umd

I've had mixed luck with Tufos & sealant as well as other tires and sealant. And I don't really like the Tufos otherwise, so I didn't get them more than a few times...

wideAMG

tubulars about 90% of the time.

yes they can be expensive and a hassle but you can't argue the ride quality.

i use tufo extreme tape so i don't bother with glue.
yes you will flat less.
if weight and carrying a spare is a concern you can carry a 100gr tubular just to get you home.

tubescreamerx

Carbon clinchers (w/o aluminum brake surface) provide the best of both worlds. You get a deeper, more aero rim, save weight over an equivalent-depth aluminum clincher (but I think 41mm might be the cut-off for mainstream aluminum wheels anyway), and have the convenience of an ordinary clincher rim. For example, the Soul 5.0 non-tubular is only 1465g. That's lighter than my Race X Lite at 1535g. When I get the money, I'll be buying a wheel like the Soul, if not that specific model, because it's lighter (for racing) and I can still use it for occasional solo training rides or whatever without changing my habits... there are excellent clincher tires out there (e.g. Vittoria's high TPI offerings) and carrying a spare tube + patch kit really isn't a big deal...

Really, it all comes down to preference. My opinion is that I already spend enough time taking care of the bike, so gluing is just another hassle for me. I'm also not convinced I'll see a real-world performance difference from going tubular. Weight savings are obviously a plus though--just not significant enough for me.

Bianchigirll 

I ride tubolars because I feel the ride is better if properly inflated I get less pinch flats and thses days they are very esoteric. there also has always been a mystique about them. OH yes the spare tucked under the seat looks very retro too *giggle*

tanhalt

No. They DO NOT, and CAN NOT, have a "different ride" than an equivalently constructed clincher (sometimes referred to as an "open tubular") stuffed with a latex tube.

Anyone who tells you different has never compared them on an "apples to apples" basis.

IMHO, despite the possible weight savings of tubular wheel/tire setups over "equivalent" clincher wheel/tire setups, all of the other downsides of the tubular approach really make them not practical for the typical amateur racers. Besides, weight (especially wheel weight) is a far overblown effect anyway.

Of course, if folks prefer to run them in races, for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine with me. Hey, whatever "floats your boat" ...Personally, I just don't get the "appeal"

Road Fan

Whether they are worth the effort of making the change (which I think is what most of the "trouble" amounts to) is strictly up to the user. I've used them for quite a while and like the ride. I'm not too concerned about the weight savings, having way more than 100 spare grams to load the sidewalls with.

When you flat, you pull over, strip off the punctured tire, stretch on your prepared spare tire that you've brought, line up the tire, pump it up, and go on. Be cautious the first few miles to make sure the gluing treatment is adhering. It's possible and reasonable to ride without any gluing, but might not withstand full tire forces. When you get home, do a better gluing job if it needs it, and determine if you're going to fix the flat tire.

I don't carry glue. I carry a spare tire that has a residual coat of glue on the basetape. That's why I call it a prepared spare tire, not just another NIB tubular tire.

If you do carry glue, you have to somehow make sure the tube is not dried out, and carry baggies to cover your finger when you have to spread the glue. Might need some solvent to take care of possible brake track dripping.

Road Fan

Road Fan

I agree, wheel weight is overblown except potentially at the rim, and really not much at all at least for my riding.

But it's not even really an advantage for tubulars. It's been hashed out in gory detail on several forums and lists (iBOB is really what comes to mind) that there is no ultimately lighter option: clincher v. tubular. Someone went out and found the lightest training options for tubulars and high-performance clinchers with latex, and found the differences to be minimal. It proved easy to make up a tubular set that was lighter than a TYPICAL clincher, and it was easy to find a clincher setup that was lighter than a typical tubular setup. Kind of neck and neck. It's not necessarily a weight savings to use tubulars.

Road Fan

tanhalt

Nope...even there

umd

But given a wheel that is available in tubular or clincher, the tubular is going to be lighter.

tanhalt

Sure...but, for example, a Reynolds DV46C UL clincher wheelset is only 255g heavier than the DV46T UL tubular wheelset. Tires/tubes/glue/rim tape differences basically end up being a wash. 1/2 lb of total weight really isn't significant in the grand scheme of things (i.e. compared to total rider+bike weight).

