Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm a 173lb mid-to-fast Cat III racer in CO and am looking to possibly upgrade the wheels I use for climbing races and long rolling road races. I've been racing/training for 4 years on 2003 Ksyrium SL's with very few issues. Great wheels. Still, I have the urge to drop some dough on some deep dish carbon rims. Looking at Neuvation & Rol (any other suggestions on the inexpensive side?) in 38mm-58mm.

Question for the technical guys: Does the improved rolling resistance of clinchers outweigh the ~350g weight penalty?

Question for the racers & technical guys out there: What would you go with given my circumstances? Depth? brand? clincher/tubular? Or should I just keep my current set up.

Thanks in advance!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
howardpowered said:
I'm a 173lb mid-to-fast Cat III racer in CO and am looking to possibly upgrade the wheels I use for climbing races and long rolling road races. I've been racing/training for 4 years on 2003 Ksyrium SL's with very few issues. Great wheels. Still, I have the urge to drop some dough on some deep dish carbon rims. Looking at Neuvation & Rol (any other suggestions on the inexpensive side?) in 38mm-58mm.

Question for the technical guys: Does the improved rolling resistance of clinchers outweigh the ~350g weight penalty?

Question for the racers & technical guys out there: What would you go with given my circumstances? Depth? brand? clincher/tubular? Or should I just keep my current set up.

Thanks in advance!
ksyrium sl? - easy to upgrade from there...
don't know where your info on rolling resistance and clinchers comes from, but it is not supported by data
i would go for tubies w/o hesitation

edge makes nice rimes in tubies and clinchers
i doubt the deep dish is going to be of any advantage in climbing races...
since you are not light i would talk to your wheel builder about number of spokes
hubs dt240/da/rec - whatever floats your bike
sapim x-rays if you care about weight
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
CXinME said:
ksyrium sl? - easy to upgrade from there...
don't know where your info on rolling resistance and clinchers comes from, but it is not supported by data
i would go for tubies w/o hesitation
I'm pretty sure I got that info from this board a year or two back. I'll do that research again, but if the general consensus is that it's a wash, then great, I'll go for the tubies. Thx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
Some numbers

CXinME said:
don't know where your info on rolling resistance and clinchers comes from, but it is not supported by data
I don't know where you got YOUR information, but there are numerous studies showing that clinchers are lower rolling resistance than tubulars. Look it up - they're on the web.

For the OP, shaving 350 grams on the flats means virtually nothing for speed (.015 mph). Climbing a 6% grade at about 300 watts of power, saving 350 gm is worth .083 mph, which means 25 seconds saved for every hour of climbing, or a 440 foot gain. If that is meaningful, then invest in the lighter wheels. Otherwise, maybe losing 350 grams of body weight? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Kerry Irons said:
For the OP, shaving 350 grams on the flats means virtually nothing for speed (.015 mph). Climbing a 6% grade at about 300 watts of power, saving 350 gm is worth .083 mph, which means 25 seconds saved for every hour of climbing, or a 440 foot gain. If that is meaningful, then invest in the lighter wheels. Otherwise, maybe losing 350 grams of body weight? :)
The primary reason is to go from 25mm depth to ~50mm depth.

Deep dish clinchers or deep dish tubulars? Analytic Cycling shows that losing 350g provides 2.4W savings at 6% grade and 11mph. From what I have read, the improved rolling resistance should more than make up for that . . . right?

I ran the numbers on more aerodynamic wheels on flat ground as well. Spending money on new wheels is becoming less and less rational.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
Light and deep carbon tubulars are the ultimate. You can build a solid set with durable hubs that is in the 1100g range... if you have over $2k to spend.

Jobst Brandt did some tests awhile back that showed clinchers had lower rolling resistance. Tour's Crr tests tend to confirm this, as well as the early tests that Al did which are posted on Bike Tech Review. Since then Al has done some experimenting with gluing tubulars and has discovered that a proper gluing method (several coats and lots of glue... fully adhered), yields *no* Crr penalty for tubulars compared to their clincher cousins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Kerry Irons said:
I don't know where you got YOUR information, but there are numerous studies showing that clinchers are lower rolling resistance than tubulars. Look it up - they're on the web.

