What's the point of tubular tires?

[Bruce W.1]

I used to ride on tubular tires, sew-ups, whatever you want to call
them. This was because clinchers did not have an equivalent pressure.

About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered the
same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
had a clicher flat, well maybe once.

So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
sell these things? They do seem to have more colors.

Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers?

Thanks for your help.

[Peter]

Bruce W.1 wrote:

> I used to ride on tubular tires, sew-ups, whatever you want to call
> them. This was because clinchers did not have an equivalent pressure.

When was that? Narrow rims and narrow high-pressure clinchers were
introduced about 30 years ago.
>
> About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered the
> same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
> delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
> had a clicher flat, well maybe once.

To what do you ascribe this difference? Tubulars should be subject to
about the same number of flats as lightweight clinchers due to sharp
objects (glass, thorns, etc.) and much less likely to have pinch
(snake-bite) flats. My experience was that I had slightly more flats
after switching to clinchers but they were so much easier to patch that
the trade-off was still worthwhile.
>
> So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
> sell these things?

Presumably because people still buy them. But I'd expect it to be a
very small percentage of total bike tire sales.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:56:24 -0400, "Bruce W.1"
> wrote:

>I used to ride on tubular tires, sew-ups, whatever you want to call
>them. This was because clinchers did not have an equivalent pressure.
>
>About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered the
>same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
>delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
>had a clicher flat, well maybe once.
>
>So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
>sell these things? They do seem to have more colors.
>
>Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers?
>
>Thanks for your help.

Dear Bruce,

A similar question about tubular use was recently raised and
thrashed to death in 114 posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=e90052be.0405231344.6d27e3ec%40posting.goo gle.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpaul%2Bsherwen%2Bgroup:rec.bicycles.t ech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.bicycles.tech%26scoring%3Dd%26selm %3De90052be.0405231344.6d27e3ec%2540posting.google .com%26rnum%3D1

or

http://tinyurl.com/2qceh

As I recall, no one ever offered any convincing evidence
about what percentage of the European pro riders use
clinchers after Mike Krueger started wild arguments by
observing:

Paul Sherwen, on today's Giro TV broadcast, observed that
80% of the European pro peloton still races on tubular
tires. So much for the naysayers...

I may have missed some convincing post or link for or
against this 80% figure, so it would be nice if anyone would
rub my curious nose in the facts.

Carl Fogel

[S o r n i]

It is 16% more fun to say "tubular" than "clincher".

Bill "anyone invent a clinchular?" S.

[Phil Brown]

>Bill "anyone invent a clinchular?" S.

Clement had one. Tufo, too, I Think.
Phil Brown

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:56:24 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
wrote:

>So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
>sell these things?

Because there are still people who will buy them, for whatever reason.

> They do seem to have more colors.

Yes, although the color selections in clinchers are even greater in
most cases.

>Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers?

They ride whatever they either like, or get handed by their backer.
The Big Name Riders probably get to dictate the choice; the
barely-competitive types probably take what they're given. It would
not surprise me if some of the competitors have both types in their
spares kit.

[Antti Salonen]

wrote:

> Paul Sherwen, on today's Giro TV broadcast, observed that
> 80% of the European pro peloton still races on tubular
> tires. So much for the naysayers...

> I may have missed some convincing post or link for or
> against this 80% figure, so it would be nice if anyone would
> rub my curious nose in the facts.

I think 80% is exaggerated, but tubulars are certainly used much in pro
cycling. I think one real reason is the fact that many of the more
aerodynamic wheels have carbon fibre rims, which pretty much has ruled
out clinchers. Of course you can use a similar clincher rim which has
additional aluminium beads, but it only increases the total weight and
for pro riders there are no benefits.

Campagnolo is now offering clincher wheels with the rim made of carbon
fibre, but again you can get lower overwall weight by using tubulars.

-as

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

BW-<< About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered the
same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
had a clicher flat, well maybe once.

So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
sell these things? They do seem to have more colors.

Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers? >><BR><BR>

Well, after I tied and soldered my wheels, adjusted my Delta brakes, cleaned
the grease off my BB spindle taper, I think I'll jump in here.

'Clinchers offering the same pressure?'
'Blown tubie each ride?'

Yikes. Tubulars, in my personal experience but also subjective view, are a
lighter 'package, rim and tires, are more comfy since you don't have to put
120psi in them to prevent pinch flats(see above by BW-??), are safer cuz if
glued on properly, won't roll off a rim if flatted and I think corner better
since they are a profile that lends itself to hard cornering.

I get few flats, maybe a couple per year. Tubies, all things equal, will get
fewer since you get few(no) pinch flats.

I think the only advantage of clinchers is that you can repair them on the
road.

As for TdF-see advatages above. More than 1/2 are sponsored by tubie tire
makers. Since they don't have to put up with the 'gluing' issue or changing
issue, they use tubulars for the reasons stated above. Plus oohhh so many are
opting for all carbon rims, which lend themselves to tubulars, not clinchers.

if you got a bunch of flats with tubies and needed a tire with lots of
pressure, I think you missed the boat as to their 'advantages'. But if you are
happy with clinchers, groovy-now go ride.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Jay Hill]

Bruce W.1 wrote:
>
> Thanks for your help.

troll

[Zog The Undeniable]

Bruce W.1 wrote:
> I used to ride on tubular tires, sew-ups, whatever you want to call
> them. This was because clinchers did not have an equivalent pressure.
>
> About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered the
> same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
> delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
> had a clicher flat, well maybe once.
>
> So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
> sell these things? They do seem to have more colors.

Most trackies still use them because they stay on the rim in the event
of a puncture. However, punctures on an indoor track are extremely rare
and a tight clincher will also stay on the rim. Tubulars are not
compulsory on British tracks, anyway.

The rolling resistance gap has been closed, and cheap clinchers are
quite rideable - on the other hand, only the best (i.e. expensive)
tubulars are worth having as the cheap ones can be lumpy and badly made.

[bfd]

"Ricardo Damiano Cunego" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:56:24 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > .. Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers? ... >
> >
> > Some teams do.
> >
> > I read yesterday from Pezcyclingnews.com that Shimano (I am sure other
> > MFG's too) are "pro" testing the tubeless road wheelsets. Tubeless MTB
> > rims are being used already.
>
> I am in the process of watching last years tour de france; have a look at
> beloki's
> crash in stage 10, caused by a tubular heating up, (because of hot tar on
> the road?)
> loosening the glue and flailing off the rim. You can see this detail quiet
> clearly on
> the dvd (nicely narrated by sherwen & ligget). poor beloki has never been
> the same.
>
Take a look again, it looks more like Beloki hit his rear brake too hard,
thus locking up his rear wheel and crashing. Yes, the tubie came off the
wheel, but his locking up the rear brake caused his crash!

[Ricardo Damiano Cunego]

> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:56:24 -0400, "Bruce W.1" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > .. Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers? ... >
>
> Some teams do.
>
> I read yesterday from Pezcyclingnews.com that Shimano (I am sure other
> MFG's too) are "pro" testing the tubeless road wheelsets. Tubeless MTB
> rims are being used already.

I am in the process of watching last years tour de france; have a look at
beloki's
crash in stage 10, caused by a tubular heating up, (because of hot tar on
the road?)
loosening the glue and flailing off the rim. You can see this detail quiet
clearly on
the dvd (nicely narrated by sherwen & ligget). poor beloki has never been
the same.

[Ted B]

Richard Chan wrote:
> Werehatrack > wrote in message
> >...
> > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:56:24 -0400, "Bruce W.1"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > .. Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers? ... >
> Some teams do.





As for why, perhaps the principal reason is the fact that tubulars do
not flat nearly as often, and whether you're riding tubies or clinchers
and flat, the team car changes your wheel just the same. I suppose the
pro teams tend not to like losing time due to pinch flats...which
obviously doesn't happen with a tubular tire.



--

[Ted Bennett]

Bob > wrote:


> I think a tubular has a different (better) feel when riding. More of
> a sense of being in direct contact with the road without a cushion
> between you and the road.

Try inflating your tubies. You will be pleasantly surprised.

--
Ted Bennett
Portland OR

[Dave Mayer]

> The point of tubulars is that you can use a slightly lighter rim. And
> perhaps they are more resistant to pinch flats. Other than that,
> there is no difference in performance between tubulars and clinchers,
> and clinchers are surely more convenient.
>
> JT

Here's another reason why I ride tubies. Clinchers are simply a pain in the
ass...

Here are the basic advantages
- Tubular wheels are 200 grams lighter per wheel (including tires, tubes,
rim strip, etc.)
- They are inpervious to pinch flats
- you can ride them at a lower pressure because of the above - comfort
- Safety. When tubies go flat they do not turn into some writhing mess of
rubber on the rim while you're coasting to a stop. I cannot imagine what
happens to clincher riders during a sudden blowout at high speed -
especially while cornering.
- Tubular wheelsets generally cost next to nothing. I have about 20 sets of
wheels obtained from yard sales and donations from ex-racers. I think the
most I ever paid for a set of wheels was 50 Canadian Pesos for some mint
high-flange Campy Record units.

I've ridden the same set of tubulars for the last 5 months. No flats. 10cc
of Slime in the rear tire makes sure of that. I have ridden on clinchers
twice this year.

First clincher ride results in me hitting a pothole while in a pack on a
group ride. Pinch flat.

Second clincher ride today. The rim strip blows through while I'm on the
road. Some green plastic thing. That never happens on tubies. Instead of
a 2 minute change with tubulars, the fix involves begging for electrical
tape to wrap the rim, wrestling with a brutally tight kevlar bead with 3
tire irons, then pulling the whole mess apart again because I'd made a tube
tear as a result of getting the tire back on the rim. 30 minutes of
swearing and sweating in the heat.

[Tim McNamara]

Bob > writes:

>>30 years ago
>
> I think a tubular has a different (better) feel when riding. More of
> a sense of being in direct contact with the road without a cushion
> between you and the road. Easier to corner, less roll in the tire.
> I think this is due to the fact that the tubular rim has that solid
> layer of alloy rim directly under the tire with a solid casing all
> around the tire. You ride on a solid rim on a hard casing with
> (effectively) no sidewall flex.

Unfortunately this is all incorrect, except the subjective impression
which is neither provable or disprovable. Indeed your claims are the
exact opposite of almost every opinion ever rendered about the
differences between tubulars and clinchers- most people claim that
tubulars offer a softer and more comfortable ride than clinchers.

Tubulars- back in the day- were famous for having thinner and more
flexible casings than clinchers. The attachment method has little to
do cornering, IMHO, because there is very little side loading on a
bicycle wheel. The tubular had relatively unpredictable contact with
the rim, narrower tires having less contact and wider tires having
more contact; also the thickness of the center seam where the casing
is sewn together could act to lift some of the casing away from the
rim.

> With the clincher, OTOH, you end up riding on a soft pliable tube,
> resting on the tire that has a soft, relatively tall sidewall. More
> sidewall, more flex.

This is more malarkey. Tubulars tended to be made with more supple
casings than clinchers (although this is less true now, since silk
tubs are no longer made and clincher casings have approximated
tubulars). Tubulars usually had latex inner tubes, which were
thinner, stretchier and more flexible than the thicker butyl rubber
tubes that most people use with clinchers (using latex tubes in
clinchers brings back that gentle ringing sound of tubulars, BTW).
The height of the sidewall is determined by the width of the tire,
since air pressure forces the casing into a round shape. The sidewall
of a Clement Campionato Del Mundo was just as tall as the sidewall of
any clincher of similar width. Ditto any other tub.

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 02:50:57 +0000, Dave Mayer wrote:

> Here are the basic advantages
> - Tubular wheels are 200 grams lighter per wheel (including tires, tubes,
> rim strip, etc.)