Then, if you happen to carry a spare, even that small weight advantage quickly goes away...

TruckerMike

255g rotational is significant savings. Guys spend hundreds to get pedals from 250-260g to 180g w/ti spindles. With tubulars, you don't need the rim strips, and the glue is really negligible weight. If you carry sealant, you're also ahead.

Bottom-line: if rotational weight is your top priority for dropping $$ on carbon wheels, you really should be on tub's. Plus, it's a stronger rim, and they corner really really well.

If you want convenience, stay aluminum clincher and save your $$.

tanhalt

Sigh..."rotational weight" is a red herring...and people do funny things on their bikes with no technical basis (ceramic bearings anyone?)

Do the math on the differences in rotational inertia for that mass difference and the energy required to accelerate it under typical cycling circumstances and then compare that to the energy required to just linearly accelerate the mass of the rider+bike.

Then see if you still think there's anything "significant"...

Hey look...someone has already done the math for you! See here:

https://www.biketechreview.co/archive/wheel_theory.htm

Take a look at the "crit case". Changing the wheel TOTAL rotational inertia by a hefty 50% (which changing the rim weight on the example above by 128g per wheel wouldn't come close to accomplishing) only changes the power requirement (based on the accelerations recorded in an actual crit) by a measly 0.02%. Yes...that's about a tenth of a watt.

Human beings on bicycles REALLY don't accelerate all that fast...and most of the power goes into just accelerating the total mass. Next time you think that differences in rotational inertias of various bike parts really matter, just put your bike in the workstand and spin up your drivetrain with just your pinky finger

Fox Farm

Good point FLA boy. I also picked up a great deal on some Rolf tubular wheels for Campy. No wonder no one was buying them! As it turns out, there are great, easy to use, I train on them and don't have time in my life for racing. No flats, use Tufo sealant and Tufo tape with Tufo Elite tires. I used Contis for a while but found them to be not as true or round and the Tufos. They do feel lighter on the climbs, but the one funny thing is that the Rolfs with the 22 tubulars are in fact taller than my Mavic Ksyrum (sp) wth clinchers, so for steeper hill climbing, I feel like I loose some gear and have to work a bit harder. Standing the two side by side, there is a noticeable difference and I have to adjust my brake shoes when swapping. This is most likely a function of the Rolf wheels and not the fact that they are tubulars. SO, would I recommend them to some one new? It all depends on how mechanically inclined the individual is. If that person took their bike to the shop for a tune up, they probably wound not like changing or patching a clincher wheel and would really not want to learn tubulars. All that said, the Tufo tape is stupid easy to use and much less messy than Conti glue.

OCshark

For training, I ride clinchers and use Conti Ultra Gatorskins with Mr. Tuffy liners. I *LAUGH* at my fellow riders as I ride carefree over glass and other bits of shrapnel while they flail and swerve. I got almost 5,000 miles on the last set.

For racing, I'm going to be running tubulars soon.

You don't want your training rides interrupted with flats, and while some can quickly change out a tubular, you can't ride aggressive on it until it's been re-glued.

Road Fan

No, I don't think so. Just looking at 32 hole spoked rims, Mavic Open Pros and Mavic Reflex rims have very similar weights. A very light tubular tire with its tube is a 200g tire, and IMO it is arguably not a viable road tire. A Lunar Light clincher tube is sub-70 grams, and a very light road clincher is around 175 g. Changing perhaps the road tubular weight to 240g, we are pretty darn close in comparing the rim loadings. Both options assume the same hub, QR, and spoke technology. There may be additional grams to be saved in a spoke length difference.

Now at least historically, there were much lighter metal tubular rims, Mavic racing rims in the 330 g or less range. I'm not aware of any similar clincher rims. I'm also not familiar enough with carbon rims to enter them into the discussion.

So with certain stipulations (non-obsolete parts, metal rims, similar strength factors in both candidate designs), there isn't a huge advantage in tubular weight. If the question is, what tire technology allows the lowest weight or lowest inertia state of the art wheel, that is not what was discussed.

Now the way I'm recounting it is based on kind of scattershot estimates of actual masses, but those masses are moving targets as products change and improve - new rim refinements and new tires on the market. If we're really gonna argue about it, we have to get specific and use specific values for the weights.

I think any of you can look it up in the Boblist archives, starting from the Classic Rendezvous site.