[Closed] darkside; which wheelset, tubular or clincher, carbon or....

Advantages of tubs - wheels are generally lighter, and tubs may be the only choice for some carbon wheel types. You can ride on a flat tub, and they're more stable at the point when you puncture.

Disadvantages - hassle, slightly slower rolling, more expensive, hassle, if you don't have neutral support (or feel lucky) and carry spares they actually work out more weight, and carrying spare tubs is a pain, harder to fix punctures, oh and did I mention the hassle?

Deep carbons do have less drag, so faster, but are fragile and pricey.

Tubs are supposed to give more or less the same sorts of benefits that tubless off road are supposed to give, better rolling resistance, more supple ride, more grip etc etc, in reality for an average joe they're tricky to put on correctly, if you get a puncture you're effed. I'd stick with clinchers. Carbon rims offer stiffness and weight benefits, at the drawback of slightly more prone to side winds with very deep sided ones. If you've deep pockets and a lack of weight is important to you, then go for it. For most users a nice set of Mavic will do.

Tubs are supposed to give more or less the same sorts of benefits that tubless off road are supposed to give, better rolling resistance, more supple ride, more grip etc etc,

Except they actually have more rolling resistance (like for like), and personally I reckon the more supple ride and better grip is a myth as well, since there's no logical reason why the bit at the rim side of the tyre which doesn't move (which is the only effective difference) should affect that.

Unless your racing don't bother with tubs,they're a pain in the ass.Carbon wheels are lovely but carbon clinchers are prone to damage from potholes and the ones with ally braking surfaces are heavy.
Its not that cool anymore but a set of handbuilt traditional wheels sound ideal for ya!

Clinchers on low profile carbon rims would make a lovely race choice.
The deep section rims clincher or tubular are a mare in winds.
If it's one set your after then a good quality off the peg set would be ideal, there are too many choices and I've only ridden a few so couldn't start to recommend an actual model.
My mates Boras were wrecked by a single pothole, he has the dosh to replace them I don't/wouldn't.

aracer - Member

Except they actually have more rolling resistance (like for like),

EH? How?

I tried tubs - lovely ride, did not cope with the hassle.

Deep rims = less comfort. Not ideal on long rides IMO.

The deep section rims clincher or tubular are a mare in winds.

I've never really found that. Have carbon deep sections on the TT bike, but alloy semi-deep (38mm as opposed to 50mm for the carbons) clinchers on the road bike.

EH? How?

Because they squirm on the glue and that dissipates energy. The idea that they roll faster comes from the days when clinchers were lower quality than tubs.

Because they squirm on the glue and that dissipates energy.

Any evidence on that...i.e. is it significant or even measurable?

Carbon rims with a non alloy braking surface aren't that good at braking esp in the wet. DO you do any steep sportives? Seen lots of blowouts due to heat build up form carbon rims when the rider has been braking heavily on descents. They're fine for serious road racing, say cat 3 upwards and time trials but unless you mostly do these I'd just get a general purpose wheel set.

I got some hope hoops: pro iii hub on a dt rim trad lacing. v strong and repairable. I got fend up with writing off mavic etc factory wheels.

having just levered some glued on tubs off a rim there was no squirming going on

CXP33 (clincher)rims are probably the place to go, mid section and tough

my racing wheels are Zipp 404 Clinchers, use them for TT's & regualar races. Roll nicely and are nice and aero. Good in cross winds too.

having just levered some glued on tubs off a rim there was no squirming going on

Is the glue completely hard and not at all sticky then?

The glue sets and thereby holds the tyre on? Be no good if stayed 'sticky' would it?

The glue sets and thereby holds the tyre on? Be no good if stayed 'sticky' would it?

Have you ever glued a tub, or changed one?