That is way past the comparisons I have seen, or made. Yeah, the rim
itself can be lighter, but not as light as the good old days with a modern
9-10 speed cassette. Maybe 50g there. The rim strip is not all that
heavy, not even a good one (see below), and a comparable tire would be
comparable in weight, be it clincher or tubular. Both have the same
casing and tube. A tubular does not have a bead, but a Kevlar bead is
pretty light. Clinchers don't have a rim strip as part of the tire, nor
the part of the casing on the bottom of the tire. I'd say no more than
100g total weight savings for a tubular versus a comparable clincher.

> - They are
inpervious to pinch flats

Not really. In the circumstances you describe, hitting a pothole, I have
had pinch flats with tubulars. The mechanism is the same. Tubular rims
do not have such an edge as clinchers, but they do have some edge to them
and a hard contact will do the same thing to either tire.

> Safety. When tubies go flat they do not turn into some writhing mess of
> rubber on the rim while you're coasting to a stop.

Actually, they can. And, clinchers can stay put quite nicely.

> I cannot imagine
> what happens to clincher riders during a sudden blowout at high speed -
> especially while cornering.

The same things can happen with either tire. There is no magic to
tubulars here, and no disastrous weakness with clinchers.

> - Tubular wheelsets generally cost next to nothing. I have about 20
> sets of wheels obtained from yard sales and donations from ex-racers. I
> think the most I ever paid for a set of wheels was 50 Canadian Pesos for
> some mint high-flange Campy Record units.

This is absolutely true. But you might wonder why, with all these
advantages, people are dumping their tubular wheels in garage sales.

> I've ridden the same set of tubulars for the last 5 months. No flats.
> 10cc of Slime in the rear tire makes sure of that.

5 months without a flat is hardly a record.

> Second clincher ride today. The rim strip blows through while I'm on
> the road. Some green plastic thing. That never happens on tubies.

If you use ****ty equipment, it would. Use a decent rim strip, and don't
blame the tire design for it.

> Instead of a 2 minute change with tubulars,
the fix involves begging for
> electrical tape to wrap the rim, wrestling with a brutally tight kevlar
> bead with 3 tire irons, then pulling the whole mess apart again because
> I'd made a tube tear as a result of getting the tire back on the rim. 30
> minutes of swearing and sweating in the heat.

Well, there are some tire/rim combinations that are better than others. I
can take off and put on my tires without tire irons. I have had problems
with some rims, but I don't use them any longer.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | This is my religion. There is no need for temples; no need for
_`\(,_ | complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our
(_)/ (_) | temple. The philosophy is kindness. --The Dalai Lama

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara writes:

>>>30 years ago

>> I think a tubular has a different (better) feel when riding. More
>> of a sense of being in direct contact with the road without a
>> cushion between you and the road. Easier to corner, less roll in
>> the tire. I think this is due to the fact that the tubular rim has
>> that solid layer of alloy rim directly under the tire with a solid
>> casing all around the tire. You ride on a solid rim on a hard
>> casing with (effectively) no sidewall flex.

> Unfortunately this is all incorrect, except the subjective
> impression which is neither provable or disprovable. Indeed your
> claims are the exact opposite of almost every opinion ever rendered
> about the differences between tubulars and clinchers- most people
> claim that tubulars offer a softer and more comfortable ride than
> clinchers.

> Tubulars- back in the day- were famous for having thinner and more
> flexible casings than clinchers. The attachment method has little
> to do cornering, IMHO, because there is very little side loading on
> a bicycle wheel. The tubular had relatively unpredictable contact
> with the rim, narrower tires having less contact and wider tires
> having more contact; also the thickness of the center seam where the
> casing is sewn together could act to lift some of the casing away
> from the rim.

>> With the clincher, OTOH, you end up riding on a soft pliable tube,
>> resting on the tire that has a soft, relatively tall sidewall. More
>> sidewall, more flex.

> This is more malarkey. Tubulars tended to be made with more supple
> casings than clinchers (although this is less true now, since silk
> tubs are no longer made and clincher casings have approximated
> tubulars). Tubulars usually had latex inner tubes, which were
> thinner, stretchier and more flexible than the thicker butyl rubber
> tubes that most people use with clinchers (using latex tubes in
> clinchers brings back that gentle ringing sound of tubulars, BTW).
> The height of the sidewall is determined by the width of the tire,
> since air pressure forces the casing into a round shape. The
> sidewall of a Clement Campionato Del Mundo was just as tall as the
> sidewall of any clincher of similar width. Ditto any other tub.

================================================== ====================

I'll endorse Tom's response in every respect. On the other hand,
changing the minds of the tubular faithful is difficult. You might
want to check the wreck.bike FAQ for more on tubulars:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.3.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.15.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.18.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.19.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.22.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.26.html
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.28.html

It's been a long time since the days when high performance clinchers
were not available and we "had to" ride silk tubulars. I still have
four sets of wheels for them gathering dust. Just the same, I thought
I should document what we discovered in the days of yore, so that new
riders didn't have to listen to the myth and lore of tubulars that we
heard. Although most of it had a faint basis in fact, it was terribly
misleading and essentially worthless.

Jobst Brandt

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I think the only advantage of clinchers is that you can repair them on the
> road.

Funny, when I raced one of the supposed advantages of sew-ups (tubulars) was
that you could very quickly tear off the old one and put on a new one.

But more seriously, I think there are many more advantages to clinchers than
just ease of repair-

#1: Cost. You can buy high-quality nice-riding clinchers for anywhere from
$25-$50. On the other hand, cheapie sew-ups ride like a rock, and the
really nice ones cost from $70-125. Ouch!

#2: Availability. Clinchers are everywhere. Sew-ups?

#3: No-mess installation. No glue on your hands, on the carpet, on your
clothing when installing a clincher. Of course, that's primarily a newbie
thing; after a while, you develop techniques that allow you to install a
sew-up without much mess (if any) at all.

#4: No fear of a tire rolling off the rim because you flatted and had to
trust the "old" glue to hold a new tire on.

#5: Much more consistent in profile; sew-ups often would have all manner of
high spots, low spots and wide & narrow spots, most often (if not almost
entirely) due to how the casing was stitched up. Sometimes you could even
feel them bump-bump-bump as you rode, especially on cheaper ones. Of
course, some would claim that proper technique in mounting the tire would
eliminate such problems (and to a certain extent that was true; if you
weren't careful, you could end up with one section of the tire stretched
tighter across the rim than another, *but* if you had a tire that was
wobbling from side-to-side, very rarely was that a problem with how the tire
was mounted).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo " > wrote in message
...
> BW-<< About ten years ago I swapped my rims for clichers when they offered
the
> same pressure. And I've been happy ever since. No, I've been totally
> delighted. I used to average one tubular blown per ride. I've never
> had a clicher flat, well maybe once.
>
> So I see tubular tires are still in stores today. Why do they still
> sell these things? They do seem to have more colors.
>
> Don't the Tour de France guys ride clinchers? >><BR><BR>
>
> Well, after I tied and soldered my wheels, adjusted my Delta brakes,
cleaned
> the grease off my BB spindle taper, I think I'll jump in here.
>
> 'Clinchers offering the same pressure?'
> 'Blown tubie each ride?'
>
> Yikes. Tubulars, in my personal experience but also subjective view, are a
> lighter 'package, rim and tires, are more comfy since you don't have to
put
> 120psi in them to prevent pinch flats(see above by BW-??), are safer cuz
if
> glued on properly, won't roll off a rim if flatted and I think corner
better
> since they are a profile that lends itself to hard cornering.
>
> I get few flats, maybe a couple per year. Tubies, all things equal, will
get
> fewer since you get few(no) pinch flats.
>
> I think the only advantage of clinchers is that you can repair them on the
> road.
>
> As for TdF-see advatages above. More than 1/2 are sponsored by tubie tire
> makers. Since they don't have to put up with the 'gluing' issue or
changing
> issue, they use tubulars for the reasons stated above. Plus oohhh so many
are
> opting for all carbon rims, which lend themselves to tubulars, not
clinchers.
>
> if you got a bunch of flats with tubies and needed a tire with lots of
> pressure, I think you missed the boat as to their 'advantages'. But if you
are
> happy with clinchers, groovy-now go ride.
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Here are the basic advantages
> - Tubular wheels are 200 grams lighter per wheel (including tires, tubes,
> rim strip, etc.)
> - They are inpervious to pinch flats
> - you can ride them at a lower pressure because of the above - comfort
> - Safety. When tubies go flat they do not turn into some writhing mess of
> rubber on the rim while you're coasting to a stop. I cannot imagine what
> happens to clincher riders during a sudden blowout at high speed -
> especially while cornering.

I can speak to that last one. I was descending Highway 84 from Sky L'onda
into Woodside at a pretty decent speed three years ago, and hit a chunk of
glass that took out my front tire. Somehow, don't know how, but somehow I
managed to stay up through the "S" curve (which I straightened out so it
wasn't much of an "S" anymore) and slowed down very gradually on my rear
brake alone. Took some time, with the result being that the sidewall of my
front tire was pretty nastily shredded. Had to take the box my spare tube
came in and tear it up into a whole lot of pieces, plugging the largest of
the casing holes, and then inflate to maybe 50psi and limp home the rest of
the way (about 6 miles, fortunately).

The tire stayed on the rim, by the way, and was far more controllable than I
would have expected.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[SDMike]

<snip>
> >
> Take a look again, it looks more like Beloki hit his rear brake too hard,
> thus locking up his rear wheel and crashing. Yes, the tubie came off the
> wheel, but his locking up the rear brake caused his crash!
>
I could be mis-seeing things, but that's what I saw. He skidded, slid sideways,
THEN fell off like a bag of concrete.

If anyone cares to post a link to where we can all see it and dissect it, it'd
be appreciated.

M

[SDMike]

<snip>s.
>
> This is absolutely true. But you might wonder why, with all these
> advantages, people are dumping their tubular wheels in garage sales.
>

Lots of reasons. Most of them having to do with the gluing of the tires. It is
becoming an arcane thing, kinda like alchemy.

For daily training, I'll ride clinchers. For "hill rides" I have a pair of
GL330 wheels. For crits I have a pair of tubular Zipp 404s. At the track I
race another pair of Zipps. Its like only having a hammer. All of a sudden
everything looks like a nail...

I've trained on tubulars in the recent past with nary a problem. If I KNOW I'm
riding up and down the 101 I know I don't have as big an issue with multiple
flats cause there's always someone that can come pick you up if you REALLY need
it.

Its getting out in the East Co. that worries me these days. If you're out there
in the boonies and get multiple flats with tubulars at N+1 you're screwed. N
being the number of tubulars you've brought with you. Used to be more people
would have tubulars with them so you could bum one till you got back. Not any
more.

Tubulars have their place. These days it is special use tires. When they
figure out carbon clinchers and get the price down, then tubulars may have an
even harder time.

Hopefully that day won't come any time soon!

M
The times I have had a tire that I've had to change out on the side of the road,
its been almost as big a PITA to get the "new" tire off the rim as it was the
one that flatted. I have no worries about trying to get home on a spare. I'm
not going to go race a crit on a non-glued tire, but JRA in a more or less
straight line is no problem.

[Dave Mayer]

"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> I'd say no more than 100g total weight savings for a tubular versus a
comparable clincher.
>
Wrong. I'm riding every day on the following rims:
Assos
Super Champion Arc en Ciel
GEL 280's
All under 300 grams. Open Pro's are what - 420 grams? Sun 14's 400 grams?
Then add rim stips. Rims have been getting heavier because of larger dish
in 9-speed wheels and low spoke counts. Another advantage of tubulars - you
can avoid buying the current generation of porky rims.

Durability: I ride tubies every day to work. This is in the rain and half
of the year in the dark. I hit a railway track hard in March with a Super
Champion, leaving a flat spot. Unwinding a couple of spokes and hitting the
spot with an appropriately shaped piece of wood fixed that. Try that with a
clincher. In any case, I have several racks of spare new rims that local
shops were glad to sell to me at a few bucks each.

