Originally Posted by park
I agree with Terry as well but if you are looking at a flat time trial, not climbing where the weight advantage is obivous or at a crit where the multitude of accelerations would add up, wouldn't clinchers be superior based on rolling resistance data? If so it would seem to me that pros teams, where seconds count big time, would adopt clinchers. I agree that for most of us the issue is irrelevant but I don't want to think that the expensive tubular disk I bought last year was a waste.
I've thought the same thing as well... but again... it is probably a much bigger benefit to have the INCREASED PUNCTURE RESISTANCE and BETTER HANDLING of the tubular ~~ both of which are critical for a race. Is it worth it to trade off the supposedly better rolling resistance of a clincher for the benefits of the tubular? Must be. My reasoning if I had to choose would be that it's better to lose some seconds on rolling resistance vs. losing many minutes on a flat tire or crash. Also, for us mortals a crash just means we need to recover. For a pro it can mean the end of his career. Cycling as a hobby or amateur is very different from pros as far as importance of a crash.
I've heard a lot of talk about rotational weight and whether it matters or not. I'm not a scientist and couldn't really say either way, but maybe the pros have found this to be something beneficial where you are basically accelerating a tiny bit through each pedal stroke as you travel through the stronger part of your stroke. Again, I'm just expressing my opinion, please don't take me as trying to state fact
It's just my thoughts. I can understand that this slight accelerating effect through each pedal stroke is probably more pronounced when climbing vs. on the flats. Anyway, rotational weight is probably the last reason a pro will choose the tubular compared to the other reasons stated.