I have several sets of tubular carbon wheels for racing on;Zipp 404's,Topolino V39's and Bontrager XXX lites,all with the tubs cemented on,I use tubs for racing as they're less prone to pinch and if they do flat you can usually carry on without the tyre coming off,although it wrecks the rim :(. and the tub wheels are much lighter than the clincher version.For training I prefer to stick to clinchers,Hope Hoops and first gen Mavic Kysriums and TBH can't tell a difference in rolling resistance between any of them! The carbon wheels obviously feel lighter and accelerate though 😀

mtbtomo - Member

The glue sets and thereby holds the tyre on? Be no good if stayed 'sticky' would it?

Very much depends on what glue you are using, staying sticky is very useful if your out on a ride & need to change it or your on your arse with the new one 😉

But given that your new to this lark get a quality set of standard "wired" type rims and stick something good from the likes of Conti, Vittoria or Hutchinson etc on them and ride till your legs fall off
MrOvershoot (fitting Tub's since the 70's)

DT-Swiss...........

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance-tubular.html

the conti cement had dried to a thin layer and held the tyre firmly in place. I had to "break" the tyre off and assist with a tyre lever to get any purchase

I would not have put another tub on without applying more glue, there was "tack" left but no enough for me.

I suggest Mr aracer that you get someone else to fit your squirming tubs

Conti cement isn't hard track glue - obvious from the fact there is any tack at all. Therefore your tubs will have been squirming on the glue and losing energy doing so.

Of course you are perfectly free to fantasise that they're not doing so and that that's down to your superior skill in mounting them if you wish. I do so love cycling mythology.

Perhaps think of tubeless (not tubular) road wheels.

Shimano and Fulcrum make them, perhaps others as well now. It is the future for the standard clincher, although tubular tyres will always have thier place in races.

Shimano and Fulcrum make them, perhaps others as well now.

Corima also make some very nice deep rim carbon ones. The bigger problem right now is tyre availability - last time I checked just one option from Hutchinson (who don't make the best performing normal tyres). When Michelin start making something they'll be very interesting.

I'm way behind with tub technology I stopped using then in about 1980, for reference I used Clement Crits for racing and Wolbers for training.
Out of interest £ for £ what would be better for race days on a £400 budget.
FWIW I do seem to recall that at least back then tubs had a far more useable profile, though I am talking crits and road race use.

aracer
no skill I just use modern products, they acheive the desired results. You are probably still using that awful grey cement

if the tyres sqirmed that much the track team would be using them, seems strange that they are all on tubs

I just use modern products

Yeah, modern products which work exactly as I've been describing.

if the tyres sqirmed that much the track team would be using them, seems strange that they are all on tubs

You're obviously not paying any attention at all to what I've been saying, and haven't read the article I linked to 🙄

Though I'm really not sure I can be bothered any more - if it makes you happy to think your tubs have less rolling resistance than clinchers then carry on. I wouldn't want to come between somebody and his delusions.

I've read the article

no evidence given to link the effects shown for the tubs on test to the reason given to it

the test shows the manufacturers (who did the test) 28c tyres have lower rolling resistance than anything (so why don't we all ride 28c?)

test data must be older than the article based on the tires tested, they all look mid nineties to me

"tubs wearing through base tape" never heard of that problem, base tape pulling away from the tub due to the "too sticky" cement I have seen

of course as you come from the TJ school of discussion..... you are right

<sigh>

no evidence given to link the effects shown for the tubs on test to the reason given to it

Tell you what, you find me one serious article (as opposed to forum posting from somebody steeped in cycling mythology - this debate has been done plenty of time before) suggesting Jobst is wrong about the mechanism, and I'll feel it's worth my while to bother to find some supporting evidence. You are aware that Jobst was a professional tribologist, who study this sort of thing? I'll even give you a start - try googling [url= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=tubular+rolling+resistance&btnG=Search&meta= ]tubular rolling resistance[/url] - I've already linked the first article in that list, the second has lots more. There's also some modern data there which includes results for tubs and clinchers with exactly the same construction.

the test shows the manufacturers (who did the test) 28c tyres have lower rolling resistance than anything (so why don't we all ride 28c?)

