View Single Post
Old 01-05-11 | 07:08 PM
  #27  
JaceK's Avatar
JaceK
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Saratoga, NY

Bikes: 2007 Trek Madone 5.9 (Shimano DA), 2008 Kuota Khan (SRAM Red), 2009 Giant OCR2 ( Shimano 105 ), Lynsky R340 ( SRAM Rival )

Originally Posted by kabex
I don't get the obsession with tubulars.

Latex tubes can save 5w @ each wheel, so that's 10 watt total savings if you use latex tubes compared to butyl (this was "scientifically" tested, it can vary).

Also, there's some very nice clincher tyres that have extremely low rolling resistance.

Really??? Still spreading this line.... Your math skills are scarier than this fantasy you keep having.
Since you insist that advertisement counts as science.
Let me refresh your memory:

"..in the lab should experience latex resulting in a reduction of rolling resistance from 1.4-5.6w. Rolling resistance should be higher on the road, and thus the savings greater. The cost of rolling resistance on the road could be 50w or more for a 200-pound person. Latex tubes can reduce that cost by 10-20%. "

10% of 50W is 5W, 20% of 50W is 10W === how did you get 20W out of that math, you should at very best use low end as real.

Next:

"We pumped up the tires and rode. We didn't notice the tubes making a performance difference, ... saving even 5w would be hard to measure on the road."
JaceK is offline  
Reply