Tubular or Tubeless Wheelset?
12-24-23, 12:17 PM
#101
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,808
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4598 Post(s)
Liked 5,143 Times
in
3,178 Posts
The rotational weight weenies cling stubbornly onto the effect it has on accelerations, but bikes don’t accelerate very fast or for very long, even in a full on sprint finish. The rotational mass is also only a tiny fraction of the overall weight. You can spin up a bicycle wheel with your little finger.
Swiss Side simulated the effect of 450g of rotational weight in a number of real world race scenarios (crit race, TT and steep climb). The rotational weight effect was insignificant in all 3 scenarios, although the small addition to total weight saved a few seconds on the climb as you would expect.
12-24-23, 12:39 PM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,717
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1282 Post(s)
Liked 1,382 Times
in
702 Posts
Bike Calculator just considers overall weight. Rotating mass wouldn’t make any difference anyway on a constant speed climb.
The rotational weight weenies cling stubbornly onto the effect it has on accelerations, but bikes don’t accelerate very fast or for very long, even in a full on sprint finish. The rotational mass is also only a tiny fraction of the overall weight. You can spin up a bicycle wheel with your little finger.
Swiss Side simulated the effect of 450g of rotational weight in a number of real world race scenarios (crit race, TT and steep climb). The rotational weight effect was insignificant in all 3 scenarios, although the small addition to total weight saved a few seconds on the climb as you would expect.
The rotational weight weenies cling stubbornly onto the effect it has on accelerations, but bikes don’t accelerate very fast or for very long, even in a full on sprint finish. The rotational mass is also only a tiny fraction of the overall weight. You can spin up a bicycle wheel with your little finger.
Swiss Side simulated the effect of 450g of rotational weight in a number of real world race scenarios (crit race, TT and steep climb). The rotational weight effect was insignificant in all 3 scenarios, although the small addition to total weight saved a few seconds on the climb as you would expect.
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 12-24-23 at 12:49 PM.
12-24-23, 12:44 PM
#103
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,071
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4021 Post(s)
Liked 7,543 Times
in
3,035 Posts
Likes For tomato coupe:
12-24-23, 12:49 PM
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 8,107
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7123 Post(s)
Liked 11,285 Times
in
4,819 Posts
Likes For Koyote:
12-24-23, 12:52 PM
#106
Senior Member
One pound of wheel weight difference is huge, and the static analysis presented here is useless. Everyone here who has been on a fast pack ride knows that the 5 feet of difference when you are being popped off of the back may as well be 500 or 5,000 feet. When you get shelled off of the back, you are likely are done for the day, because that 5 foot difference that you cannot accelerate bridge is the difference between expending 100 watts sheltered for the next hour vs. a heroic but futile 400 watt solo ride.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
12-24-23, 01:02 PM
#107
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,278
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3575 Post(s)
Liked 3,755 Times
in
1,874 Posts
One pound of wheel weight difference is huge, and the static analysis presented here is useless. Everyone here who has been on a fast pack ride knows that the 5 feet of difference when you are being popped off of the back may as well be 500 or 5,000 feet. When you get shelled off of the back, you are likely are done for the day, because that 5 foot difference that you cannot accelerate bridge is the difference between expending 100 watts sheltered for the next hour vs. a heroic but futile 400 watt solo ride.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse
Likes For terrymorse:
12-24-23, 01:16 PM
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,717
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1282 Post(s)
Liked 1,382 Times
in
702 Posts
One pound of wheel weight difference is huge, and the static analysis presented here is useless. Everyone here who has been on a fast pack ride knows that the 5 feet of difference when you are being popped off of the back may as well be 500 or 5,000 feet. When you get shelled off of the back, you are likely are done for the day, because that 5 foot difference that you cannot accelerate bridge is the difference between expending 100 watts sheltered for the next hour vs. a heroic but futile 400 watt solo ride.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
By the way tubular isn’t winning anything and hasn’t for a while.