> Not really. In the circumstances you describe, hitting a pothole, I have
> had pinch flats with tubulars.

I've never had a pinch flat on tubies in 30 years. I've had dozens of pinch
flats on mountain bike clinchers.
On tubies, I've hit things on the road so hard that I almost came off the
front of the bike, but no flats. How heavy are you?

> > Safety. When tubies go flat they do not turn into some writhing mess of
> > rubber on the rim while you're coasting to a stop.
>
Forgot to mention: when you have a blowout on clinchers you're faced with
the riding the 2 metal rails of death until you can try to make a stop.
I've have several terrifying incidents trying to control a mountain bike
just after blowouts. Blowouts due to pinch flats.

> > I've ridden the same set of tubulars for the last 5 months. No flats.
>
> 5 months without a flat is hardly a record.
>
It is if you're commuting every day in the rain and in the dark on 250 gram
tires.

> > Second clincher ride today. The rim strip blows through while I'm on
> > the road. Some green plastic thing. That never happens on tubies.
>
> If you use ****ty equipment, it would.

Tubulars are obviously superior due to low weight, safety, and faster tire
changes. Pros ride tubulars. If the tire sponsors say the riders are on
clinchers - they're not. Those riders who are sponsored by tire companies
that only make clinchers are still riding tubulars but with with stick-on
labels.

[Zog The Undeniable]

Dave Mayer wrote:

> Tubulars are obviously superior due to low weight, safety, and faster tire
> changes.

Faster changes are completely irrelevant to pros, who get a whole new
wheel. Even for amateurs on the road, you're best advised to re-glue
the new tyre properly when you get home and should ride accordingly
until this has been done. Replacing a track tubular properly takes half
a lifetime, with all those layers of shellac.

Pros ride tubulars. If the tire sponsors say the riders are on
> clinchers - they're not. Those riders who are sponsored by tire companies
> that only make clinchers are still riding tubulars but with with stick-on
> labels.

How do you know this?

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mike J-<< Funny, when I raced one of the supposed advantages of sew-ups
(tubulars) was
that you could very quickly tear off the old one and put on a new one.
>><BR><BR>

I said 'repair', not replace. Ya know, patching a tube?

Here we go again-

>><< #1: Cost. You can buy high-quality nice-riding clinchers for anywhere
from
$25-$50. On the other hand, cheapie sew-ups ride like a rock, and the
really nice ones cost from $70-125. Ouch! >><BR><BR>

A $25 tubie rides better than a $25 clincher, samo for a $50 anything, My
opinion, of course. I think it may have been a while since you rode a tubie
Mike.

<< #2: Availability. Clinchers are everywhere. Sew-ups? >><BR><BR>

Can only speak for Boulder, where 4 shops carry them.

< #4: No fear of a tire rolling off the rim because you flatted and had to
trust the "old" glue to hold a new tire on. >><BR><BR>

The worse crash I ever saw in a race was a clincher that flatted and rolled
off. If you put your spare tubie on and ride the same aggersive way your are
dummmm.

If ya like clincher, particularly the $65+ variety(you and I both pay way less
for tires), great and swell but I see no compelling reason to switch from
tubies to clinchers.


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Zog-<< on the other hand, only the best (i.e. expensive)
tubulars are worth having as the cheap ones can be lumpy and badly made.
>><BR><BR>

I use Clement Futuras on the front all the time, they cost $7 per, work well.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Jobst-<< I should document what we discovered in the days of yore, so that new
riders didn't have to listen to the myth and lore of tubulars that we
heard. Although most of it had a faint basis in fact, it was terribly
misleading and essentially worthless. >><BR><BR>

You are so sweet Jobst. The crappola I hear about clinchers seem to be
approaching myth and lore dimensions.

` Admit for once( I doubt it!!) that you have not used, seen, touched or
ridden a tubie made in the last 10 years, have no first hand knowledge of
modern tubies, have not done any personal testing of modern tubies.

So what do youi base your ire of tubies on??
Were you shunned by one of the European tire makers as a young cyclist?

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

[Mark Hickey]

"SDMike" > wrote:

><snip>
>> >
>> Take a look again, it looks more like Beloki hit his rear brake too hard,
>> thus locking up his rear wheel and crashing. Yes, the tubie came off the
>> wheel, but his locking up the rear brake caused his crash!
>>
>I could be mis-seeing things, but that's what I saw. He skidded, slid sideways,
>THEN fell off like a bag of concrete.
>
>If anyone cares to post a link to where we can all see it and dissect it, it'd
>be appreciated.

This was discussed to death about a year ago. It's clear he simply
entered the corner too fast (Lance said so, too...) and got sideways
on the hot, VERY slick tar (Phil Liggett had just commented on that
when it happened). He was going to crash, tubular or not. Sad day
for the race (and an amazing bike handling seminar given by Mr.
Armstrong).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"Dave Mayer" > wrote:

>Second clincher ride today. The rim strip blows through while I'm on the
>road. Some green plastic thing. That never happens on tubies. Instead of
>a 2 minute change with tubulars, the fix involves begging for electrical
>tape to wrap the rim,<snip>

Here's a way to cheat... just reposition the rim strip so the "virgin
parts" are over the spoke holes, and punch a new hole for the tube's
stem. That'll certainly get you home (and will actually last quite a
while unless the rim strip has dissolved for some chemical reason).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 08:22:28 -0700, Mark Hickey >
wrote:

>"SDMike" > wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>> >
>>> Take a look again, it looks more like Beloki hit his rear brake too hard,
>>> thus locking up his rear wheel and crashing. Yes, the tubie came off the
>>> wheel, but his locking up the rear brake caused his crash!
>>>
>>I could be mis-seeing things, but that's what I saw. He skidded, slid sideways,
>>THEN fell off like a bag of concrete.
>>
>>If anyone cares to post a link to where we can all see it and dissect it, it'd
>>be appreciated.
>
>This was discussed to death about a year ago. It's clear he simply
>entered the corner too fast (Lance said so, too...) and got sideways
>on the hot, VERY slick tar (Phil Liggett had just commented on that
>when it happened). He was going to crash, tubular or not. Sad day
>for the race (and an amazing bike handling seminar given by Mr.
>Armstrong).

The threads are easily Googled. Yes, it was discussed quite a bit.
There was a question about whether one frame of the televised coverage
showed sew-up tape still stuck to the rim after the tire peeled, but
without re-reading the entire thread, I'll rely on the recollection
that it was reported somewhere that the crash was not due to tire
failure. Lance Armstrong's emergency maneuver was not one that I'd
have wanted to be faced with.

[[email protected]]

On 20 Jun 2004 11:18:37 -0700,
(Russell Seaton) wrote:

>> I may have missed some convincing post or link for or
>> against this 80% figure, so it would be nice if anyone would
>> rub my curious nose in the facts.
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/
>
>About half way down this page you will see Pro Bikes and a couple
>links for 2004, 2003, and 2002 bikes. And a Bikes of the Peloton
>heading. Plus a variety of other links showing the bikes actually
>ridden by pros at the various races. The types of tires used on the
>bikes are usually mentioned. You can see and count how many use
>tubulars or clinchers yourself.

Dear Russell,

Alas, I can't tell a clincher from a tubular in most photos.

Is there an easy way for the clueless to tell with just a
glance at a small picture?

The articles usually limit themselves to stating what a
single example bike uses, such as Sylvester Szmyd's "Mavic
Cosmic front (clincher) and Comete Disc rear (tubular)":

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=road/2004/giro04/tech/bikes_prologue

Sylvester seems admirably even-handed, riding on both kinds
of tires, but that's the only mention in the article of
tubulars or clinchers.

What I want is a simple study in which hundreds of European
pros are shot with tranquilizer darts on a relatively
straight and safe section of the course , have their tires
carefully checked (posts have claimed that pros lie with
labels and use tubulars when supposedly riding clinchers
from their sponsors), and are then released again into the
wild with ear tags excusing them from drug tests for 48
hours.

Failing that, links to articles mentioning that team
so-and-so is riding all-tubular or all-clincher this year
and confidently predicts victory. Or to wicked articles
exposing tubulars hiding under clincher labels (no one seems
to suggest that any pros are secretly riding clinchers with
tubular labels).

Ten per cent tubular? Fifty? Ninety? The original post that
provoked the anti-clincher posters said that a tv announcer
claimed that 80% of the pros are riding on Elmer's glue.

As an ignoramus, I'm increasingly entertained by the
spectacle of so many experts on rec.bicycles.tech arguing
vehemently about tubulars and clinchers without being able
to say with much credibility what the pros actually ride on.
(Somehow, I doubt that any pros listen to the faint noises
from our little backwater.)

For what it's worth, extensive investigation shows a
perfectly even split between tubulars and clinchers among
professional computer consultants and professional
cardiologists at my end of the block.

My touring bike and Fury RoadMaster are sensibly equipped
with clinchers, while my next-door-neighbors shipped a pair
of bikes with tubulars to Italy for their vacation last
year, the poor mad fools--they may have thought that they
had fun, but I know better. Still, that suggests that 100%
of European pros from Pueblo, Colorado, are on tubulars.

Carl Fogel

[Benjamin Lewis]

wrote:

> As an ignoramus, I'm increasingly entertained by the
> spectacle of so many experts on rec.bicycles.tech arguing
> vehemently about tubulars and clinchers without being able
> to say with much credibility what the pros actually ride on.

I suspect that many on rec.bicycles.tech don't think "what the pros
actually ride on" is any indication of merit for a particular type of tire.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Hey! I'm only fourteen, sickly 'n' thin
Tried all of my life just to grow me a chin
It popped out once, but my dad pushed it in. -- FZ

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:49:53 -0600,
wrote:

>On 20 Jun 2004 11:18:37 -0700,
>(Russell Seaton) wrote:
>
>>> I may have missed some convincing post or link for or
>>> against this 80% figure, so it would be nice if anyone would
>>> rub my curious nose in the facts.
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/
>>
>>About half way down this page you will see Pro Bikes and a couple
>>links for 2004, 2003, and 2002 bikes. And a Bikes of the Peloton
>>heading. Plus a variety of other links showing the bikes actually
>>ridden by pros at the various races. The types of tires used on the
>>bikes are usually mentioned. You can see and count how many use
>>tubulars or clinchers yourself.
>
>Dear Russell,
>
>Alas, I can't tell a clincher from a tubular in most photos.
>
>Is there an easy way for the clueless to tell with just a
>glance at a small picture?
>
>The articles usually limit themselves to stating what a
>single example bike uses, such as Sylvester Szmyd's "Mavic
>Cosmic front (clincher) and Comete Disc rear (tubular)":
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=road/2004/giro04/tech/bikes_prologue
>
>Sylvester seems admirably even-handed, riding on both kinds
>of tires, but that's the only mention in the article of
>tubulars or clinchers.
>
>What I want is a simple study in which hundreds of European
>pros are shot with tranquilizer darts on a relatively
>straight and safe section of the course , have their tires
>carefully checked (posts have claimed that pros lie with
>labels and use tubulars when supposedly riding clinchers
>from their sponsors), and are then released again into the
>wild with ear tags excusing them from drug tests for 48
>hours.
>
>Failing that, links to articles mentioning that team
>so-and-so is riding all-tubular or all-clincher this year
>and confidently predicts victory. Or to wicked articles
>exposing tubulars hiding under clincher labels (no one seems
>to suggest that any pros are secretly riding clinchers with
>tubular labels).
>
>Ten per cent tubular? Fifty? Ninety? The original post that
>provoked the anti-clincher posters said that a tv announcer
>claimed that 80% of the pros are riding on Elmer's glue.
>
>As an ignoramus, I'm increasingly entertained by the
>spectacle of so many experts on rec.bicycles.tech arguing
>vehemently about tubulars and clinchers without being able
>to say with much credibility what the pros actually ride on.
>(Somehow, I doubt that any pros listen to the faint noises
>from our little backwater.)
>
>For what it's worth, extensive investigation shows a
>perfectly even split between tubulars and clinchers among
>professional computer consultants and professional
>cardiologists at my end of the block.
>
>My touring bike and Fury RoadMaster are sensibly equipped
>with clinchers, while my next-door-neighbors shipped a pair
>of bikes with tubulars to Italy for their vacation last
>year, the poor mad fools--they may have thought that they
>had fun, but I know better. Still, that suggests that 100%
>of European pros from Pueblo, Colorado, are on tubulars.
>
>Carl Fogel


Aha! Aimless browsing turned up an interesting article about
tubulars in the Tour de France 2003, July 26, a TT stage:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4706.0.html

"Since all the riders were racing on tubular wheels today,
tire selection was somewhat limited (there are quite a few
clincher-tire options available for poor conditions, but
only two or three good choices for tubular tires). "

So it looks like 100% of the pros were using tubulars for
the TT stage last year.