I thought it was common knowledge (even on here) that wider tyres roll faster everything else being equal? You could of course just have followed a link from the top of the previous article I posted http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

test data must be older than the article based on the tires tested, they all look mid nineties to me

Well spotted - yes, it's data Jobst has been using since the 90s. The thing is physics hasn't actually changed since then. Meanwhile back then tubs were still considered superior, yet that data showed otherwise - been lots of development and advance in clinchers since then, rather less in tubs, so the relative performance of tubs has only got worse.

of course as you come from the TJ school of discussion

I'm flattered - I presume that school must involve providing data and proper research as opposed to relying on folklore.

tubs rock. that is all.

Time to chill me thinks 🙂

Don't know too much about modern tubs, but 30 odd years ago I was touring on dirt tracks in outback Oz on a set of Wolbers. No punctures, no problems. (Only had the one bike in those days)

Mount them properly, keep them inflated, and that's it. Probably modern clinchers are just as good.

One thing worth pointing out is that if you're fairly chunky, your "mare" in crosswinds when using deep section rims will be less. I'm not a total bloater (12.5st) and ride old skewl 50mm mavic cosmics. Even in the gustiest conditions these are very managable even when on tribars. I completely echo the comfort thing. If it's long rides I'd go for lower section rims. My mate gave me the cosmics and I only use them for Triathlon (not training). If I had to buy some wheels I'd get some light, well made "normal" wheels and leave the factory stuff alone.

Interesting article aracer (though I am not convinced by everything JB says).

It would be interesting to know:

does tub tape have the same effect?
how significant is rolling resistance?
Is it more or less significant than the comfort of tubs ove a long ride/race?

I think the whole 'rolling resistance is more with tubs' is seriously hard to quantify! For a start, very few tyres are available in both tub and clincher variants, there are usually some differences, so a 'like for like' comparison is virtually impossible!

I used tubs on some Bonty XXX Lites for a couple of years, they were gorgeous wheels, very fast, light, reasonably priced etc. The tubs were ok, I used Conti Competitions, which seemed to work. They wore out fast though and went 'flat' on top on the back within a few hundred miles.

I'd only bother with tubs if they're a true race only set of wheels, or if you're chasing ultimate lightweight. I sold my XXX Lites because I didn't like racing on them, incase I crashed and destroyed them, and I didn't like training on them incase I flatted and had to faff with tubs at the side of the road. I replaced them with some full carbon 50mm clinchers, which rolled fully inflated tyres off the rim, so I also sold those, and now just stick with standard aluminium wheels!

Quite want to go back to tubs though, FFWD F4Rs look tempting!

(though I am not convinced by everything JB says)

Good to be sceptical and keep thinking for yourself, though I'd trust Jobst on bicycle science over pretty much anybody here. As I mentioned this is one of his specialist areas, where I'd largely trust him over my own analysis!

does tub tape have the same effect?

That gets a mention in the Velonews article I think (2nd result on that google search) - the conclusion being it has the same effect but worse, since tub tape is thicker. I used to use tub tape but switched to glue largely on that basis.

how significant is rolling resistance?

Significant enough. Not quite as big a thing as aero, but a bit of rough extrapolation from the numbers given in the weightweenies link (3rd on the google) suggests over 30s difference over 25 miles between an Open Corsa CX and a Corsa CX tub.

Is it more or less significant than the comfort of tubs ove a long ride/race?

Well you're asking the wrong person there, as I'd suggest infinitely more since there is no difference in comfort (given the same size air pocket - if anything the clincher has more air in - and the same construction why should there be?) That's assuming you're comparing like with like - ie an open version of the tub.

Have a look at the weightweenies article in that google search for some proper numbers, njee (surely you're a member there anyway - the road forum nowadays is more speedweenies, so discusses stuff like this a lot). The 2nd best clincher in that list is also available as a tub.

I lost it with JB when he went on about spokes supporting a wheel through compression rather than tension (or similar) but that article is pretty clear and backed up with results.

That is a big difference!

When I tried tubs they were significantly more comfy. I've heard this is due to more sidewall, could have been lighter flatter rims (cheap tubs too!)