Likes For urbanknight:
12-24-23, 01:19 PM
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,808
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4598 Post(s)
Liked 5,143 Times
in
3,178 Posts
One pound of wheel weight difference is huge, and the static analysis presented here is useless. Everyone here who has been on a fast pack ride knows that the 5 feet of difference when you are being popped off of the back may as well be 500 or 5,000 feet. When you get shelled off of the back, you are likely are done for the day, because that 5 foot difference that you cannot accelerate bridge is the difference between expending 100 watts sheltered for the next hour vs. a heroic but futile 400 watt solo ride.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
As well as ignoring the dozens of hard accelerations per climb, the static analysis also ignores the side to side rocking of the bike when you are humping on the pedals.
With tubeless, an extra 400 grams, particularly on the wheels, is a massive disadvantage. Lightweight for the win. Tubulars for the win.
You keep talking about this “huge” difference being worth 5 feet. How did you arrive at that figure?
How many Gs are you pulling on these hard climbing accelerations from 12 to maybe 20 kph and for how long? 😂
12-24-23, 01:21 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,808
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4598 Post(s)
Liked 5,143 Times
in
3,178 Posts
Dave Mayer even if everything you said were true...
Likes For PeteHski:
12-24-23, 01:27 PM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,609
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2620 Post(s)
Liked 3,155 Times
in
1,799 Posts
Likes For Trakhak:
12-24-23, 01:38 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,071
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4021 Post(s)
Liked 7,543 Times
in
3,035 Posts
One pound of wheel weight difference is huge, and the static analysis presented here is useless. Everyone here who has been on a fast pack ride knows that the 5 feet of difference when you are being popped off of the back may as well be 500 or 5,000 feet. When you get shelled off of the back, you are likely are done for the day, because that 5 foot difference that you cannot accelerate bridge is the difference between expending 100 watts sheltered for the next hour vs. a heroic but futile 400 watt solo ride.
Likes For tomato coupe:
12-24-23, 02:00 PM
#114
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,808
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4598 Post(s)
Liked 5,143 Times
in
3,178 Posts
The huge advantage of going full weight weenie is mental. Seems irrelevant but it totally matters.
It’s the same thing as a fresh new haircut gives you more confidence or how you can ride faster on your birthday. It shouldn’t matter but it does.
When we plug weights into a calculator, that’s not the whole picture. The guy who picks up his bike and it feels like it’s made from pixie dust gets that extra edge. It’s real.
Whether that “feelin fancy” threshold is for a 1600, 1100, or 750g wheelset is up to the person.
We’re organic and emotional lumps of meat rolling around. Not machines. Hard to quantify but we can’t ignore the effect either.
It’s the same thing as a fresh new haircut gives you more confidence or how you can ride faster on your birthday. It shouldn’t matter but it does.
When we plug weights into a calculator, that’s not the whole picture. The guy who picks up his bike and it feels like it’s made from pixie dust gets that extra edge. It’s real.
Whether that “feelin fancy” threshold is for a 1600, 1100, or 750g wheelset is up to the person.
We’re organic and emotional lumps of meat rolling around. Not machines. Hard to quantify but we can’t ignore the effect either.
The mental side is also okay once you realise that a few hundred grams doesn’t really make or break your performance. If you do get dropped from your group ride it isn’t because you didn’t invest in those ultra-lightweight wheels!
The psychology can work both ways depending on your mindset. If you believe that you need to save every gram of weight to be competitive then you can soon get obsessive about it and paranoid if you think someone else has a slightly lighter bike.
12-24-23, 02:44 PM
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,635
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7705 Post(s)
Liked 3,627 Times
in
1,911 Posts
Math is stupid. Just because you can precisely measure stuff, and then do calculations using the measurements which lead to predicted performance and then actually See that performance, exactly as the equations predict, and again, measure it precisely ... yeah, Science is stupid, too. Anyway, the earth is flat.