Then there was this delightful explanation:

"Armstrong is officially sponsored by Hutchinson tires, but
he was seen racing on an assortment of brands during the
previous stages. This happens because Hutchinson doesn't
produce a tubular tire, but sponsors a team that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires. Hutchinson representatives
apply their own hot patch to a competitor's tire to fulfill
their sponsorship obligation."

"Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open Corsa CX's on the
previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of choice
today."

So a clincher-only tire company sponsors a team "that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires" and just pastes fake
clincher labels on what are actually another company's
tubulars?

I shudder to think what they'd do if a swimsuit model failed
to show up and there was no one handy except a bald, paunchy
assistant camera-man.

Carl Fogel

[David L. Johnson]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:46:54 +0000, Dave Mayer wrote:

>
> "David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'd say no more than 100g total weight savings for a tubular versus a
> comparable clincher.
>>
> Wrong. I'm riding every day on the following rims:
> Assos
> Super Champion Arc en Ciel
> GEL 280's
> All under 300 grams. Open Pro's are what - 420 grams? Sun 14's 400 grams?
> Then add rim stips. Rims have been getting heavier because of larger dish
> in 9-speed wheels and low spoke counts. Another advantage of tubulars - you
> can avoid buying the current generation of porky rims.

No. Not wrong. I specifically said that modern tubular rims, meant for
9-10 speed cassette wheels, would not save you that much. Sure, Super
Champions are lighter. When I got back on the bike I*had a pair of
those, and when I re-dished the wheel for 8-speed all the spoke holes on
the right side cracked.

> Durability: I ride tubies every day to work. This is in the rain and
> half of the year in the dark. I hit a railway track hard in March with
> a Super Champion, leaving a flat spot. Unwinding a couple of spokes and
> hitting the spot with an appropriately shaped piece of wood fixed that.
> Try that with a clincher. In any case, I have several racks of spare
> new rims that local shops were glad to sell to me at a few bucks each.
>
>> Not really. In the circumstances you describe, hitting a pothole, I
>> have had pinch flats with tubulars.
>
> I've never had a pinch flat on tubies in 30 years. I've had dozens of
> pinch flats on mountain bike clinchers. On tubies, I've hit things on
> the road so hard that I almost came off the front of the bike, but no
> flats. How heavy are you?

About 200 pounds these days. I have also hit things that hard on the road
without pinch flats. Using clinchers. Back in my youth I did have pinch
flats with tubulars. So have others.

> Forgot to mention: when you have a blowout on clinchers you're faced
> with the riding the 2 metal rails of death until you can try to make a
> stop. I've have several terrifying incidents trying to control a
> mountain bike just after blowouts. Blowouts due to pinch flats.

1) Pinch flats do not cause blowouts. 2) Road bike tires, of any sort,
are far different from mountain bike tires.

>
>> > I've ridden the same set of tubulars for the last 5 months. No
>> > flats.
>>
>> 5 months without a flat is hardly a record.
>>
> It is if you're commuting every day in the rain and in the dark on 250
> gram tires.

No. Not really. I have had no flats on my road bike (I*know, this is
courting danger) for over a year. Commonly I wear out tires with no
flats, or possibly 1 flat.

You forgot to respond to the bit about your rim strips. If you use good
Velox rim strips they will not cause you any trouble. If you use plastic,
they will, after a while. Simple matter of using decent equipment makes a
big difference.

> Tubulars are obviously superior due to low weight, safety, and faster
> tire changes. Pros ride tubulars.

Well, I never made it to the pro ranks. I don't even have a team car
behind me to give me a spare wheel. I don't want to bother repairing
tubulars any longer, and don't think it's good advice to riders to use
tubulars.

Like I said previously, if they are so great, how come you can get them
for practically nothing at a garage sale?

> If the tire sponsors say the riders
> are on clinchers - they're not. Those riders who are sponsored by tire
> companies that only make clinchers are still riding tubulars but with
> with stick-on labels.

Well, I'm sure you know all about that, but I haven't been close enough to
peel off the label on a pro's tire. Some do use tubulars, but by now, not
all do according to the information I have seen. But, since you know all
about that, I won't dispute it with you.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
_`\(,_ | little statesmen and philosophers and divines. --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:01:54 -0700, Benjamin Lewis
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> As an ignoramus, I'm increasingly entertained by the
>> spectacle of so many experts on rec.bicycles.tech arguing
>> vehemently about tubulars and clinchers without being able
>> to say with much credibility what the pros actually ride on.
>
>I suspect that many on rec.bicycles.tech don't think "what the pros
>actually ride on" is any indication of merit for a particular type of tire.

Dear Benjamin,

I suspect that many pros don't think what rec.bicycles.tech
posters think is any indication of merit for a particular
type of tire.

Carl Fogel

[Benjamin Lewis]

wrote:

> > wrote:
>>
>> I suspect that many on rec.bicycles.tech don't think "what the pros
>> actually ride on" is any indication of merit for a particular type of
>> tire.
>
> I suspect that many pros don't think what rec.bicycles.tech posters think
> is any indication of merit for a particular type of tire.

Nor should they. They should examine the arguments for and against, and
decide for themselves.

If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be interested
in listening to what they had to say, but without this I don't consider
their preferences themselves to be useful information.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Hey! I'm only fourteen, sickly 'n' thin
Tried all of my life just to grow me a chin
It popped out once, but my dad pushed it in. -- FZ

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:24:29 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:46:54 +0000, Dave Mayer wrote:
>
>>
>> "David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...

[snip lots of exciting argument about clinchers versus
tubulars]

>> Tubulars are obviously superior due to low weight, safety, and faster
>> tire changes. Pros ride tubulars.
>
>Well, I never made it to the pro ranks. I don't even have a team car
>behind me to give me a spare wheel. I don't want to bother repairing
>tubulars any longer, and don't think it's good advice to riders to use
>tubulars.
>
>Like I said previously, if they are so great, how come you can get them
>for practically nothing at a garage sale?
>
>> If the tire sponsors say the riders
>> are on clinchers - they're not. Those riders who are sponsored by tire
>> companies that only make clinchers are still riding tubulars but with
>> with stick-on labels.
>
>Well, I'm sure you know all about that, but I haven't been close enough to
>peel off the label on a pro's tire. Some do use tubulars, but by now, not
>all do according to the information I have seen. But, since you know all
>about that, I won't dispute it with you.

Dear Daves,

Concerning how many pros are using tubulars and whether
famous companies are sticking clincher labels on tubular
tires, here's my recent babble elsewhere in this thread:

Aha! Aimless browsing turned up an interesting article about
tubulars in the Tour de France 2003, July 26, a TT stage:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4706.0.html

"Since all the riders were racing on tubular wheels today,
tire selection was somewhat limited (there are quite a few
clincher-tire options available for poor conditions, but
only two or three good choices for tubular tires). "

So it looks like 100% of the pros were using tubulars for
the TT stage last year.

Then there was this delightful explanation:

"Armstrong is officially sponsored by Hutchinson tires, but
he was seen racing on an assortment of brands during the
previous stages. This happens because Hutchinson doesn't
produce a tubular tire, but sponsors a team that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires. Hutchinson representatives
apply their own hot patch to a competitor's tire to fulfill
their sponsorship obligation."

"Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open Corsa CX's on the
previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of choice
today."

So a clincher-only tire company sponsors a team "that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires" and just pastes fake
clincher labels on what are actually another company's
tubulars?

I shudder to think what they'd do if a swimsuit model failed
to show up and there was no one handy except a bald, paunchy
assistant camera-man.

Carl Fogel

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Benjamin Lewis > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect that many on rec.bicycles.tech don't think "what the pros
> >> actually ride on" is any indication of merit for a particular type of
> >> tire.
> >
> > I suspect that many pros don't think what rec.bicycles.tech posters think
> > is any indication of merit for a particular type of tire.
>
> Nor should they. They should examine the arguments for and against, and
> decide for themselves.
>
> If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be interested
> in listening to what they had to say, but without this I don't consider
> their preferences themselves to be useful information.

In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences are
so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros have
(albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy doses of
myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.

I mean, sure, Lance loves Trek, and Trek loves Lance, and he very
reasonably rides Trek's bikes for the whole Tour. But he is a also a
paid endorser, so You can guess that while Trek's bikes might be good
enough, that doesn't mean they're his first choice (maybe Lance likes
the ride characteristics of a nice TiG-welded steel frame, and secretly
does midnight training rides on a custom one with Trek stickers all over
it).

But if we were to note that, oho, for a particular stage Lance was
riding a bike that very definitely wasn't OCLV, or was using a helmet
that very definitely wasn't a Giro (stickers to the contrary
notwithstanding), well, that would be pretty damning suggestion that the
company's product wasn't up to the job.

Sponsorship-fudging is very common in motorsports, too. For a while in
AMA motorcycle racing, figuring out who was cheating on their tire
sponsors was the most popular guessing game on the track.

I have to tell this story from imperfect memory, but it was from the
"Bad Wrap" issue of Cycle Canada a few years ago; I can look it up if
necessary: a rider was having trouble with buffeting and fit with his
sponsored helmet, so he switched to an Arai (very nice helmet) and went
out and won the race (I want to say it was a an Isle of Man TT). Arai
noticed, and ran some magazine ads pointing this out. And really, they
have a point.