Inadequately powered. Overlapping CIs, no statistical significance.
I can give your more info if needed.

Happy to help.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,425 Posts
Think of it this way........
If you flat in a road race.........you're gone.
If you hit a rock on a clincher, ......you're probably gone.
If you ride near the front, you'll see the rock.
You can't always ride at the front.
When you're not at the front, a lightweight box rim tubular can't be beat. (or a low profile carbon tubular rim, if you have the coin)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
Explain?

CXinME said:
Inadequately powered. Overlapping CIs, no statistical significance.
I can give your more info if needed.

Happy to help.
Since you've given no information so far (that I can understand), yes more information is needed. Your shorthand is, to me, unintelligible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Kerry Irons said:
I don't know where you got YOUR information, but there are numerous studies showing that clinchers are lower rolling resistance than tubulars. Look it up - they're on the web.

For the OP, shaving 350 grams on the flats means virtually nothing for speed (.015 mph). Climbing a 6% grade at about 300 watts of power, saving 350 gm is worth .083 mph, which means 25 seconds saved for every hour of climbing, or a 440 foot gain. If that is meaningful, then invest in the lighter wheels. Otherwise, maybe losing 350 grams of body weight? :)
So Kerry!

Are wheels over rated?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Kerry Irons said:
For what?
Well, from reading your posts, it appears most stock wheels that came with the bike in the $2k range are adequate for enthusiast and beginning racers. So buying a set of wheels just to shave weight is a waste of money. Am I interperting this correctly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
rruff said:
Since then Al has done some experimenting with gluing tubulars and has discovered that a proper gluing method (several coats and lots of glue... fully adhered), yields *no* Crr penalty for tubulars compared to their clincher cousins.
Thanks for the response. I think all the arguments are valid, but this makes sense to me. Although I can see that past testing has shown a Crr advantage for clinchers, my conclusion thus far is that you can get the same Crr with either, but tubies must be glued very precicely, leaving lots of room for error. Clinchers are pretty tough to screw up.

There has to be some reason that most pros use tubies, at least I think they are? The marketing argument doesn't hold, since almost everyone makes carbon clinchers, and they are just as expensive as carbon tubies.

$2k is too much for me, and I haven't heard many negative things about Neuvations & Rols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,103 Posts
howardpowered said:
There has to be some reason that most pros use tubies.
This is what made me suspicious of "clinchers have lower Crr". Many pros and teams are clueless of these things, but some spend quite a lot of time and money obsessing over details... and they still use tubulars... even for TTs. And for them weight is pretty much a non-issue since their bikes will weigh 6.8kg if climbing is involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
You've got it

roadbike_moron said:
Well, from reading your posts, it appears most stock wheels that came with the bike in the $2k range are adequate for enthusiast and beginning racers. So buying a set of wheels just to shave weight is a waste of money. Am I interperting this correctly?
By George, I think you've got it! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
Wiseness

CXinME said:
You said "Inadequately powered. Overlapping CIs, no statistical significance." and then give a Smart Alec reference to a lesson on statistics. Still not very useful to address the issues at hand.

I know what confidence intervals are (though I have to guess that's what you mean), and I know what "no statistical significance" means, but since you cite no references and preface your statements by the oblique "Inadequately powered" you've still told me nothing. Not a very effective communication strategy. If you have a reference article you'd care to cite, please do so. Your version of intellectual jousting leaves something to be desired. Just saying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,474 Posts
Not about Crr.

rruff said:
This is what made me suspicious of "clinchers have lower Crr". Many pros and teams are clueless of these things, but some spend quite a lot of time and money obsessing over details... and they still use tubulars... even for TTs. And for them weight is pretty much a non-issue since their bikes will weigh 6.8kg if climbing is involved.
Most coaches, riders and mechanics believe hat tubular tires incur far fewer flats than clinchers. There's also a belief that they are safer because they stay on the rim even when ridden completely flat.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top