Clinchers in Pro cycling

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Yoln
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:26 pm

by Yoln

With Alaphilippe win in second stage of Tour de France being the first win using clinchers in the history of le Tour, and the fact that new Roval CLX range won't be tubeless compatible, are we going to enter the era of clinchers in the Peloton?

source: https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/to ... armac-sl7/
Wilier “Cento Ramato“ : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=160943

Lynskey “the Do-it-all Helix” 🧬: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161550

by Weenie


Hapsmo911
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:54 am

by Hapsmo911

Yoln wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:28 pm
With Alaphilippe win in second stage of Tour de France being the first win using clinchers in the history of le Tour, and the fact that new Roval CLX range won't be tubeless compatible, are we going to enter the era of clinchers in the Peloton?

source: https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/to ... armac-sl7/

My guess is someone at Specialized screwed up after the molds were made. There is 0 reason not to offer your top of the line wheels without a tubless optiion regardless of their marketing. If weight was the issue, like they claim, we can all run tubulars?

Yoln
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:26 pm

by Yoln

Hapsmo911 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:34 pm
Yoln wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:28 pm
With Alaphilippe win in second stage of Tour de France being the first win using clinchers in the history of le Tour, and the fact that new Roval CLX range won't be tubeless compatible, are we going to enter the era of clinchers in the Peloton?

source: https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/to ... armac-sl7/

My guess is someone at Specialized screwed up after the molds were made. There is 0 reason not to offer your top of the line wheels without a tubless optiion regardless of their marketing. If weight was the issue, like they claim, we can all run tubulars?

I guess their point is that clinchers with latex tubes is both better in terms of RR and lighter overall (wheel + tire + tube/sealant) than their tubeless equivalents
Wilier “Cento Ramato“ : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=160943

Lynskey “the Do-it-all Helix” 🧬: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161550

TheRich
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

Yoln wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:14 pm
Hapsmo911 wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:34 pm
Yoln wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:28 pm
With Alaphilippe win in second stage of Tour de France being the first win using clinchers in the history of le Tour, and the fact that new Roval CLX range won't be tubeless compatible, are we going to enter the era of clinchers in the Peloton?

source: https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/to ... armac-sl7/

My guess is someone at Specialized screwed up after the molds were made. There is 0 reason not to offer your top of the line wheels without a tubless optiion regardless of their marketing. If weight was the issue, like they claim, we can all run tubulars?

I guess their point is that clinchers with latex tubes is both better in terms of RR and lighter overall (wheel + tire + tube/sealant) than their tubeless equivalents
They don't have the option to go tubeless on those wheels, so how could it be a choice between an option they have and an option they don't?

There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible.

User avatar
tommasini
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Location: Central USA
Contact:

by tommasini

And at the end of the article we learn that the clinchers were replaced the next day with tubulars. The sponsor promo opportunity was accomplished and now back to the safety and lighter weight of tubbies.

ichobi
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm

by ichobi

If you look at the specialized sponsored each stage you will see that their aces tend to run clinchers. JA has been riding clinchers almost every day on the stage he breakaway.

Kamna won his stage on clinchers. He also rode it on the queen stage yesterday where he brokeaway. The rest of the guy seems to run tubular. It seems like this is the risk the teams are willing to take for the rr benefit

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 6492
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Both Schachmann and Kamna have been on clinchers (sometimes tubeless) for their breakaway attempts. “Safety” is the only aspect where tubs matter. It’s been repeatedly shown with math that Crr differences to the thousandths are equivalent to several hundred grams worth of weight.

Singular
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:59 am

by Singular

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:36 am
Both Schachmann and Kamna have been on clinchers (sometimes tubeless) for their breakaway attempts. “Safety” is the only aspect where tubs matter. It’s been repeatedly shown with math that Crr differences to the thousandths are equivalent to several hundred grams worth of weight.
There might also be an additional factors that plays a part - with for instance the new Roval models offered in only clincher models, the choice for the teams/riders would be to either choose old tubular wheels ("inferior" shape, weight, aerodynamics et cetera) or clinchers (with a potentially beneficial technological advantage in regard to for example aerodynamic concerns), not taking the one-to-one attributes of the respective system in consideration (weight, rolling resistance, safety and so forth).

Add to that the, ahem, emphasis from manufacturers for teams to use latest-and-greatest, there is not much of a surprise to see for example the Spez teams on new clincher wheels (if hypotetically all else would be equal - which it is not).

Yoln
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:26 pm

by Yoln

TheRich wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:37 am
There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible.
According to Roval, the greater (compression) force put on a rim by a tubeless tyre requires extra material, “and that extra mass would have outweighed the benefits of tubeless tires”.

“From the Roval side, we recognize the potential of tubeless road tires,” a company representative said. “We evaluate everything in a holistic perspective in the light of what’s best for the rider we’re aiming to serve.

