Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

For the record this years TdF, 15 of the 21 stages were won on clinchers so there goes that theory. MTB is totally dominated by tubeless with foam cushion cores so wrong on that. 100% of wins are with discs by the way as well. Yes track and approximately 50% of cross is on tubulars but that’s all that’s left out of this massive and diverse sport. You can rest assured if you go to any fast weekly ride or regional race the front runners are all on clinchers. That said if someone enjoys the retro aspect of running tubulars great but to say they are superior and remain relevant just is not factual. Manual transmissions in performance vehicles is another example of a much loved but dying technology.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer

Tour stages won on clinchers? Are we talking about the wheels that were on the bikes during the team presentations? Or on the roof racks on the team cars? Or actually used while racing? Or used by team leaders on climbing stages and not the throwaway domestiques. You know what the CEO of Vittoria revealed about this bait and switch.

If there were clincher setups that featured 300g rims and 200g tires, and if the tire suddenly deflated it stays stuck solid onto the rim, well, then I'd be impressed.

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

For the record this years TdF, 15 of the 21 stages were won on clinchers so there goes that theory. MTB is totally dominated by tubeless with foam cushion cores so wrong on that. 100% of wins are with discs by the way as well. Yes track and approximately 50% of cross is on tubulars but that’s all that’s left out of this massive and diverse sport. You can rest assured if you go to any fast weekly ride or regional race the front runners are all on clinchers. That said if someone enjoys the retro aspect of running tubulars great but to say they are superior and remain relevant just is not factual. Manual transmissions in performance vehicles is another example of a much loved but dying technology.

Originally Posted by El Chaba

I will ask two questions….Why isn’t every rider in the Tour de France ( and other Protour races…the Tour is not the only one) on clinchers? What does the industry want you to ride? I will give a hint for the second question….It is the type of tire that is more profitable and therefore the sponsors push….or even force… their riders to use them in order to create the impression that the rider chose them. I am not suggesting that profit is evil, that is why companies exist. Over the years I have observed-in person- at major pro races tubulars with markings/branding to disguise them as clinchers. I have yet to see an example of a clincher disguised as a tubular.

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

Just ignore all the tests that show they are slower because I say so.
You have no idea about tubeless.
Glueing tubulars is not a time wasting PITA?
How do you repair your tubular on the side of the road, with a sewing kit?
Who is behind this big bike conspiracy against the superior tubular tire?

Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged

For the record this years TdF, 15 of the 21 stages were won on clinchers so there goes that theory. MTB is totally dominated by tubeless with foam cushion cores so wrong on that. 100% of wins are with discs by the way as well. Yes track and approximately 50% of cross is on tubulars but that’s all that’s left out of this massive and diverse sport. You can rest assured if you go to any fast weekly ride or regional race the front runners are all on clinchers. That said if someone enjoys the retro aspect of running tubulars great but to say they are superior and remain relevant just is not factual. Manual transmissions in performance vehicles is another example of a much loved but dying technology.

Originally Posted by tiger1964

Wow -- how long did that take?

Looks like I'll be riding tubulars on one bike; just bought wheels which fortunately came with tires. Digesting Totally Tubular looks daunting.

Originally Posted by daka

I had enough fun on those crap Yellow Jersey tires that I have gathered parts to build a tubular wheelset for my Raleigh International. When I build those wheels, I will make sure to ante-up for better tires as recommended in this thread.

Originally Posted by Bad Lag

Let's have a rational discussion where we look at differences and try to find discriminators between the two.

Tubular tape is not needed on a clincher but maybe rim tape is a close equivalent, so not much difference there.

Sealant works as well on clinchers as it does in tubulars. It either seals, or you need to patch.

Blow outs - I've had both blow out due to the terrible roads I was on which broke the cords. If you want to protect against a blow out, you have to carry a spare - same for both; doable for both, as modern clinchers are foldable.

Shipping to "Tire Alert" does not take "seconds". Packaging has to be done and you have to go to the UPS Store. It is nowhere close to free (~$40/tire), and makes that tire inaccessible for quite a while. I think the approach of repairing them yourself is more closely analogous to the clincher repair. Tubulars are easily and well repaired at home (while watching TV or whatever).

Yes, I just mounted a set of very tight clinchers. There is a technique to it but they are very doable. Is this a hand strength issue, similar to how some cannot get enough braking power? <-- honest question, here.