I ride on clinchers, because I have them, and because they're cheap, and
because I can get the tires.
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 14:23:44 -0600,
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:49:53 -0600,
>wrote:
>
>>On 20 Jun 2004 11:18:37 -0700,
>>(Russell Seaton) wrote:
>>
>>>> I may have missed some convincing post or link for or
>>>> against this 80% figure, so it would be nice if anyone would
>>>> rub my curious nose in the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/
>>>
>>>About half way down this page you will see Pro Bikes and a couple
>>>links for 2004, 2003, and 2002 bikes. And a Bikes of the Peloton
>>>heading. Plus a variety of other links showing the bikes actually
>>>ridden by pros at the various races. The types of tires used on the
>>>bikes are usually mentioned. You can see and count how many use
>>>tubulars or clinchers yourself.
>>
>>Dear Russell,
>>
>>Alas, I can't tell a clincher from a tubular in most photos.
>>
>>Is there an easy way for the clueless to tell with just a
>>glance at a small picture?
>>
>>The articles usually limit themselves to stating what a
>>single example bike uses, such as Sylvester Szmyd's "Mavic
>>Cosmic front (clincher) and Comete Disc rear (tubular)":
>>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=road/2004/giro04/tech/bikes_prologue
>>
>>Sylvester seems admirably even-handed, riding on both kinds
>>of tires, but that's the only mention in the article of
>>tubulars or clinchers.
>>
>>What I want is a simple study in which hundreds of European
>>pros are shot with tranquilizer darts on a relatively
>>straight and safe section of the course , have their tires
>>carefully checked (posts have claimed that pros lie with
>>labels and use tubulars when supposedly riding clinchers
>>from their sponsors), and are then released again into the
>>wild with ear tags excusing them from drug tests for 48
>>hours.
>>
>>Failing that, links to articles mentioning that team
>>so-and-so is riding all-tubular or all-clincher this year
>>and confidently predicts victory. Or to wicked articles
>>exposing tubulars hiding under clincher labels (no one seems
>>to suggest that any pros are secretly riding clinchers with
>>tubular labels).
>>
>>Ten per cent tubular? Fifty? Ninety? The original post that
>>provoked the anti-clincher posters said that a tv announcer
>>claimed that 80% of the pros are riding on Elmer's glue.
>>
>>As an ignoramus, I'm increasingly entertained by the
>>spectacle of so many experts on rec.bicycles.tech arguing
>>vehemently about tubulars and clinchers without being able
>>to say with much credibility what the pros actually ride on.
>>(Somehow, I doubt that any pros listen to the faint noises
>>from our little backwater.)
>>
>>For what it's worth, extensive investigation shows a
>>perfectly even split between tubulars and clinchers among
>>professional computer consultants and professional
>>cardiologists at my end of the block.
>>
>>My touring bike and Fury RoadMaster are sensibly equipped
>>with clinchers, while my next-door-neighbors shipped a pair
>>of bikes with tubulars to Italy for their vacation last
>>year, the poor mad fools--they may have thought that they
>>had fun, but I know better. Still, that suggests that 100%
>>of European pros from Pueblo, Colorado, are on tubulars.
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>
>Aha! Aimless browsing turned up an interesting article about
>tubulars in the Tour de France 2003, July 26, a TT stage:
>
>http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4706.0.html
>
>"Since all the riders were racing on tubular wheels today,
>tire selection was somewhat limited (there are quite a few
>clincher-tire options available for poor conditions, but
>only two or three good choices for tubular tires). "
>
>So it looks like 100% of the pros were using tubulars for
>the TT stage last year.
>
>Then there was this delightful explanation:
>
>"Armstrong is officially sponsored by Hutchinson tires, but
>he was seen racing on an assortment of brands during the
>previous stages. This happens because Hutchinson doesn't
>produce a tubular tire, but sponsors a team that almost
>exclusively uses tubular tires. Hutchinson representatives
>apply their own hot patch to a competitor's tire to fulfill
>their sponsorship obligation."
>
>"Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open Corsa CX's on the
>previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of choice
>today."
>
>So a clincher-only tire company sponsors a team "that almost
>exclusively uses tubular tires" and just pastes fake
>clincher labels on what are actually another company's
>tubulars?
>
>I shudder to think what they'd do if a swimsuit model failed
>to show up and there was no one handy except a bald, paunchy
>assistant camera-man.
>
>Carl Fogel

Oh, dear! Now that I've plugged a few more terms into a
google search, it looks as if the people who cover the pros
keep coming up with figures like 80-90% of the riders
rolling along on tubulars:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4588.0.html

"Happily, when it came to tire choice, the experts were a
little more forthcoming. Michael Cook of Shreveport,
Louisiana, wrote us to ask whether any teams were riding
clinchers, and whether extra steps were being taken to
ensure that tubulars were thoroughly glued onto the rims.

"Michael, in my estimation, about 90 percent of the peloton
uses tubular tires in competition. CSC mechanic Craig Geater
told me that his team mostly trains on clinchers, but races
on tubulars.

"With 34 Zipp wheels for regular stages, 21 for time trials,
seven more specifically for hill climbing, five extras and
six sets as back-up back-ups, gluing up these tires can be
quite time-consuming.

"'Bjarne (Riis) won't allow us to pre-stretch the tires, so
after a day of gluing up we get pretty tired wrestling with
super-tight tires,'said Geater.

"Even more interesting was the number of teams using tubular
tires bearing brands of companies that don't make tubular
tires. Although it's never done in public, some tire
manufacturers (and saddle makers as well) have portable
hot-patch machines that roll their logos onto a competitor's
blacked-out tires. For example, Hutchinson doesn't make a
tubular, but Hutchinson-supported teams all sported
'Hutchinson' tires - even though most of the tires I saw
were Vittoria Pro CXs.

--Andrew Juskaitis, VeloNews technical editor, July 18,
2003

So even the mechanics are saying mostly tubulars in
interviews with oodles of detail about exactly how many
spare wheels have to be prepared--it's not just television
commentators.

Carl Fogel

[Tim McNamara]

Mark Hickey > writes:

> "Dave Mayer" > wrote:
>
>>Second clincher ride today. The rim strip blows through while I'm
>>on the road. Some green plastic thing. That never happens on
>>tubies. Instead of a 2 minute change with tubulars, the fix
>>involves begging for electrical tape to wrap the rim,<snip>

It never happens with a clincher and Velox rim tape, eiter.

> Here's a way to cheat... just reposition the rim strip so the
> "virgin parts" are over the spoke holes, and punch a new hole for
> the tube's stem. That'll certainly get you home (and will actually
> last quite a while unless the rim strip has dissolved for some
> chemical reason).

Good idea.

[Tim McNamara]

Ryan Cousineau > writes:

> In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences
> are so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
> preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros
> have (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy
> doses of myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.

Or at least think there is a competitive advantage, which placebo
effect may be all they need to actually perform a little better. But
this sort of thing isn't new- there have been small framebuilders that
built bikes for all the top pros which were then repainted in team
colors. Pegoretti is the most recent example of a framebuilder that
made a living this way and is reputed to have built Indurain's,
Chiappucci's and some of Lemond's frames.

> But if we were to note that, oho, for a particular stage Lance was
> riding a bike that very definitely wasn't OCLV,

He used a Lightspeed Blade TT bike repainted as a Trek for several
years. He won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted up as
a Merckx.

[Benjamin Lewis]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis > wrote:
>>
>> If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be
>> interested in listening to what they had to say, but without this I
>> don't consider their preferences themselves to be useful information.
>
> In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences are
> so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
> preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros have
> (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy doses of
> myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.

Certainly -- that's why I'd be particularly interested in hearing their
reasons. My personal suspicion is that this is a case of myth, lore, and
tradition, but so far it's only a suspicion. The case for clinchers
certainly isn't as strong for pro racers, who don't have to deal with flats
themselves. Probably the increased rolling resistance of tubular tires is
not large enough to be particularly significant.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

[[email protected]]

Benjamin Lewis writes:

>>> If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be
>>> interested in listening to what they had to say, but without this
>>> I don't consider their preferences themselves to be useful
>>> information.

>> In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences
>> are so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
>> preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros
>> have (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy
>> doses of myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.

> Certainly -- that's why I'd be particularly interested in hearing
> their reasons. My personal suspicion is that this is a case of
> myth, lore, and tradition, but so far it's only a suspicion. The
> case for clinchers certainly isn't as strong for pro racers, who
> don't have to deal with flats themselves. Probably the increased
> rolling resistance of tubular tires is not large enough to be
> particularly significant.

How could they know about RR values among tires? They don't read
these newsgroups nor do their sponsors. If they did, some of these
discussions would have more effect on products. I would be surprised
if the RR graphs seen here were seen by other tire manufacturers and
professional team managers... or for that matter understood by them.

Jobst Brandt

[Benjamin Lewis]

jobst brandt wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis writes:
>
>>>> If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be
>>>> interested in listening to what they had to say, but without this
>>>> I don't consider their preferences themselves to be useful
>>>> information.
>
>>> In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences
>>> are so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
>>> preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros
>>> have (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy
>>> doses of myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.
>
>> Certainly -- that's why I'd be particularly interested in hearing
>> their reasons. My personal suspicion is that this is a case of
>> myth, lore, and tradition, but so far it's only a suspicion. The
>> case for clinchers certainly isn't as strong for pro racers, who
>> don't have to deal with flats themselves. Probably the increased
>> rolling resistance of tubular tires is not large enough to be
>> particularly significant.
>
> How could they know about RR values among tires? They don't read
> these newsgroups nor do their sponsors. If they did, some of these
> discussions would have more effect on products. I would be surprised
> if the RR graphs seen here were seen by other tire manufacturers and
> professional team managers... or for that matter understood by them.

I think you're right. My point was that any RR performance penalties
associated with tubulars are probably small enough that myths are able to
persist. If the difference were a couple orders of magnitude larger,
people might start to think that perhaps something was wrong with their
assumptions.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:53:05 -0700, Benjamin Lewis
> wrote:

>jobst brandt wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Lewis writes:
>>
>>>>> If the pros discussed their reasons for their preferences I'd be
>>>>> interested in listening to what they had to say, but without this
>>>>> I don't consider their preferences themselves to be useful
>>>>> information.
>>
>>>> In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences
>>>> are so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
>>>> preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros
>>>> have (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy
>>>> doses of myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.
>>
>>> Certainly -- that's why I'd be particularly interested in hearing
>>> their reasons. My personal suspicion is that this is a case of
>>> myth, lore, and tradition, but so far it's only a suspicion. The
>>> case for clinchers certainly isn't as strong for pro racers, who
>>> don't have to deal with flats themselves. Probably the increased
>>> rolling resistance of tubular tires is not large enough to be
>>> particularly significant.
>>
>> How could they know about RR values among tires? They don't read
>> these newsgroups nor do their sponsors. If they did, some of these
>> discussions would have more effect on products. I would be surprised
>> if the RR graphs seen here were seen by other tire manufacturers and
>> professional team managers... or for that matter understood by them.
>
>I think you're right. My point was that any RR performance penalties
>associated with tubulars are probably small enough that myths are able to
>persist. If the difference were a couple orders of magnitude larger,
>people might start to think that perhaps something was wrong with their
>assumptions.

Dear Benjamin and Jobst,

Or perhaps they have tire rolling resistance data more
recent than 1986? And didn't lose all but one of the data
sets?

Or perhaps the pros have sound reasons other than rolling
resistance for what seems to be an overwhelming preference
for tubulars?

It seems likely that clinchers offer no useful advantage to
the pros, since they train on clinchers, but race on
tubulars, according to interviews with team mechanics.

If the rain stops, I'll go and test my Fury RoadMaster
clinchers for paddling resistance in the huge puddle by the
zoo.

Carl Fogel

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

> Or perhaps they have tire rolling resistance data more recent than
> 1986? And didn't lose all but one of the data sets?

> Or perhaps the pros have sound reasons other than rolling resistance
> for what seems to be an overwhelming preference for tubulars?

You'd be surprised how little analysis and measurement these people
do. I think you are wishful "perhapsing". Why do you think I can
make failure mode discoveries and write a book about wheels, none of
which was known to the bicycle business. In fact there have been
general counterattacks for having made such technical observations.

> It seems likely that clinchers offer no useful advantage to the
> pros, since they train on clinchers, but race on tubulars, according
> to interviews with team mechanics.

Have you done this? If so, that proves they do not know about glue
losses in tubulars mounted on "road" glue, practically the only glue
available today. I recall when the tire tests that you seen were
made, no one could explain the the offset of the tubular tires in the
RR graph even though those people who reviewed them had all ridden
tubulars for years. IRC also had no explanation for this. As I said,
I found no one who knew why there was road and track glue for tubulars
even when they were the only competition tires available.

From discussions with bicycle industry engineers, I sense they are not
aware of many materials problems they are attacking with less than
suitable designs. A classic example was the failure of an ISIS
spindle (shown here) that cracked on a sharp step in cross section, or
pedal spindles that broke that had no thread relief and many more, in
particular pedal attachment to cranks and the location of disc brake
calipers to name a few.

