RyanH wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:35 am
Also, data on rolling resistance is surprisingly spares when it comes to tubs but comparing like for like, the Vittoria Corsa Tubs and Clinchers perform nearly identically:
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... bular-2016
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... phene-2016
In an argument about tubeless, I'm not sure what the point is comparing a butyl tubed clincher and a latex tubed tubular...Jarno claims a latex tube is good for about 1-1.5w, so even when comparing regular clinchers to tubulars, the difference would end up being ~2-3w. Pretty consistent with Campy's findings on regular clinchers vs tubulars.
From https://www.bikerumor.com/2018/04/09/ca ... -bora-wto/
"Tubulars were the worst with a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.002987, equivalent to 30W of resistance at 40kph for an 87kg rider+bike system. Tires with tubes came in next at a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.002852, slightly better at 28W of rolling resistance for the same speed and system weight. But tubeless topped both with a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.002650, the most efficient setup equivalent to 25W watts of rolling resistance."
For the Corsa Speeds:
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... speed-2016
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... bular-2017
1.4w per tire at 28km/h is again, pretty significant. If we extrapolate to 40km/h, that's 4w total. BRR tests a single wheel on a drum at 42.5kg while Campy uses a slightly heavier 2-wheel testing mule at 87kg.
Campy also took the average of the "leading" 5 tubulars vs the "leading" 5 tubeless. Considering there's actually way more tubulars to choose from right now (a point in favor of tubulars) it's reasonable to assume that tubeless has more room to improve.