12-24-23, 02:45 PM
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,635
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7705 Post(s)
Liked 3,627 Times
in
1,911 Posts
That is when you start drilling holes in the frame .....
12-24-23, 03:16 PM
#117
Senior Member
even 20 years ago tubulars were being pushed by the top clinchers
BITD / 90’s - only a few guys in our road group rode tubulars (‘sew ups’) - and just on select bikes (not all of their bikes)
their thoughts : the top tubulars were very good / great ride etc - but below that level the tubulars were around equal to a good clincher and maybe performed below that level
in their opinion - too many were comparing the performance of a top level tubular tire to a mid level clincher (and few actually used the top level tubulars)
at that time - good portion of the group were riding Michelin (Hi Lite Comps and Super Comp HDs - later Axial Pros) … Vittoria (Open CX ? can’t recall model) … Conti GP’s …
BITD / 90’s - only a few guys in our road group rode tubulars (‘sew ups’) - and just on select bikes (not all of their bikes)
their thoughts : the top tubulars were very good / great ride etc - but below that level the tubulars were around equal to a good clincher and maybe performed below that level
in their opinion - too many were comparing the performance of a top level tubular tire to a mid level clincher (and few actually used the top level tubulars)
at that time - good portion of the group were riding Michelin (Hi Lite Comps and Super Comp HDs - later Axial Pros) … Vittoria (Open CX ? can’t recall model) … Conti GP’s …
They will definitely need to peeled and cleaned, should I ever decide to use them again. These were fantastic wheels in their time, felt much faster than the best clinchers had to offer; no, I’m not comparing these to the middle of the road clinchers of the day.
I guess that makes me a hoarder.
Likes For Alan K:
12-24-23, 06:12 PM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,609
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2620 Post(s)
Liked 3,155 Times
in
1,799 Posts
I agree, but it only matters if you believe there is a real significant advantage. The huge advantage of not going full weight weenie is that you can choose components based more on strength, reliability, practicality and cost.
The mental side is also okay once you realise that a few hundred grams doesn’t really make or break your performance. If you do get dropped from your group ride it isn’t because you didn’t invest in those ultra-lightweight wheels!
The psychology can work both ways depending on your mindset. If you believe that you need to save every gram of weight to be competitive then you can soon get obsessive about it and paranoid if you think someone else has a slightly lighter bike.
The mental side is also okay once you realise that a few hundred grams doesn’t really make or break your performance. If you do get dropped from your group ride it isn’t because you didn’t invest in those ultra-lightweight wheels!
The psychology can work both ways depending on your mindset. If you believe that you need to save every gram of weight to be competitive then you can soon get obsessive about it and paranoid if you think someone else has a slightly lighter bike.
He said, "If it's a race that I figure I have a good chance of winning, I use my most reliable wheels and equipment. Otherwise, I usually use my lightest wheels and my lightest bike."
12-24-23, 06:40 PM
#119
Senior Member
Likes For Alan K:
12-24-23, 06:41 PM
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,071
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4021 Post(s)
Liked 7,543 Times
in
3,035 Posts
12-24-23, 07:04 PM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,609
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2620 Post(s)
Liked 3,155 Times
in
1,799 Posts
He was a very canny guy about bike racing. When 53-tooth chainrings became all the rage for criterium racing in the mid-80's, his secret weapon was his 50-tooth big ring. Using that while racing guys with 53-tooth rings, he probably won a few sprints that he wouldn't have otherwise, especially on courses where the finishing stretch was flat or on a slight rise.
Since I'm giving away all his secrets, here's the last one I know of: he always practiced his sprints on a long straight downhill stretch near his house. Using the downhill let him get up to full race speed fast in his preferred sprint gear.
Since I'm giving away all his secrets, here's the last one I know of: he always practiced his sprints on a long straight downhill stretch near his house. Using the downhill let him get up to full race speed fast in his preferred sprint gear.