On the other hand, I admire their threadless head set, which actually
is a solution to the forever failing quill stem that has finally been
replaced. I assume the designers recognized the advantage but for the
lack of a definitive name decided on "threadless head set" since it
simplified that problem as well.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:24:04 GMT,
wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> Or perhaps they have tire rolling resistance data more recent than
>> 1986? And didn't lose all but one of the data sets?
>
>> Or perhaps the pros have sound reasons other than rolling resistance
>> for what seems to be an overwhelming preference for tubulars?
>
>You'd be surprised how little analysis and measurement these people
>do. I think you are wishful "perhapsing". Why do you think I can
>make failure mode discoveries and write a book about wheels, none of
>which was known to the bicycle business. In fact there have been
>general counterattacks for having made such technical observations.
>
>> It seems likely that clinchers offer no useful advantage to the
>> pros, since they train on clinchers, but race on tubulars, according
>> to interviews with team mechanics.
>
>Have you done this? If so, that proves they do not know about glue
>losses in tubulars mounted on "road" glue, practically the only glue
>available today. I recall when the tire tests that you seen were
>made, no one could explain the the offset of the tubular tires in the
>RR graph even though those people who reviewed them had all ridden
>tubulars for years. IRC also had no explanation for this. As I said,
>I found no one who knew why there was road and track glue for tubulars
>even when they were the only competition tires available.
>
>From discussions with bicycle industry engineers, I sense they are not
>aware of many materials problems they are attacking with less than
>suitable designs. A classic example was the failure of an ISIS
>spindle (shown here) that cracked on a sharp step in cross section, or
>pedal spindles that broke that had no thread relief and many more, in
>particular pedal attachment to cranks and the location of disc brake
>calipers to name a few.
>
>On the other hand, I admire their threadless head set, which actually
>is a solution to the forever failing quill stem that has finally been
>replaced. I assume the designers recognized the advantage but for the
>lack of a definitive name decided on "threadless head set" since it
>simplified that problem as well.
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

When the earlier tubular thread suggested that 80% of the
pros were racing on tubulars, here's what you said:

> Are you sure? How did he determine that that is the case? A few
> years back, I noticed that most of the riders in the Tour d'Suisse
> were on clinchers. I assumed these same riders would probably ride
> the same in other classics.
>
> I am a bit leery about quoting famous race announcers on technical
> facts after enjoying the colorful reportage of Phil Liggett over the
> years. He laces his otherwise entertaining accounts with much myth
> and lore.
>

One article cited in this thread stated that "all" racers
used tubulars on at least one stage of the 2003 Tour de
France.

Another article by a technical editor cited in this thread
answered the specific question about how many pros race on
tubulars with a figure of 90%.

Team mechanics have been cited in this thread about all the
racers training on clinchers and racing on tubulars.

The practice of putting fake clincher labels on tubulars has
also been described in articles cited in this thread.

It turns out to be common knowledge on the racing scene that
Hutchinson, for God's sake, didn't even make tubulars, yet
the US Postal Team was clearly racing on tubulars marked
"Hutchinson."

Could you have been fooled by fake clincher labels pasted
onto tubulars "in the Tour d'Suisse a few years back"?

If not, were you wishfully assuming "that these same riders
would probably ride the same in other classics"? Every
coment that I can find from people covering the races keeps
coming up with the comment that the pros pedal tubulars.

Whether they're right or wrong about the overall advantage
for a racer is open to question. But you'd be much more
convincing if you showed an awareness that the vast majority
of racers disagree with you instead of denial and then
dismissal.

I don't know if the pros are right to use tubulars, but at
least I've found out that tubulars are what they use. Let me
know if you find out otherwise.

Carl Fogel

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Tim McNamara

> He [Armstrong] won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted up as
>a Merckx.

It may be that frame was made in Belgium from tubing supplied by Lightspeed.
--TP

[bfd]

"Tom Paterson" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Tim McNamara
>
> > He [Armstrong] won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted up
as
> >a Merckx.
>
> It may be that frame was made in Belgium from tubing supplied by
Lightspeed.
> --TP
>
Who builds ti bicycles in Belgium? Its my understanding that Merckx ti bikes
are all build by Litespeed....

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 06/21/2004 08:15 PM, in article
t, "bfd"
> wrote:

>
> "Tom Paterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> From: Tim McNamara
>>
>>> He [Armstrong] won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted up
> as
>>> a Merckx.
>>
>> It may be that frame was made in Belgium from tubing supplied by
> Lightspeed.
>> --TP
>>
> Who builds ti bicycles in Belgium? Its my understanding that Merckx ti bikes
> are all build by Litespeed....



Back in the day, the AX was built by Litespeed (note correct spelling, Mr.
Paterson) ... But the EX was built by Merckx of Litespeed supplied tubing
.... at least that was the claim at the time from Gita, who has imported
Merckx frames for the past god-knows-how-long.




--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
Tim McNamara > wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau > writes:
>
> > In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences
> > are so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
> > preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros
> > have (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy
> > doses of myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.
>
> Or at least think there is a competitive advantage, which placebo
> effect may be all they need to actually perform a little better. But
> this sort of thing isn't new- there have been small framebuilders that
> built bikes for all the top pros which were then repainted in team
> colors. Pegoretti is the most recent example of a framebuilder that
> made a living this way and is reputed to have built Indurain's,
> Chiappucci's and some of Lemond's frames.

And on and on. CSC was actually using Cervelo bikes for a few years
before they became a team sponsor, and guessing which bike is really
under the paint is still a popular pastime, especially during TTs and
hillclimb stages.

Interestingly, bicycle saddles are a place where the pros, if not
outright cheating on sponsors, tend to ride stuff that isn't necessarily
the latest and greatest. They do this for the same reason that we do:
they find a saddle early in their careers that fits and doesn't make
their jubbly bits do horrible things like go numb or chafe, and they
stick with it. I'm living proof of this principle, and probably have
more Selle Italia Nitrox saddles than any bike shop in Vancouver. It was
love at first ride.

> > But if we were to note that, oho, for a particular stage Lance was
> > riding a bike that very definitely wasn't OCLV,
>
> He used a Lightspeed Blade TT bike repainted as a Trek for several
> years. He won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted up as
> a Merckx.

Precisely! Because Trek didn't really make a suitable TT bike for a
while. I guess they were a little embarrassed by that, since they then
went to the considerable expense of building an OCLV TT bike that was
basically customized to Lance's preferences for fit. It's available in
three sizes now (I like to think of the sizes as "Heras, Armstrong, and
Hincapie").

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[[email protected]]

Carl Fogel writes:

>>> Or perhaps they have tire rolling resistance data more recent than
>>> 1986? And didn't lose all but one of the data sets?

>>> Or perhaps the pros have sound reasons other than rolling
>>> resistance for what seems to be an overwhelming preference for
>>> tubulars?

>> You'd be surprised how little analysis and measurement these people
>> do. I think you are wishful "perhapsing". Why do you think I can
>> make failure mode discoveries and write a book about wheels, none
>> of which was known to the bicycle business. In fact there have
>> been general counterattacks for having made such technical
>> observations.

>>> It seems likely that clinchers offer no useful advantage to the
>>> pros, since they train on clinchers, but race on tubulars,
>>> according to interviews with team mechanics.

>> Have you done this? If so, that proves they do not know about glue
>> losses in tubulars mounted on "road" glue, practically the only
>> glue available today. I recall when the tire tests that you seen
>> were made, no one could explain the the offset of the tubular tires
>> in the RR graph even though those people who reviewed them had all
>> ridden tubulars for years. IRC also had no explanation for this.
>> As I said, I found no one who knew why there was road and track
>> glue for tubulars even when they were the only competition tires
>> available.

>> From discussions with bicycle industry engineers, I sense they are
>> not aware of many materials problems they are attacking with less
>> than suitable designs. A classic example was the failure of an
>> ISIS spindle (shown here) that cracked on a sharp step in cross
>> section, or pedal spindles that broke that had no thread relief and
>> many more, in particular pedal attachment to cranks and the
>> location of disc brake calipers to name a few.

>> On the other hand, I admire their threadless head set, which
>> actually is a solution to the forever failing quill stem that has
>> finally been replaced. I assume the designers recognized the
>> advantage but for the lack of a definitive name decided on
>> "threadless head set" since it simplified that problem as well.

> When the earlier tubular thread suggested that 80% of the pros were
> racing on tubulars, here's what you said:

>> Are you sure? How did he determine that that is the case? A few
>> years back, I noticed that most of the riders in the Tour d'Suisse
>> were on clinchers. I assumed these same riders would probably
>> ride the same in other classics.

>> I am a bit leery about quoting famous race announcers on technical
>> facts after enjoying the colorful reportage of Phil Liggett over
>> the years. He laces his otherwise entertaining accounts with much
>> myth and lore.

> One article cited in this thread stated that "all" racers used
> tubulars on at least one stage of the 2003 Tour de France.

> Another article by a technical editor cited in this thread answered
> the specific question about how many pros race on tubulars with a
> figure of 90%.

> Team mechanics have been cited in this thread about all the racers
> training on clinchers and racing on tubulars.

> The practice of putting fake clincher labels on tubulars has also
> been described in articles cited in this thread.

> It turns out to be common knowledge on the racing scene that
> Hutchinson, for God's sake, didn't even make tubulars, yet the US
> Postal Team was clearly racing on tubulars marked "Hutchinson."

> Could you have been fooled by fake clincher labels pasted onto
> tubulars "in the Tour d'Suisse a few years back"?

I didn't look at labels and talked to Bob Roll and Andy Hampsten who
were in that race. It may well be that they used tubulars in the
Klausen Pass hill climb, but on mass start stages they were on
clinchers. Coincidentally, domestique riders had to ride all sorts of
advertising equipment, such as aero wheels and streamlined frames up
that hill, their ET having no effect that day but the advertising
potential did. They had to finish within the time limit, that's all.

> If not, were you wishfully assuming "that these same riders would
> probably ride the same in other classics"? Every comment that I can
> find from people covering the races keeps coming up with the comment
> that the pros pedal tubulars.

> Whether they're right or wrong about the overall advantage for a
> racer is open to question. But you'd be much more convincing if you
> showed an awareness that the vast majority of racers disagree with
> you instead of denial and then dismissal.

> I don't know if the pros are right to use tubulars, but at least
> I've found out that tubulars are what they use. Let me know if you
> find out otherwise.

I am not convinced by such statements after having heard renowned
announcer Phil Liggett repeatedly claiming that riders were going
60mph on visibly curvy and insufficiently steep grades on the north
side of the Galibier. They can say these things to make the event
appear more esoteric than it is. Most fans are pleasantly entertained
(titillated) by these claims and tidbits about someone riding a 16lb
bicycle on some fast descent. On the other hand, I like Liggett's
style and depth of knowledge of leading riders careers.

Jobst Brandt

[[email protected]]

Robin Hubert writes:

> While we're this close to it, I'd like to request some real numbers
> in terms of energy requirements in calories and effect on
> performance in terms of time lost per some given unit of distance
> when comparing tubulars (non-hard-tac glue) and clinchers. While
> we're at it, how about the difference between 23mm and 28mm tires of
> comparable construction (like the graph of Avocet slicks on Terry
> Morse site)? In other words, if I'm a trained time trialist, have
> done all I can in regards to training, and I'm about setting world
> records and I wanted to improve my times, what would be my
> advantage?

Well first off, don't use those tires, use Avocet TT tires that have
both the light casing and thinner tread than the same basic tire the
Criterium. Then use latex tubes and the wheels of your choice. I
can't measure any of this, the machine being in storage. I would love
to have Trek (aka Damon Rinard) buy the machine from Avocet and put it
to use. I don't work for Avocet but I know the people who run the
place.

> On the other hand, I believe that it all matters to nearly nothing, in
> terms of rolling resistance, for most riders.

That's my point and that is why I would like to see up to date values
on current tires. As you see, the drag values on these charts are
damn small.

Jobst Brandt

[Benjamin Lewis]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> Interestingly, bicycle saddles are a place where the pros, if not
> outright cheating on sponsors, tend to ride stuff that isn't necessarily
> the latest and greatest. They do this for the same reason that we do:
> they find a saddle early in their careers that fits and doesn't make
> their jubbly bits do horrible things like go numb or chafe, and they
> stick with it.

