HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Natovi Landing
@dc110 - that is old data, and many of the posters on this thread, myself included, will have seen it before and various other tests over the years.

A couple of points made earlier in the thread but worth reinforcing:

- how a tubular is mounted (tape, glue job) has an effect of rolling resistance

- from memory the Tour data you've posted used latex tubes in the lowest crr clincher results (eg. Vitt Evo) ... the point being of course that this is not safe with a carbon clincher. So for once at least, apples vs. apples is not apples vs. apples.

The right comparator with carbon rimmed wheels is butyl inner tube for clincher vs. either latex or butyl inner for tubular. That disadvantages clinchers vs. data such as you've posted.

Finally, I wouldn't be so convinced by the Tour data. It's one data set and their testing results can throw out some pretty strange results too ... see the recent wheel test in which aerodynamically the Campagnolo Eurus outperformed numerous deeper wheels - I think including the Zipp 303.

How odd! Lesson is to look at a range of data sources and know what you're comparing.

On that basis I don't think you can conclude as things stand that clinchers have lower crr. Certainly when the need for butyl tubes is factored in, there is no advantage, and probably a disadvantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:17 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7404
Location: San Francisco, CA
dcl10 wrote:
As far as rolling resistance some manufactures, namely continental and Vittoria claim their testing has shown clinchers to be superior. There are also some other tests, such as the one conducted by Tour, and roues artisanales (conducted at continentals test facilities) that show a noticeable advantage with clinchers. Comparing the spread in the later test between the best clincher and best tubular would indicate you are giving up nearly 16 watts with tubulars.

Now Al Morrison has done probably the most comprehensive testing of road bike tires out there, and his tests show a slight advantage in favor of tubulars. That said he is using vastly different equipment and test protocols, and no disrespect to him and all the hard work he has put into it, but for my money I'm going to go with what the multi-million dollar R&D facilities are showing, and not some guy with rollers in his garage.


Except Al Morrison documents everything: how he glues the tubulars, how he controls for temperature, how he does the measurement. Since we've established glue technique matters, without knowing the glue technique used by the magazine, how can we be sure the results are fair?

For example, I might conclude using tape is the best comparison, since it's reproducable, and glue has innate variability. But we know tape yields worse Crr. Or using no glue at all is reproducable, but gives poor Crr, perhaps counter-intuitively to many.

Note the tire manufacturers have a profit interest in this. Al Morrison has none.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
\


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:53 am
Posts: 265
Is there an Al Morrison donation page? That looks like a ton of setup work (control tire, etc) for each roller session. I like his method. Would love to see a top 20 crr data for 2013.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:25 pm
Posts: 219
Location: UK
prendrefeu wrote:
However, that being said, do not use latex tubes inside a full carbon clincher.


Is this an absolute no go? Or is anyone running latex tubes on carbon rims (specifically 404 Firecrests)? No even for flat courses?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7518
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
"Absolute" - I'm not sure about absolute, but so far the cases of 'carbon clincher tire failure' have involved either very early carbon clinchers (read: a few years ago) and/or latex tubes in situations with heavy braking, such as that potent mix of steep descent and non-confident descender.

Riding them on flat courses? You might be ok, but not a guarantee. Latex tubes feel great (phrasing) but they tend to overheat (again, phrasing).

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1231
Even if clinchers did have a lower Crr, which for reasons being discussed right now is arguable, they still don't give the same overall ride characteristics of a tubular. There's a reason clinchers haven't taken the place of tubulars in the Grand Tours. If they were even close, you would see them a lot more often than you do simply because of the ease of mounting a clincher versus a tubular. But that, in my opinion, is where the advantage ends as far as ride and performance is concerned. I only wish I had the good fortune to have been able to use tubulars when I was younger.

For purposes of what I base my opinion on, I'm comparing a set of Hed Belgium clinchers mounted with Continental 4000s (23mm) to either Campagnolo Bora Ultra Twos mounted with Veloflex Carbons (22 and 23mm), Continental Competitions (22mm), or Veloflex Roubaix (24mm). And on the low profile alloy front, Ambrosio Nemesis rims with Veloflex Roubaix 24mm).

I just feel a whole lot more confident riding the tubulars in any of the above configuration than the clinchers.

Two cents worth over :beerchug:

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Posts: 1146
Location: Central USA
Not trying to further egg on another endless debate about tubbie vs clincher but rather point out a very popular resource and what they say in a 3 part series (from 2012) about crr testing......in part one they note that at Slowtwitch.com (with a huge triathlete following) and amoungst their readers there is a lot of faith in Al Morrison's testing - and that their real world experiances back it up.

Enjoy!

Part 1
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Thin ... _2684.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part 2
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Thin ... _2686.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part 3
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/Thin ... _2727.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ok my added jab - tubbies rule :beerchug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1231
tommasini wrote:
Not trying to further egg on another endless debate about tubbie vs clincher ...


Ok, I reread the original posters post, and after reading @tommasini's first line I realized my post just before his had zero to do with the original question in this thread.
Sorry :oops:

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 3290
Location: Natovi Landing
dynaserve wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
However, that being said, do not use latex tubes inside a full carbon clincher.


Is this an absolute no go? Or is anyone running latex tubes on carbon rims (specifically 404 Firecrests)? No even for flat courses?


There are two connected problems:

- heat diasappation (well covered, a general carbon clincher no-no, even on Firecrest clinchers)

- the elasticity of latex making them inherently less suited to a non-closed system (cf tubular casing with clincher rim+tyre)

On the flat you remove the first problem, but not the second. Some people manage latex plus clincher set-up no problems, and other experience more blow outs than with butyl inners. Careful installation is no doubt an explanatory factor.

If you successfully ide latex plus clinchers on the flat with non-carbon clinchers, then no reason why you won't be ok on the flat IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], mannymerc, synthesis and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Roval Rapide CLX 40 vs Zipp Firecrest 303 Clincher

in Road

LoggingMiles

11

4649

Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:17 am

carbonLORD View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2013 Zipp 303 clincher wheelset

in Road

gianimadrid

3

778

Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:45 pm

yoshirider View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Zipp 202 Firecrest

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

Sparks

24

4724

Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 pm

Elrey View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Parlee Z3 and Zipp 303 Firecrest?

in Road

boots2000

4

918

Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:58 pm

ryan0380 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Zipp 404 Firecrest Wheels

in Road

kdogg32

0

494

Fri May 16, 2014 7:47 pm

kdogg32 View the latest post


It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:56 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB