Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Recreational Cyclocross and Gravelbiking This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course or riding the off pavement rides on gravel like :The Dirty Kanza". We also have a dedicated Racing forum for the Cyclocross Hard Core Racers.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-18-12, 05:32 AM   #1
simonaway427
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fredericton, NB, Canada
Bikes: 2010 S1, 2011 F75X
Posts: 1,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Carbon vs Alum Tubulars

Tubular is better for cross - that goes without saying.

But the real question thats burning in my brain is carbon or aluminum? I had moderate success last year running the stock clincher setup on my Felt F75x - getting away with pressures of 35-38psi or so. No pinch flats yet, but its only a matter of time.

I am going to order a tubular wheel set this year for the fall season, but I'm trying to determine the pros and cons of either wheel.

Carbon Pros
- Bling
- Weight
- Deeper section "apparently" is better in deep sand and mud.
- Can use in the summer as a road tubular wheel

Carbon Cons
- Cost. Not only initial cost, but also replacement. We all know in cross, run it only if you can afford to break it.
- Braking performance, even worse when wet
- Brake pads - requires dedicated pads. Pit wheels are aluminum which pose a problem
- Durability. No doubt they are stiff, but what about bottoming out on a rock or root?

Aluminum Pros
- Cheaper
- No need to change brake pads
- More durable during a bottom out??

Aluminum Cons
- Heavier (marginally)
- Utilitarian looking
- Not worth (IMO) using as a road tubular for summer - I have Soul 3.0SL clinchers


So there are the factors as I see them. I'm a Cat B racer, so there's tons of room for improvement fitness and bike handling wise, but does the extra cost/risks worth it going carbon?

BTW, both are 23mm wide - carbons are 38mm deep and the aluminums are Major Tom based.
simonaway427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-12, 05:54 AM   #2
flargle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Two pair alloy tubulars, one with all-rounders (i.e. Grifo or Fango) and one with mud tires (i.e. Limus).
flargle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-12, 11:34 AM   #3
fietsbob 
coprolite
 
fietsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Bikes: 7
Posts: 18,766
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Yea there is the Deep Mud and Sand Plough secondary function..
fietsbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-12, 02:18 PM   #4
GrayJay
Senior Member
 
GrayJay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: EagleRiver AK
Bikes:
Posts: 1,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Test results I saw showed that tired glued to carbon rim only has about 75% of the roll-off resistance strength of same tire & glue on well prepared alloy rims.

CX magazine did test last year and pretty much concluded that deep dish rims were not an advantage in deep mud. Tall sides on the rim provide more surface for friction as they cut through the mud. Look at the rims that the euro pros are riding for CX this past season, most of them have gone back to using much shallower rim depth and what was in fasion 2-3 years back.
GrayJay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 PM.