Yeah, it's a little bit difficult to convince someone that they really
*are* comfortable, as they nurse their blisters. It's also
difficult to come up with reasons why your fancy new saddle technology will
give people a competitive advantage, unless it's lighter.

Perhaps someone can come up with a design that "improves pedaling motion"
or something. Get a few testimonials, and you might have something.

--
Benjamin Lewis

I regret to say that we of the FBI are powerless to act in cases of
oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
commerce. -- J. Edgar Hoover

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:05:42 GMT,
wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>> Or perhaps they have tire rolling resistance data more recent than
>>>> 1986? And didn't lose all but one of the data sets?
>
>>>> Or perhaps the pros have sound reasons other than rolling
>>>> resistance for what seems to be an overwhelming preference for
>>>> tubulars?
>
>>> You'd be surprised how little analysis and measurement these people
>>> do. I think you are wishful "perhapsing". Why do you think I can
>>> make failure mode discoveries and write a book about wheels, none
>>> of which was known to the bicycle business. In fact there have
>>> been general counterattacks for having made such technical
>>> observations.
>
>>>> It seems likely that clinchers offer no useful advantage to the
>>>> pros, since they train on clinchers, but race on tubulars,
>>>> according to interviews with team mechanics.
>
>>> Have you done this? If so, that proves they do not know about glue
>>> losses in tubulars mounted on "road" glue, practically the only
>>> glue available today. I recall when the tire tests that you seen
>>> were made, no one could explain the the offset of the tubular tires
>>> in the RR graph even though those people who reviewed them had all
>>> ridden tubulars for years. IRC also had no explanation for this.
>>> As I said, I found no one who knew why there was road and track
>>> glue for tubulars even when they were the only competition tires
>>> available.
>
>>> From discussions with bicycle industry engineers, I sense they are
>>> not aware of many materials problems they are attacking with less
>>> than suitable designs. A classic example was the failure of an
>>> ISIS spindle (shown here) that cracked on a sharp step in cross
>>> section, or pedal spindles that broke that had no thread relief and
>>> many more, in particular pedal attachment to cranks and the
>>> location of disc brake calipers to name a few.
>
>>> On the other hand, I admire their threadless head set, which
>>> actually is a solution to the forever failing quill stem that has
>>> finally been replaced. I assume the designers recognized the
>>> advantage but for the lack of a definitive name decided on
>>> "threadless head set" since it simplified that problem as well.
>
>> When the earlier tubular thread suggested that 80% of the pros were
>> racing on tubulars, here's what you said:
>
>>> Are you sure? How did he determine that that is the case? A few
>>> years back, I noticed that most of the riders in the Tour d'Suisse
>>> were on clinchers. I assumed these same riders would probably
>>> ride the same in other classics.
>
>>> I am a bit leery about quoting famous race announcers on technical
>>> facts after enjoying the colorful reportage of Phil Liggett over
>>> the years. He laces his otherwise entertaining accounts with much
>>> myth and lore.
>
>> One article cited in this thread stated that "all" racers used
>> tubulars on at least one stage of the 2003 Tour de France.
>
>> Another article by a technical editor cited in this thread answered
>> the specific question about how many pros race on tubulars with a
>> figure of 90%.
>
>> Team mechanics have been cited in this thread about all the racers
>> training on clinchers and racing on tubulars.
>
>> The practice of putting fake clincher labels on tubulars has also
>> been described in articles cited in this thread.
>
>> It turns out to be common knowledge on the racing scene that
>> Hutchinson, for God's sake, didn't even make tubulars, yet the US
>> Postal Team was clearly racing on tubulars marked "Hutchinson."
>
>> Could you have been fooled by fake clincher labels pasted onto
>> tubulars "in the Tour d'Suisse a few years back"?
>
>I didn't look at labels and talked to Bob Roll and Andy Hampsten who
>were in that race. It may well be that they used tubulars in the
>Klausen Pass hill climb, but on mass start stages they were on
>clinchers. Coincidentally, domestique riders had to ride all sorts of
>advertising equipment, such as aero wheels and streamlined frames up
>that hill, their ET having no effect that day but the advertising
>potential did. They had to finish within the time limit, that's all.
>
>> If not, were you wishfully assuming "that these same riders would
>> probably ride the same in other classics"? Every comment that I can
>> find from people covering the races keeps coming up with the comment
>> that the pros pedal tubulars.
>
>> Whether they're right or wrong about the overall advantage for a
>> racer is open to question. But you'd be much more convincing if you
>> showed an awareness that the vast majority of racers disagree with
>> you instead of denial and then dismissal.
>
>> I don't know if the pros are right to use tubulars, but at least
>> I've found out that tubulars are what they use. Let me know if you
>> find out otherwise.
>
>I am not convinced by such statements after having heard renowned
>announcer Phil Liggett repeatedly claiming that riders were going
>60mph on visibly curvy and insufficiently steep grades on the north
>side of the Galibier. They can say these things to make the event
>appear more esoteric than it is. Most fans are pleasantly entertained
>(titillated) by these claims and tidbits about someone riding a 16lb
>bicycle on some fast descent. On the other hand, I like Liggett's
>style and depth of knowledge of leading riders careers.
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Perhaps you missed the citations about how the pros are
using tubulars, not clinchers, earlier in this somewhat
tangled thread?

It ain't just Phil Liggett (who may start teasing you about
titanium sparks if you're not careful).

It's Andrew Juskaitis, VeloNews technical editor. If you
think that he was mistaken, mis-reporting his interview with
CSC mechanic Craig Geater, or making things up, I'm willing
to listen, but I doubt that he's in league with Phil
Liggett.

Here are the two posts::

#1

Aha! Aimless browsing turned up an interesting article about
tubulars in the Tour de France 2003, July 26, a TT stage:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4706.0.html

"Since all the riders were racing on tubular wheels today,
tire selection was somewhat limited (there are quite a few
clincher-tire options available for poor conditions, but
only two or three good choices for tubular tires). "

So it looks like 100% of the pros were using tubulars for
the TT stage last year.

Then there was this delightful explanation:

"Armstrong is officially sponsored by Hutchinson tires, but
he was seen racing on an assortment of brands during the
previous stages. This happens because Hutchinson doesn't
produce a tubular tire, but sponsors a team that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires. Hutchinson representatives
apply their own hot patch to a competitor's tire to fulfill
their sponsorship obligation."

"Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open Corsa CX's on the
previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of choice
today."

So a clincher-only tire company sponsors a team "that almost
exclusively uses tubular tires" and just pastes fake
clincher labels on what are actually another company's
tubulars?

I shudder to think what they'd do if a swimsuit model failed
to show up and there was no one handy except a bald, paunchy
assistant camera-man.

Carl Fogel

#2

Oh, dear! Now that I've plugged a few more terms into a
google search, it looks as if the people who cover the pros
keep coming up with figures like 80-90% of the riders
rolling along on tubulars:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tech/articles/4588.0.html

"Happily, when it came to tire choice, the experts were a
little more forthcoming. Michael Cook of Shreveport,
Louisiana, wrote us to ask whether any teams were riding
clinchers, and whether extra steps were being taken to
ensure that tubulars were thoroughly glued onto the rims.

"Michael, in my estimation, about 90 percent of the peloton
uses tubular tires in competition. CSC mechanic Craig Geater
told me that his team mostly trains on clinchers, but races
on tubulars.

"With 34 Zipp wheels for regular stages, 21 for time trials,
seven more specifically for hill climbing, five extras and
six sets as back-up back-ups, gluing up these tires can be
quite time-consuming.

"'Bjarne (Riis) won't allow us to pre-stretch the tires, so
after a day of gluing up we get pretty tired wrestling with
super-tight tires,'said Geater.

"Even more interesting was the number of teams using tubular
tires bearing brands of companies that don't make tubular
tires. Although it's never done in public, some tire
manufacturers (and saddle makers as well) have portable
hot-patch machines that roll their logos onto a competitor's
blacked-out tires. For example, Hutchinson doesn't make a
tubular, but Hutchinson-supported teams all sported
'Hutchinson' tires - even though most of the tires I saw
were Vittoria Pro CXs.

--Andrew Juskaitis, VeloNews technical editor, July 18,
2003

So even the mechanics are saying mostly tubulars in
interviews with oodles of detail about exactly how many
spare wheels have to be prepared--it's not just television
commentators.

Carl Fogel

[Tom Paterson]

>From: (Qui si parla Campagnolo )

>>bfd-<< Who builds ti bicycles in >>Belgium? Its my understanding that
>>Merckx ti bikes
>>are all build by Litespeed. >>

(vecchio):
>That is correct, even today altho the ti frameset is going away in 2005,
>fromMerckx.

FWIW, I bought an ex-Boardman Ti frame from the Merckx attic in '02, has a
Litespeed tubing sticker, also the Merckx "Belgium Handmade" stickie. Strongly
stated, "We built that one here" by "Manu" of the Merckx employ. Just a point
and def. FWIW. --TP

[dianne_1234]

On 22 Jun 2004 10:59:46 -0700, (JP)
wrote:

>I don't know what the full story is but I can tell you for a fact with
>100% certainty that Hutchinson has a Carbon Comp tubular, because I
>have them on my bike. They are not simply a hot patch over someone
>else's name- the Carbon Comp name is actually inlaid into the
>sidewall. My best understanding of the tires is that they are made for
>Hutchinson by someone else, but seemingly (I'm a little fuzzy on this
>part) to Hutchinson specs. I think they qualify as Hutchinsons. They
>*look* like Carbon Comps. If they use labels from clinchers, they were
>somehow applied during the manufacturing process, not a "Hutchinson
>rep applying a hot patch". Fortunately for me, they don't have blue
>stripes on them.
>
>I like the tires, they mounted straight, no bumps, no flats after a
>couple thousand miles. Since these tires don't technically exist I
>don't know how much they weigh. They must have latex tubes because
>they lose about 10 psi overnight. Wouldn't mind having some more of
>them.
>
>JP

Hutchinson tubulars are listed here:
http://www.bicycletires.com/tek9.asp?pg=products&grp=208

Good deduction on the air loss and latex tube! The site describes the
Hutchinson Carbon Comp tubular like this:
"Carbon Comp tubular
With its profile derived from the Carbon Competition Clincher model
for high performance, this tubular tire is hand made for serious
racing. LATEX inner tube. Supple and Comfortable high-pressure
tubular tire (black only)."

[Tim McNamara]

(Tom Paterson) writes:

>>From: Tim McNamara
>
>> He [Armstrong] won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted
>>up as a Merckx.
>
> It may be that frame was made in Belgium from tubing supplied by
> Lightspeed.

No, It was pretty well known to be a painted Lightspeed. There were
other pros doing the same thing, as closeup photos made very clear.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:44:01 -0500, dianne_1234
> wrote:

>On 22 Jun 2004 10:59:46 -0700, (JP)
>wrote:
>
>>I don't know what the full story is but I can tell you for a fact with
>>100% certainty that Hutchinson has a Carbon Comp tubular, because I
>>have them on my bike. They are not simply a hot patch over someone
>>else's name- the Carbon Comp name is actually inlaid into the
>>sidewall. My best understanding of the tires is that they are made for
>>Hutchinson by someone else, but seemingly (I'm a little fuzzy on this
>>part) to Hutchinson specs. I think they qualify as Hutchinsons. They
>>*look* like Carbon Comps. If they use labels from clinchers, they were
>>somehow applied during the manufacturing process, not a "Hutchinson
>>rep applying a hot patch". Fortunately for me, they don't have blue
>>stripes on them.
>>
>>I like the tires, they mounted straight, no bumps, no flats after a
>>couple thousand miles. Since these tires don't technically exist I
>>don't know how much they weigh. They must have latex tubes because
>>they lose about 10 psi overnight. Wouldn't mind having some more of
>>them.
>>
>>JP
>
>Hutchinson tubulars are listed here:
>http://www.bicycletires.com/tek9.asp?pg=products&grp=208
>
>Good deduction on the air loss and latex tube! The site describes the
>Hutchinson Carbon Comp tubular like this:
>"Carbon Comp tubular
>With its profile derived from the Carbon Competition Clincher model
>for high performance, this tubular tire is hand made for serious
>racing. LATEX inner tube. Supple and Comfortable high-pressure
>tubular tire (black only)."
>

Dear Dianne and JP,

So there definitely are tubular Hutchinsons right now--JP
rides them, and Dianne points out where they're for sale.

Any idea whether these tubulars were available in June,
2003?

That is, does anyone remember riding them or seeing them for
sale a year ago, when the article that I quoted says that
Hutchinson wasn't making tubulars? If JP has been riding
them for years or Diane has been seeing them for just as
long, that will make it clear that the article was mistaken.

I do appreciate JP's careful explanation that the tubulars
may be made for Hutchinson by someone else, but JP is buying
and riding on tubulars marked "Hutchinson," so the article
that I quoted about no-Hutchinson-tubulars was either just
flat wrong a year ago or else was right then, but is now
out-dated.

Still, it's odd that the reporter would specify not only
that hot-patches were being used to add fake labels, but
would also specify which non-Hutchinson tubulars Lance
Armstrong was riding on: Vittoria's Open Corsa CX.

Confused skulduggery aside, do either of you have any
opinions about the claims that 80-90% of pros in Europe are
riding tubulars, whatever their labels may say? Unlike JP,
I've never sullied my Fury RoadMaster's feet with glue, but
I'm fascinated by how hard it seems to be to find out which
kind of tire the pros use.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

[Ted B]

Jobst Brandt wrote:
> I am not convinced by such statements after having heard renowned
> announcer Phil Liggett repeatedly claiming that riders were going 60mph
> on visibly curvy and insufficiently steep grades on the north side of
> the Galibier.





Virtually all the pros in the European races are riding tubulars. Again,
my theory is simply because changing out a wheel, be it tubular or
clincher takes the same amount of time, and the pros don't like losing
time to pinch flats.



--

[SMMB]

> a écrit dans le message de :
...


> Confused skulduggery aside, do either of you have any
> opinions about the claims that 80-90% of pros in Europe are
> riding tubulars, whatever their labels may say?

Not willing to do your research (lazy - very), you could look at the July
issue of Le Cycle, which lists all tire use by all teams in the TdF. Mostly
tubulars, some mixed (use by stage, I guess, or by rider preference), and
even the tubeless clinchers.

No obfuscation over this side in magazines.

There is no problem with labeling a product with a brand name, if the
"maker" wants the buyer to rely on his reputation. That's the whole theory
about trademarks !
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

[David L. Johnson]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:17:37 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> No, It was pretty well known to be a painted Lightspeed. There were
> other pros doing the same thing, as closeup photos made very clear.

This has gone on for decades. I recall a picture of Eddy Merckx riding
what was obviously a Masi, painted up as a Peugeot PX-10 since that was
his team sponsor. This must have been around 1970.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
_`\(,_ | plausible, and wrong. --H.L. Mencken
(_)/ (_) |

[DiabloScott]

carlfogel wrote:
> <snip>
> I do appreciate JP's careful explanation that the tubulars may be made
> for Hutchinson by someone else, but JP is buying and riding on tubulars
> marked "Hutchinson," so the article that I quoted about no-Hutchinson-
> tubulars was either just flat wrong a year ago or else was right then,
> but is now out-dated.
> Still, it's odd that the reporter would specify not only that hot-
> patches were being used to add fake labels, but would also specify
> which non-Hutchinson tubulars Lance Armstrong was riding on: Vittoria's
> Open Corsa CX.
> Thanks,
> Carl Fogel



Carl: Vittoria Open Corsa EVO CX is a clincher, it's supposed to be the
clincher equivalent of the Vittoria Corsa EVO CX (a sew-up). The "open"
is supposed to mean "open tubular" (marketing hype), I don't know what
EVO is supposed to mean - probably some new color combination.

In your previous post you quoted statements listing both types of tires
and it seemed there was some disagreement in nomenclature.

This quote ostensibly describes Lance's affinity for sew-ups while
actually naming a clincher: "Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open
Corsa CX's on the previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of
choice today."

Happily obfuscating...



--

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:01:51 GMT, DiabloScott
> wrote:

>carlfogel wrote:
> > <snip>
> > I do appreciate JP's careful explanation that the tubulars may be made
> > for Hutchinson by someone else, but JP is buying and riding on tubulars
> > marked "Hutchinson," so the article that I quoted about no-Hutchinson-
> > tubulars was either just flat wrong a year ago or else was right then,
> > but is now out-dated.
> > Still, it's odd that the reporter would specify not only that hot-
> > patches were being used to add fake labels, but would also specify
> > which non-Hutchinson tubulars Lance Armstrong was riding on: Vittoria's
> > Open Corsa CX.
> > Thanks,
> > Carl Fogel
>
>
>
>Carl: Vittoria Open Corsa EVO CX is a clincher, it's supposed to be the
>clincher equivalent of the Vittoria Corsa EVO CX (a sew-up). The "open"
>is supposed to mean "open tubular" (marketing hype), I don't know what
>EVO is supposed to mean - probably some new color combination.
>
>In your previous post you quoted statements listing both types of tires
>and it seemed there was some disagreement in nomenclature.
>
>This quote ostensibly describes Lance's affinity for sew-ups while
>actually naming a clincher: "Armstrong was seen riding Vittoria's Open
>Corsa CX's on the previous TT's, so chances are these were his tire of
>choice today."
>
>Happily obfuscating...

Dear Diablo,

A quick google and a careful peek at:

http://www.cbike.com/vittoria_tires.htm

shows that you're right. The Vittoria Corsa EVO CX is the
tubular and the clincher version adds "Open" to the name.

I suspect that the reporter saw a tubular with a fake label
and was careless with the somewhat confusing name. (Of
course, I could have goofed somewhere with the copy and
paste.)

Anyway, am I right in thinking that you're clearing up a
wrong-name mistake, but not suggesting that Armstrong was
riding on a faux-label clincher?

No matter how confused I get about the details, I still want
to find out if most of those guys are, rightly or wrongly,
pasting their tires to their rims with frog snot.

(Oh, how I wish that I had Chalo Colina's gift for the mot
juste! "Dried basset drool" and "chewing gum on steroids"
can't hold a candle to amphibian mucous when describing rim
glue.)

Carl Fogel

[Benjamin Weiner]

Benjamin Lewis > wrote:
> > In fairness, I do consider it interesting that pro tire preferences are
> > so strong that they cheat on their sponsors. This is where real
> > preferences tend to bubble up, and presumably ones that the pros have
> > (albeit with imperfect knowledge, and in some cases healthy doses of
> > myth and lore) perceived a competitive advantage.

> Certainly -- that's why I'd be particularly interested in hearing their
> reasons. My personal suspicion is that this is a case of myth, lore, and
> tradition, but so far it's only a suspicion. The case for clinchers
> certainly isn't as strong for pro racers, who don't have to deal with flats
> themselves. Probably the increased rolling resistance of tubular tires is
> not large enough to be particularly significant.

Tubular wheel/tire combinations can in fact be lighter.
Then there are the deep-dish lightweight carbon rims that
require tubulars. For most non-pro riders the advantages
would be small to nonexistent. For the pros they might
still be small to nonexistent, but as professionals they have
to try to get even small advantages, and they don't have
to deal with the disadvantages of gluing and repairing.
Also, road cycling is a sport with some fairly traditionalist
team managers, where myth and lore may come in.

In answer to the original question, "What's the point of tubular
tires?" clearly tubular tires are a device which uses antique
(or "well-established") gluing technology to generate posts to Usenet.

[Mark Hickey]

(JP) wrote:

>I don't know what the full story is but I can tell you for a fact with
>100% certainty that Hutchinson has a Carbon Comp tubular, because I
>have them on my bike.

JP's right (and far be it from me to not acknowledge that when it DOES
happen...). ;-)

The Hutchinson tubulars are available in (at least) two models...

Carbon Comp - 23mm, 100-130psi, 274g
Reflex - 21mm, 100-130psi, 270g

The Carbon Comp looks to be a VERY expensive tire - the Reflex
wholesales at about 1/3 the price. QBP carries 'em so you should be
able to get them at many, many LBS locations.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Tim McNamara]

"David L. Johnson" > writes:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:17:37 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> No, It was pretty well known to be a painted Lightspeed. There
>> were other pros doing the same thing, as closeup photos made very
>> clear.
>
> This has gone on for decades. I recall a picture of Eddy Merckx
> riding what was obviously a Masi, painted up as a Peugeot PX-10
> since that was his team sponsor. This must have been around 1970.

Absolutely! Rene Herse and Alex Singer made frames for Tour de France
racers, which were supplied unpainted and the finishing was taken care
of by the sponsor. There have been a number of not well known
builders who did nothing but this sort of work- even recently
(Pegoretti until recently, for example). Lemond rode repainted Della
Santas, Hampsten rode frames by John Slawta and parts customized by
Pino Morroni, etc. Merckx's Hour Record bike was a (IIRC) Colnago or
perhaps a De Rosa with Windsor decals on it (much to the builder's
dismay). Merckx rode De Rosas for years which were painted in team
colors. Hinault's Gitanes were built by Alain Descroix, I believe.

Sean Kelly was asked about this when he was in town several years ago.
He noted that his favorite frame was the Vitus 979 (which is evident
from the photos, he rode 979s on several different teams all with
different names on them) and mentioned that he never thought much
about their infamous flexibility. His thought was that there is less
of this sleight of hand nowadays and that teams provide very good
frames for the riders, and that the riders no longer have to resort to
having frames built privately and then painted in team colors.
Perhaps that's why Pegoretti has gone public?

[Ted B]

>>Originally posted by Benjamin Weiner:
>"Tubular wheel/tire combinations can in fact be lighter. Then
there are the deep-dish lightweight carbon rims that require tubulars.
For most non-pro riders the advantages would be small to nonexistent.
For the pros they might still be small to nonexistent, but as
professionals they have to try to get even small advantages, and they
don't have to deal with the disadvantages of gluing and repairing."




--

[A Muzi]

wrote:
-snip-
> Any idea whether these tubulars were available in June,
> 2003?
>
> That is, does anyone remember riding them or seeing them for
> sale a year ago, when the article that I quoted says that
> Hutchinson wasn't making tubulars? If JP has been riding
> them for years or Diane has been seeing them for just as
> long, that will make it clear that the article was mistaken.
-snip-


Yes I bought some Hutchinson Oro Service Course handmade
tubulars in the summer of 2003.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Tim McNamara

>>> He [Armstrong] won the World Champs in 1993 on a Lightspeed painted
>>>up as a Merckx.
>>
>> It may be that frame was made in Belgium from tubing supplied by
>> Lightspeed.
>
>No, It was pretty well known to be a painted Lightspeed. There were
>other pros doing the same thing, as >closeup photos made very clear.

Understood about frame "substitutions" as a friend worked for a framebuilder in
Italy who had a file with pro riders' names/dimensions that also included some
various decal sets. However, my point (which I posted in another thread) is
that I have an ex-Boardman Ti Merckx frame, bought from the Merckx attic, about
which "Manu", a Merckx employee, emphatically claimed "we made that one here".
Has both Litespeed and Belgium Handmade stickers on it. Again, FWIW, rides OK
no matter where made. --TP

[Ted B]

FWIW, the Velonews TDF issue offers the following quote from USPS chief team mechanic Julian Devries:

"[Armstrong]...will use special silk tubulars from Hutchinson made
especially for Lance"

As to what this means, if they are made by Hutchinson or made by another
maker for the Hutchinson label, I do not know. In any case, that's the
official word.



--