I lost it with JB when he went on about spokes supporting a wheel through compression rather than tension (or similar)

Ah well, that's one where he is dead right, but those people using "common sense" don't get it. It's all down to superposition of forces- ie the spokes themselves don't go into compression, just work as if they do due to the pre-stressed nature of the wheel (in the same way pre-stressed concrete beams can support bending which involves one side going into tension - despite the fact concrete itself is very weak in tension).

Hmmm. Thanks for trying but I still don't get that!

Do you mean that one bar in the pre-stressed concrete kind of goes into compression in a similar way?

So... serious question. Why is virtually every member of the Pro Tour peloton on tubs? They'd go quicker on clinchers, they're at the weight limit anyway, is it just the improved handling when you puncture?

I am indeed on WW, although I find it all very anal and frequented by people with too much money and not a clue about what's going on! See that 18lb Mojo on the MTB forum for a cracking example...

Why not a bit of thread drift? If you're up for trying to understand I'll have another go.

Pre-stressed concrete basically consists of concrete with steel bars going through the middle of it. Now most concrete has steel bars in for reinforcement, but in the case of pre-stressed they then put great big wahsers and nuts on the ends of the steel bars and tighten. This results in the steel bars going into tension and the concrete going into compression. What this means is that when the concrete gets a bending load (as in when it is used to make a bridge), rather than the bottom of the beam going into tension, the compression in it is just reduced. However from an engineering forces point of view you can consider the pre-stressed beam to be one homogeneous whole and the bottom of the beam to be in tension which the concrete beam is supporting.

Got that so far? Well a bicycle wheel spoke works in a similar, but opposite way. Obviously a steel spoke can't support any compression force as it will simply buckle (not to mention that the nipple isn't supported). However by pre-stressing the wheel by tensioning the spokes a spoke can then support a superposed compression force, which is as far as the spoke is concerned a decrease in tension. What you have to get your head around here is the difference between considering the wheel as a whole, in which case the spoke takes a compression force due to the pre-stressing, and considering the spoke in isolation, in which case the "compression" is simply a decrease in tension. You might think we're simply arguing semantics here, but this is important, as the hub isn't supported by the top spokes having increased tension, but by the bottom spokes having decreased tension, which can be correctly considered as a compression force.

I have a feeling that will still leave you confused - I'll try and think of a better way to put it. One of the problems with this is that I don't think Jobst explains this very well, though to be fair to him it is a difficult concept to explain (and I've probably done no better).

Very, very good question, njee. Not sure of the answer - partly sponsorship, partly the ability to ride on a flat (eg Olano in the '95 World Champs - if he'd been on clinchers he'd probably not have won). It's plausible they could use hard track glue, though I suspect not given that does have it's disadvantages even though they get a spare wheel if they puncture. I do remember one TdF stage a few years ago though which was a downhill finish in the wet where the winner got away on the technical downhill, and he was definitely using Michelin clinchers.

I know what you mean about ww - I rarely go on the MTB forum nowadays as that is what you get (in any case I don't have the money to "improve" my current bike at all, so it's not very interesting to me any more). However the road forum has some of the most knowledgeable people you'll find on a cycling forum anywhere - provided you can sort the wheat from the chaff you can get some very good advice, and you get some really interesting* technical discussions on there.

*interesting to a sad engineer like me

cheers aracer I think I get that (you've done a way better job than JB)

But...when loaded the bottom spokes do indeed have decreased tension, however the other spokes must have increased tension to balance that surely? Not sure if this makes any difference to the concept tho.

A few summers back whilst waiting for my mate to pick me up from work, I watched a roadie attempt and struggle to fix a puncture in a tub. After about 25 mins of faff, lots of swearing, dust and bits of grass stuck to the mess and stickiness that was the cement on the tub and rim, he gave up and called his misses to pick him up.
This proves that clinchers are faster as he would have been on his way in 5 mins or so with a clincher...

twohats that is excellent proof of:

Incompetent folk do ride bikes
one story alone can be pretty meaningless

Swapping a tub takes no longer than a tube