Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I like clinchers, much more conventional, and I really don't care about the minimal allegedly "ride quality difference"....getting a flat on a tubular tire while riding a is pretty tough problem...anyways, I'm sure there are plenty of discussions on clinchers vs. tubulars, etc....not the main topic for me today.

Although I am very curious about clinchers-carbon clinchers and aluminum clinchers.

Carbon clinchers can be much lighter due tot he fact that they are carbon (like many Reynolds models), but the braking surface can only last so long, braking ability and quality are not as stellar as aluminum clincher, losing control in descents, smoking brake pads etc..

Aluminum clinchers are supposedly much more durable but compromise in the weight department, which sometimes can be significant. (Zipp 808 tubulars and clinchers have 400 gm difference) And aluminum doesn't look as good IMO.

Are these the only comparison between those two? Reynolds make carbon clinchers, but Zipp only have aluminum braking surface in their clincher wheels. Any other reasons?

What are your takes?
 

·
Online Wheel Builder
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
I am not really sure why Zipp does aluminum braking surfaces. I dont think its for breaking performance because if that was the case they would do it on their tubys as well. I thing breaking on a carbon surface is fine though. As long as you use good break pads. As far as I know Protech Composites, Reynolds, and Edge rims have no wear problems. Im sure that if you were to use the pads they suggest that your braking would work fine. Thats what I do on my carbon wheels and they work just as well as my alloy ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,636 Posts
Some confusion here

simplyhankk said:
I like clinchers, much more conventional, and I really don't care about the minimal allegedly "ride quality difference"....getting a flat on a tubular tire while riding a is pretty tough problem...anyways, I'm sure there are plenty of discussions on clinchers vs. tubulars, etc....not the main topic for me today.

Although I am very curious about clinchers-carbon clinchers and aluminum clinchers.

Carbon clinchers can be much lighter due tot he fact that they are carbon (like many Reynolds models), but the braking surface can only last so long, braking ability and quality are not as stellar as aluminum clincher, losing control in descents, smoking brake pads etc..

Aluminum clinchers are supposedly much more durable but compromise in the weight department, which sometimes can be significant. (Zipp 808 tubulars and clinchers have 400 gm difference) And aluminum doesn't look as good IMO.

Are these the only comparison between those two? Reynolds make carbon clinchers, but Zipp only have aluminum braking surface in their clincher wheels. Any other reasons?

What are your takes?
There is no question that CF wheels do not brake as well as aluminum, but they brake well enough for some people to think they're just fine. There are not many all-carbon clinchers out there, so most "carbon clinchers" are not much weight savings. Besides, weight savings is pretty meaningless from a performance standpoint - 400 gm saved means 0.016 mph (84 feet = 26 meters per hour).
 

·
Online Wheel Builder
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
Kerry Irons said:
There is no question that CF wheels do not brake as well as aluminum, but they brake well enough for some people to think they're just fine. There are not many all-carbon clinchers out there, so most "carbon clinchers" are not much weight savings. Besides, weight savings is pretty meaningless from a performance standpoint - 400 gm saved means 0.016 mph (84 feet = 26 meters per hour).
You are having to constantly accelerate that weight, which is moving in a circle, up hills and out of corners. Its not the weight that counts on a flat road with no accelerations. Its in crits and hill climbs when your pegged trying to stay in the group.
As for the difference in weights i beg to differ...
Zipp 417 alloy braking surface clinchers which are 44.15 mm deep weigh 562 grams
Reynolds DV46c full carbon clinchers which are 46mm deep weigh 420 grams
Edge 1.45 c full carbon clincher which are 45mm deep weigh 400 grams
 

·
'brifter' is f'ing stupid
Joined
·
15,563 Posts
Zen Cyclery said:
You are having to constantly accelerate that weight, which is moving in a circle, up hills and out of corners. Its not the weight that counts on a flat road with no accelerations. Its in crits and hill climbs when your pegged trying to stay in the group.
As for the difference in weights i beg to differ...
Zipp 417 alloy braking surface clinchers which are 44.15 mm deep weigh 562 grams
Reynolds DV46c full carbon clinchers which are 46mm deep weigh 420 grams
Edge 1.45 c full carbon clincher which are 45mm deep weigh 400 grams
exactly...the weight difference becomes a major factor when you have to accelerate it back up to speed a bunch of times every lap in a crit, or whenever there is a surge or you try to close a gap, or launch an attack, or...any number of things. lighter is better for racing. if i could do races where the only accelerations were the start and the sprint at the end, i'd win a lot more!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,636 Posts
Understanding physics 2

Zen Cyclery said:
You are having to constantly accelerate that weight, which is moving in a circle, up hills and out of corners. Its not the weight that counts on a flat road with no accelerations. Its in crits and hill climbs when your pegged trying to stay in the group.
If you have to brake in the corners and jump out of them in a crit, then lighter wheels require less energy. When climbing hills, weight is weight. You are not accelerating the wheels if you are riding at constant speed, and any extra energy that goes into speeding up the wheels is returned as you slow down.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top