be a point when clinchers performance equaled or surpassed tubs, is this that moment and have tubs now finally had their day.
Here lies Sundays discussion!
There was always going to be a point when clinchers performance equaled or surpassed tubs, is this that moment and have tubs now finally had their day.
Here lies Sundays discussion!
0
Comments
-
It's never really been about 'speed' though. I'm surprised they didn't get that to start with. If you win a race on tubs, you would probably still have won it on clinchers. That really isn't the point..0
-
This isn't new information - it's been known for years that clinchers can be faster than tubs. It isn't the only consideration. They are becoming more and more common in the TT scene though.0
-
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
The point is that tubs have never been 'faster' as such. That's a complete misnomer.0 -
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
Perhaps. But the pro's are still on tubs and I couldn't imagine them settling for second best, especially as every tyre/wheel sponsor could supply them with a clincher alternative. In fact, as you point out, as most people buy clinchers, you'd think that's what the teams' sponsors would want the riders to promote.0 -
"...own quasi-scientific test. And the results may surprise you (they did us!)."
quasi-scientific? pseudo-scientific is nearer the mark, there's lots of waffle about how the tyres are similar, but it's nonsense, the tyres are different, not comparable; apparently the wind was the same, really? not even a 0.1kph variation? remarkable
results surprising? - this is no surprise to anyone with half a clue, if they were surprised then they are remarkably out of touch with the recent history of clinchers being used in tt
some clinchers are faster than some tubs, and some tubs are faster than some clinchers, these br 'tests' adds nothing to that statement, pure clickbait
rolling resistance depends on the tyre construction (and inner tube, and if it's a tub the gluing technique), not whether it's a tub or a clincher
then add on the effects of size, pressure and surface, which can dramatically change crr, so that unless you spend a lot of time doing controlled testing to find the sweet spot for a tyre/size/pressure/road combination, it's just a guess which tyre, size, construction and pressure will work out best
if you look at afm's test, for version 9 the lowest crr is a track tub, the next two are road tyres (light ones), tub and clincher same crr, that's only true for the test conditions but does indicate that in this instance there's no difference between tubs and clinchers per semy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
Perhaps. But the pro's are still on tubs and I couldn't imagine them settling for second best, especially as every tyre/wheel sponsor could supply them with a clincher alternative. In fact, as you point out, as most people buy clinchers, you'd think that's what the teams' sponsors would want the riders to promote.
With respect, pro cyclists are not the most forward thinking of people a lot of the time...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
Perhaps. But the pro's are still on tubs and I couldn't imagine them settling for second best, especially as every tyre/wheel sponsor could supply them with a clincher alternative. In fact, as you point out, as most people buy clinchers, you'd think that's what the teams' sponsors would want the riders to promote.
With respect, pro cyclists are not the most forward thinking of people a lot of the time...
Ha! To be honest, I was thinking the same thing as I wrote my reply.0 -
You can roll for a while on tubs whilst waiting for the team car. That's why pros use tubs.
I use tubs for time trialling as a 19mm tub at high pressure is bloody rapid.Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
Perhaps. But the pro's are still on tubs and I couldn't imagine them settling for second best, especially as every tyre/wheel sponsor could supply them with a clincher alternative. In fact, as you point out, as most people buy clinchers, you'd think that's what the teams' sponsors would want the riders to promote.
Tubs won't come off the rim if you puncture - if I were them, I'd want to be on tubs too. That and pro cycling may be a whole lot more progressive than it once was, but old habits die hard, and they use things that they know to work.0 -
I use tubs for time trialling as a 19mm tub at high pressure is bloody rapid.
They seem to be getting hard to track down, though
, particularly if you run a 26" up front like I do! 0 -
reasons to run tubs...
you are less likely to have a nasty accident if you lose pressure, and if you're a pro what counts is that you can keep on riding until a wheel change, need to slow if it's twisty, but on the straight you can still ride fast with a flat tub
for the same strength/performance, tub wheels can be made significantly lighter than clincher wheels
...crr has nothing to do with these
in a tt, a flat probably means you're not going to win so no need to ride on it, in which case on a course where weight isn't an issue, running a really light clincher with low crr can make sensemy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19738212#p19738212]Simon Masterson[/url] wrote:I use tubs for time trialling as a 19mm tub at high pressure is bloody rapid.
They seem to be getting hard to track down, though, particularly if you run a 26" up front like I do!
Try wheelchair racing shops
http://www.draftwheelchairs.com/shop/products/parts-and-accessories/tyres-and-inner-tubes/tubular-tyres/26-571mm/continental-competition-28-622-700c.html
Ribble have a couple too including Veloflex.Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
I have several issues with this test.
Firstly, every instrument, and that includes power meters, has a level of 'repeatability'.
Definition;
Repeatability — the variation arising when all efforts are made to keep conditions constant by using the same instrument and operator, and repeating during a short time period.