Tubulars are demonstrably lighter, overall. They do have a different feel when riding (I suspect some of this is the latex tubes). Latex tubes are available for clinchers, too. If you don't mind pumping before every single ride, try latex clincher tubes, first. You'll be doing that with your tubulars, as well.

I did not find anything above that was a major discriminator.

For me, that minor weight difference and the feel of latex tubes are not worth the hassle of tubular tires, especially if you are on poor road surfaces.

Originally Posted by iab

Dugast Pipistrello. File pattern. It is used for pavement and gravel.

Originally Posted by squirtdad

my experience is less extensive that a lot so the below is IMHO, YMMV

first thing to note good tires clincher or tubular make an amazing difference compared to cheaper tires, but cheap tubulars still seem smoother than cheap clinchers

first tubular the low end Tufo, taped on 36 h GP4 rims. smoother than the Michelin tires i was using (forget which one but they flicked the switch as to how important good (ie not cheap) tires make)

second tubular challenge elite 25mm on 32 h mavic gel 330 rims.... on my 84 team miyata. magical, smooth, compliant made the bike want to go compared to the bontrager clincher 25mm with super heavy tube on MA40 rims. this was at 130psi.
another lesson here, don't discount the impact a light rim/wheel can have on ride

third tubular Vittoria Corsa Control 30 mm on mavic open rims.... super supple nice ride can tell improvment over either corsa g+ or gp5000 in 28 mm would till have them but am in process of a "once in life time build" so sold them

next up but haven't finished wheels or gotten frame yet. 29mm FMP cobble stone, on Ambrosio nemesis rims with hope hubs..... my own hell of the north build (and have set of clinchers also with come rene herse tires so will be able to do some good comparison someday

Originally Posted by El Chaba

I will follow up a bit more on what IAB wrote….Most of the classic tubular rims seem to be in the 20-22 mm range ( excepting track and time trial rims….eg. something like the Mavic CX18 @ 18 mm). As a result of the aero craze which started a little before but took hold starting in the early 80s, standard road racing tubulars got narrower by a couple of mm and settled at 21-22 mm. Prior to that, standard road racing tubulars were in the 23-25 mm range. If you go back to the mid 60 s and earlier you could add a couple more mm. The rims were the same width. Furthermore, people used these same rims for cyclocross tubulars, pave tubulars, and touring tubulars. I actually think that it is better to have a narrower rim with a slightly smaller radius for a wider tire than to have a wider rim with a larger radius for a narrower tire. The important step in the gluing ( or taping if you must) process is to take the final step of fully inflating the tire and pressing down on the wheel to firmly seat the tire against the adhesive on the rim bed. The whole base of the tire is, of course, flexible and will conform to the profile of the rim…..Then let the adhesive fully dry (12-24 hours will do) with the tires under pressure.

Originally Posted by georges1

That is true in the early late 90's some of theTour de France stages were won with clinchers, in 00's the clincher became the standard. The early MTB tubeless tires appearedin 1999/2000 with the Hutchinson Python Gold, Hutchinson Toro Gold, Michelin Wild Gripper Lite S, Continental Kross King and Schwalbe Rocket Ron tires. When I was into road biking racing competitions,only 30% used tubulars. Tubulars rims are generally more fragile and more expensive than clincher rims.

Originally Posted by Road Fan

...not necessarily going to deliver the answer which I willd need on the MUPs here in Michigan.

Originally Posted by Dave Mayer

About rebranded tubulars to look like clinchers: pros have been relabeling stuff since the dawn of time. Remember when Huffy sponsored a World Tour-level team? These bikes were not made by Huffy.

Originally Posted by squirtdad

first tubular the low end Tufo, taped on 36 h GP4 rims...

second tubular challenge elite 25mm on 32 h mavic gel 330 rims...

Originally Posted by El Chaba

Here are a couple of photos from La Vuelta that I took a few years ago…Michelin and Specialized “clinchers” .

Originally Posted by ehcoplex

Jeeze, this thread now belongs in the PITA trolls-nest the 'general cycling' sub-forum seems to mostly be. The original posed question was SPECIFICALLY about RIDE & SUPPLENESS. Usually I find the C&V sub-forum to be a nice, informative, useful and civil respite from standard-fare message-board bicker-sport.