Mavic r sys sl etc vs tubular climbing wheels

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
gb103
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:07 pm

by gb103

Hi, just wondering if people think their is any real benefit of carbon tubular wheels that weigh around 1200 -1250g such as hypernon/fulcrum light/vision Trimax tc24 versus light weight clincher wheels such as the r sys sl. Purely in the context of climbing, ie sportive or climbing big cols for fun. Not for road racing or aerodynamic properties.

Given the disadvantage of tubulars such as puncturing and braking on long descents. I could understand the advantage of über lightweight wheels such as enve or ax lightness.

Any views welcome
Thanks

User avatar
MajorMantra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

by MajorMantra

The tubulars will have slightly less mass at the rim.

by Weenie


Phill P
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

by Phill P

Well to start with the hyperon/racing lite have better hubs. Campy loose balls are the nicest rolling hubs out there.

I'd rather ride robust steel bladed spokes over the R-SYS and its dubious CF spokes.

Nothing wrong with neutrons either.

For the $$ you are spending on these prebuilt wheels you could get a good builder to make something built for your weight and needs. ENVE rims could even be in the budget.

As far as benefits you will the ride benefits of tubs, and the light weight of tubs. Both handy for a sportive with lots of climbing

sawyer
Posts: 4472
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

gb103 wrote:
Given the disadvantage of tubulars such as ... braking on long descents.

Any views welcome
Thanks


My view is your wrong on this. Tubulars brake fine. On carbon much safer than clinchers. And if you puncture on a descent, wouldn't rather be on a tubular?
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

gb103
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:07 pm

by gb103

I agree the hypernons and racing lights ceramic hub are excellent and superior to mavics.

Tubulars may break fine, but the general consensus is that clincher rims break better in the dry and wet.

My question is purely on a performance basis, ie is there now any advantage using tubular wheels that are 50 -100 grams lighter over top end clincher like the mavics. For example, a TT up Alpe D'Huez or doing a longer event such as the etape/Marmotte if bike and rider are equal.

User avatar
MajorMantra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

by MajorMantra

gb103 wrote:Tubulars may break fine, but the general consensus is that clincher rims break better in the dry and wet.


Assuming you mean "brake", then no such general consensus exists - the choice of tubular or clincher makes no difference to how a rim brakes, except in the case of overheating where a clincher can blow off the rim, although a tubular can also come unglued.

If you're thinking of Tony Martin in the Worlds TT, then he chose clinchers because they offered an alloy braking surface, which is better in the wet than carbon. It's the braking surface that makes the difference, not the type of tyre.

gb103
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:07 pm

by gb103

Apologies I did not make myself very clear. I indeed was talking about the braking surface (carbon v aluminium). Any views on climbing performance?
Last edited by Powerful Pete on Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please do not quote immediately previous post. PP

User avatar
MajorMantra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

by MajorMantra

Weight is weight. It's an absolute in climbing. The more of it you have, the slower you go for a given effort. The lightest wheelset you can possibly build is a low profile carbon tubular so for pure climbing, that is the best choice in theory.

That said, do a search for one of those power spreadsheets - you can work out how much difference 200g will actually make - it's TINY.

gb103
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:07 pm

by gb103

Thanks for actually answering the question.

I was just wondering as aluminium wheels become lighter (in clincher and tubular form) will there be any point in carbon tubular wheels that weigh around 1250g?
Last edited by Powerful Pete on Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: No need to quote the immediately previous post. Thanks. PP

pdlpsher1
Posts: 1410
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: CO

by pdlpsher1

There's also the Shimano DA C24 for your consideration. It has the best of both worlds (lightness and an alloy braking surface).

User avatar
MajorMantra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

by MajorMantra

Carbon wheels are still improving. Aluminium rims (in my opinion) aren't likely to get much lighter or stiffer than they already are, and at the über-WW end of things stiffness and durability really tends to suffer. Unless all you do is ride uphill TTs I would still choose aluminium though, and I say this as the owner of two carbon wheelsets.

Re C24s, they aren't light enough to figure in this conversation.

fdegrove
Tubbie Guru
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 2:20 am
Location: Belgium

by fdegrove

Hi,

Tubulars may break fine, but the general consensus is that clincher rims break better in the dry and wet.


This has nothing to do with tubulars versus clinchers but rather alloy rims versus carbon rims be that of the tubular or clincher conviction.
The gap is closing as we speak though.

Given the disadvantage of tubulars such as puncturing and braking on long descents.


Once again this is just not true. Tubulars should not puncture any more or less than a clincher. If anything the tubular has the theoretical advantage both on pncture resistance and sustained/repetitive braking.

In short, for what you intend to do, the tubular carries all the advantages you need. The only disadvantage I can see is the slightly inferior brute stopping power under heavy rain and then some...

Ciao, ;)
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Phill P
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

by Phill P

What about the American Classic Mg wheels? Rims look good, but can't say I'm a fan of the hubs.

User avatar
strobbekoen
Posts: 4446
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: BELGIUM

by strobbekoen

In the context of climbing, the performance difference will be marginal. That is, assuming both wheelsets have similar performance. Feeling comfortable with what you ride will make a bigger difference, and you may not be as confident if you ride very light carbon wheels.

User avatar
LEC135
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:29 pm
Location: London

by LEC135

I had some C4 2.0 USL that I loved and have now changed to Zipp 202 (because I was switching back to Campag). To be honest the tubs are a bit smoother but apart from that I don't notice a massive difference (until I puncture). The clinchers have the added bonus that I used to use them more rather than save them for the odd special trips. Having said that I am 59 kg so pretty light on my kit.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post