Even if the rider managed to keep to exactly 305W over the two tests (not easy), it is not a given that the 2 powers were the same. If we apply a repeatability error of 1% to the power meter, you have between 302 and 308W, enough to gain or lose several seconds over a 10TT course.
Secondly, it is very hard to keep wind conditions EXACTLY the same over 2 tests. Given that aero drag is THE significant factor on a 10TT, then even a very slight gust can alter your time.
Thirdly, the conclusion was that clinchers are faster as they have a more aero join between tyre and rim. Why then, was the gain more pronounced on a steep hill climb where the aero factor would have been marginal, and the clinchers were penalised by extra weight? Doesn't make sense to me. What is it exactly that made the clinchers faster over the hill climb? It would be nice to see an idea of an explanation for this......0 -
Don't pros simply ride what they are supplied with to meet sponsors requirements?I suspect that mmost of the issue is that a lot of the R&D has been put into clinchers becasue that's what the majority of people that buy tyres (us!) use. We ve now reached the point where the Tubular tyre is an afterthought made when they ve nailed the clincher rather than the other way round...
Perhaps. But the pro's are still on tubs and I couldn't imagine them settling for second best, especially as every tyre/wheel sponsor could supply them with a clincher alternative. In fact, as you point out, as most people buy clinchers, you'd think that's what the teams' sponsors would want the riders to promote.
With respect, pro cyclists are not the most forward thinking of people a lot of the time...
Ha! To be honest, I was thinking the same thing as I wrote my reply.
Some may "disguise" parts but with technology giving a more level playing field I suspect that is less prevalent than it used to be.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
they ran the tubs below the rec psi specified by conti and clinchers bang on.
reading the report, i d have like to see the tubs run @ 110/120, now i m not saying that would have made a difference i dont know but in my non scientific tests of gp4000s and comps, the comps feeling soft and slow at 100psi
According to my chats with a former euro pro, whilst our kids ride at Velodrome, they run tubs because they are less likely to pinch puncture, maintain some contol with a flat and "feel" better, bear in mind this guy is a scientific as they come, i doubt pros ride tubs out of tradition to the sport.0 -
These days there'd have to be real performance gains for me to ride tubs (and I rode them for 20 years and have a pair of Mavic Ultimates that I got 'free'. I rarely use them). If they really aren't quicker then there seems to be a lot more cons than pros.0
-
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do. Obviously there are endless variations between bikes and riders, but this is a consistent and repeatable finding which to me implies that the CRR of tubs remains better.
This is at least reasonably controlled for other aero effects. I'm on a pretty old-school frame (2011 Cervelo R5Ca) with mid-profile wheels (Enve 45s). Comparator bikes have included a variety of Giant Propels on FFWD 50s or Enve 4.5s, with riders of similar weight and size.0 -
These days there'd have to be real performance gains for me to ride tubs (and I rode them for 20 years and have a pair of Mavic Ultimates that I got 'free'. I rarely use them). If they really aren't quicker then there seems to be a lot more cons than pros.
The 'pros' not even mentioned in the test, for me anyway, is the excellent ride quality. Just much more supple, smoother, and nicer to ride.
Whenever I ride clinchers, I find them much more crashy* and buzzy*.
*not strictly technical terms!0 -
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do.
That's much more likely to be a result of aerodynamics than the tyres though, especially when you are "running into the back of them". You could be on a mountain bike and still do that...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do.
That's much more likely to be a result of aerodynamics than the tyres though, especially when you are "running into the back of them". You could be on a mountain bike and still do that...
Sure, but they're not running into the backs of each other, and as I said, I go straight past them if I pull out to pass. I've seen this effect on Mavic R-SYS SLRs as well, which I think we can all agree is not an aerodynamic wheel. They may of course be running much lower pressures than me, etc, etc, but I don't think it's pure aero given the relative similarity of riders and positions, the superiority of their bikes and so on.0 -
I'd roll past my mates downhill on a Raleigh shopper if I accelerated out of the slipstream! You're not 18 stones by any chance are you? 0
-
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do. Obviously there are endless variations between bikes and riders, but this is a consistent and repeatable finding which to me implies that the CRR of tubs remains better.
This is at least reasonably controlled for other aero effects. I'm on a pretty old-school frame (2011 Cervelo R5Ca) with mid-profile wheels (Enve 45s). Comparator bikes have included a variety of Giant Propels on FFWD 50s or Enve 4.5s, with riders of similar weight and size.
This is nowhere near as scientific as their test, and their test was hardly scientific.
You've observed what you've observed and then you put it down to tubs vs clinchers?
brilliant. It appears you're not joking either. 0 -
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do. Obviously there are endless variations between bikes and riders, but this is a consistent and repeatable finding which to me implies that the CRR of tubs remains better.