“For now the performance balance tips in favor of tube-type wheel/tire systems for the performance road rider (unless you have a team mechanic to glue on tubulars and a follow car with a spare wheel in case you puncture).
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:36 am
Both Schachmann and Kamna have been on clinchers (sometimes tubeless) for their breakaway attempts. “Safety” is the only aspect where tubs matter. It’s been repeatedly shown with math that Crr differences to the thousandths are equivalent to several hundred grams worth of weight.
Right, but it has also been shown that Tubeless has similar CRR than equivalent Latex+Clincher setup:

Image


And this is even without considering using Vittoria or Chalenge Latex tubes that have a lower CRR than the tested Michelin, so it's safe to say that in this very case, Clinchers would be faster than Tubeless. As well as lighter since it allows for the wheels to be made lighter
Wilier “Cento Ramato“ : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=160943

Lynskey “the Do-it-all Helix” 🧬: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161550

User avatar
BikeEatSleepRepeat
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:13 am

by BikeEatSleepRepeat

Yoln wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:19 pm
And this is even without considering using Vittoria or Chalenge Latex tubes that have a lower CRR than the tested Michelin, so it's safe to say that in this very case, Clinchers would be faster than Tubeless. As well as lighter since it allows for the wheels to be made lighter
Indeed, the Michelin latex tubes are not especially light.

Vredestein Superlite Latex is only 48g and would most likely be the lighest/fastest set up of all.
Last edited by BikeEatSleepRepeat on Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hapsmo911
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:54 am

by Hapsmo911

Yoln wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:19 pm
TheRich wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:37 am
There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible.
According to Roval, the greater (compression) force put on a rim by a tubeless tyre requires extra material, “and that extra mass would have outweighed the benefits of tubeless tires”.

“From the Roval side, we recognize the potential of tubeless road tires,” a company representative said. “We evaluate everything in a holistic perspective in the light of what’s best for the rider we’re aiming to serve.

“For now the performance balance tips in favor of tube-type wheel/tire systems for the performance road rider (unless you have a team mechanic to glue on tubulars and a follow car with a spare wheel in case you puncture).
TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:36 am
Both Schachmann and Kamna have been on clinchers (sometimes tubeless) for their breakaway attempts. “Safety” is the only aspect where tubs matter. It’s been repeatedly shown with math that Crr differences to the thousandths are equivalent to several hundred grams worth of weight.
Right, but it has also been shown that Tubeless has similar CRR than equivalent Latex+Clincher setup:

Image


And this is even without considering using Vittoria or Chalenge Latex tubes that have a lower CRR than the tested Michelin, so it's safe to say that in this very case, Clinchers would be faster than Tubeless. As well as lighter since it allows for the wheels to be made lighter
You are quoting specialized marketing? As a consumer I wouldnt pay $2500.00 usd for a set of wheels without the option to run them tubless. Maybe thats just me, and I dont currently run tubless.

As for pros using them. They get told what to use. Although if its me, descending at the speeds they do, I would want tubulars. But you can read into it as you see fit. I am sure there will be plenty of these wheels on the used market soon for you to get a good deal on :)

Yoln
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:26 pm

by Yoln

Someone stated that "There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible." I was just relaying Roval argument against that since I don't realy have the rim building expertise to verify wether it's true or not, sounds like a "believable" argument though
Wilier “Cento Ramato“ : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=160943

Lynskey “the Do-it-all Helix” 🧬: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161550

TheRich
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:36 am

by TheRich

Yoln wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:00 pm
Someone stated that "There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible." I was just relaying Roval argument against that since I don't realy have the rim building expertise to verify wether it's true or not, sounds like a "believable" argument though
You've created a bit of a false dilemma though. Most people don't run latex tubes, it's a choice between butyl and tubeless. You CAN run latex and get tubeless level RR at the cost of lower durability, or you can run tubeless. That's what I mean by there being zero benefit.

Pros can do what pros do because they have a car with spares following them. We have to make compromises and those wheels should be made to suit the market where they're positioned price wise, and tube only makes them uncompetitive.

Hapsmo911
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:54 am

by Hapsmo911

Yoln wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:00 pm
Someone stated that "There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible." I was just relaying Roval argument against that since I don't realy have the rim building expertise to verify wether it's true or not, sounds like a "believable" argument though

My point is, these wheels are meant for the general public. So its stupid not make them tubless. specialized is going to spew as much marketing crap as they can because these wheels are stock on their flagship bike atm. So getting pros to use them here and there would help their sales. I mean look at this thread?
Were debating tubes for the pro peloton in 2020?

by Weenie


Yoln
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:26 pm

by Yoln

TheRich wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:16 pm
Yoln wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:00 pm
Someone stated that "There is zero benefit in not making wheels tubeless compatible." I was just relaying Roval argument against that since I don't realy have the rim building expertise to verify wether it's true or not, sounds like a "believable" argument though
You've created a bit of a false dilemma though. Most people don't run latex tubes, it's a choice between butyl and tubeless. You CAN run latex and get tubeless level RR at the cost of lower durability, or you can run tubeless. That's what I mean by there being zero benefit.

Pros can do what pros do because they have a car with spares following them. We have to make compromises and those wheels should be made to suit the market where they're positioned price wise, and tube only makes them uncompetitive.
I don't think that's true, in my process at least, I started by latex before trying Tubeless as it seemed less big of an investment and less of a hassle to setup. For everyday riders, used to use clincher, Latex is the hassle free solution to get high level RR performance without the hassle of dealing with adding rim tape, buying sealant, making sure their wheels are tubeless compatible, getting tubeless ready tires, etc... With latex, you get $20 tubes, remove your butyl, place the latex ones, and that's it (and top up your tire pressure every other day haha :) )

Also, what we don't mention is that as far as GP5K are concerned, the Clincher/Latex setup offers much better ride feel and suppleness than the TL version
Wilier “Cento Ramato“ : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=160943

Lynskey “the Do-it-all Helix” 🧬: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=161550

Post Reply