This is at least reasonably controlled for other aero effects. I'm on a pretty old-school frame (2011 Cervelo R5Ca) with mid-profile wheels (Enve 45s). Comparator bikes have included a variety of Giant Propels on FFWD 50s or Enve 4.5s, with riders of similar weight and size.
Or it could be another of, or a combination of, those endless variations between bikes and riders.0 -
My (equally) unscientific test is to compare descending speeds when not pedalling with my clubmates. I'm the only one on tubs, and I have to brake to avoid running into the back of them; on some hills I can comfortably out-accelerate all of them even if I don't bother tucking down and they do. Obviously there are endless variations between bikes and riders, but this is a consistent and repeatable finding which to me implies that the CRR of tubs remains better.
This is at least reasonably controlled for other aero effects. I'm on a pretty old-school frame (2011 Cervelo R5Ca) with mid-profile wheels (Enve 45s). Comparator bikes have included a variety of Giant Propels on FFWD 50s or Enve 4.5s, with riders of similar weight and size.
This is nowhere near as scientific as their test, and their test was hardly scientific.
You've observed what you've observed and then you put it down to tubs vs clinchers? brilliant. It appears you're not joking either.
I'd never turn up to a club ride with my Enve 4.5's or 45's :PI'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
OK, I'll rephrase. My even more unscientific test...This is nowhere near as scientific as their test, and their test was hardly scientific.
You've observed what you've observed and then you put it down to tubs vs clinchers? brilliant. It appears you're not joking either.
I haven't heard a better explanation yet, and (in true internet style) everyone's making a lot of assumptions. So, here's a better (more boring) recitation.
I routinely cycle with at least two other people who are the same height (186cm), weight (79kg) and general build as me. We are all on similar grades of equipment (they have Propels, I have the aforementioned Cervelo). My total system weight is probably slightly lighter, since my bike is lighter. We are all competent cyclists, and ride similar saddle to bar drops. If we start at the top of a reasonable hill (think Judges or Carbone, for those who know Herts), line abreast, and none of us pedal, and all of us assume an aero tuck, I will reach the bottom materially ahead and at materially higher speed. This will also be true taken as a comparison across the larger group, but that will include people not running aero rims or who are significantly lighter or more upright, so making for a less useful comparison. There is not the same pronounced difference between their performance relative to each other.
My observation is repeatable across maybe a hundred rides, in a variety of weather conditions, with the obvious advantage that the weather conditions are consistent for all participants, and the obvious disadvantage that they aren't me, and aren't therefore either on identical kit or of identical shape.
So either I have magic aero pixie dust or - as the only person in the group running tubs - the tyres have something to do with it.0 -
Why not? Are they only for admiring on a wall mounted bike? I suspect my 45s have had their last ride of the season today, given the state of the roads, but I've enjoyed every minute of using them all year, and they'll go back on again as soon as it dries out a bit.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19738559#p19738559]SloppySchleckonds[/url] wrote:I'd never turn up to a club ride with my Enve 4.5's or 45's :P
Or should I "train" on lead-rimmed clinchers so as to be in peak form for some imaginary racing career? Should I only ride expensive wheels in Crits - so that the inevitable crash is as costly as possible? WTF is nice kit for, if you don't use it on club rides?0 -
OK, I'll rephrase. My even more unscientific test...This is nowhere near as scientific as their test, and their test was hardly scientific.
You've observed what you've observed and then you put it down to tubs vs clinchers? brilliant. It appears you're not joking either.
I haven't heard a better explanation yet, and (in true internet style) everyone's making a lot of assumptions. So, here's a better (more boring) recitation.
I routinely cycle with at least two other people who are the same height (186cm), weight (79kg) and general build as me. We are all on similar grades of equipment (they have Propels, I have the aforementioned Cervelo). My total system weight is probably slightly lighter, since my bike is lighter. We are all competent cyclists, and ride similar saddle to bar drops. If we start at the top of a reasonable hill (think Judges or Carbone, for those who know Herts), line abreast, and none of us pedal, and all of us assume an aero tuck, I will reach the bottom materially ahead and at materially higher speed. This will also be true taken as a comparison across the larger group, but that will include people not running aero rims or who are significantly lighter or more upright, so making for a less useful comparison. There is not the same pronounced difference between their performance relative to each other.
My observation is repeatable across maybe a hundred rides, in a variety of weather conditions, with the obvious advantage that the weather conditions are consistent for all participants, and the obvious disadvantage that they aren't me, and aren't therefore either on identical kit or of identical shape.
So either I have magic aero pixie dust or - as the only person in the group running tubs - the tyres have something to do with it.
No they don't.0 -
So, are we saying that the BR test is also rubbish, and that the tyres have nothing to do with it in that case either? What's your explanation for his 12 sec TT advantage, and/or for my observed descending advantage?No they don't.0
