question about tubulars

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 22 Oct 2007 22:45:11
From: KV
Subject: question about tubulars

I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it? Or,
can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this allow
you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and have to
limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.

Date: 30 Oct 2007 10:32:11
From: Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 29, 6:52 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2:09 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
> > "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>
> > > Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > > Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not
> > > for training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed
> > > advantages when you're touring or training?
>
> > Apparently quite a few riding up and down North Oracle Rd, Tucson.
>
> Although, you're limited to the parade route since that may
> be one of the few places in Tucson you could ride a pair
> of carbon rims regularly without fear that the bumpy road
> patches will do them in.
>
> Ben

Don't you blaspheme in here! Tucson is one of the best cities in the
country for cycling, Bicycling magazine says so. I haven't been there
in far too long, but I recall all the streets being very smooth and
the drivers friendly!

Date: 29 Oct 2007 17:52:43
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 27, 2:09 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>
> > Phil Holman wrote:
>
> > Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not
> > for training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed
> > advantages when you're touring or training?
>
> Apparently quite a few riding up and down North Oracle Rd, Tucson.

Although, you're limited to the parade route since that may
be one of the few places in Tucson you could ride a pair
of carbon rims regularly without fear that the bumpy road
patches will do them in.

Ben

Date: 29 Oct 2007 16:32:26
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 29, 2:21 pm, Dave <d...@theuninvitedcritic.com > wrote:
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Dave who? writes:
>
> >>>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
> >>>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
> >>>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.
>
> >>>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
> >>>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
> >>>>> commonly encountered.
>
> >>>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
> >>>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
> >>>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
> >>>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.
>
> >>> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
> >>> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
> >>> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
> >>> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.
>
> >>>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
> >>>> grease to your metal rims.
>
> >>> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
> >>> information.
>
> >> Google is your friend
>
> >>http://frictioncenter.siu.edu/databaseSearch.html
>
> >> It would seem that Teflon is still more slippery than diamond, but not
> >> by much.
>
> > You did notice the pairing in that table? We don't use diamond brake
> > pads. We need the coefficient of friction between a soft brake pad
> > and a diamond to make any sense of the claim.
>
>
> I read the claim as "a polished diamond surface is slipperier than
> Teflon." I see no mention of diamond's relative performance with soft
> brake pads. If this is the case, the table referenced seems to provide
> the right comparison.

This is all quite irrelevent. Diamond is carbon and it is expensive.
Therefore it is good to have on my bike. I have a carbon diamond
frame, why not diamond carbon wheels? Would they sparkle? Who cares
how they brake? They'de be hot in a way that really matters.

Date: 28 Oct 2007 06:27:36
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 27, 8:23 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> You guys know my collection by now

I keep forgetting.

Maybe you should publish the list again, and photo links.

> and I have some of the nicest bikes
> around.

So what?

> But you and Jobst are quite correct that essentially ALL of the
> effects of these super expensive and somewhat light parts are in the eye of
> the beholder.

Just because they didn't help you, Tom...

> As for Michael - how many races have you won because of your parts again?

How many races have *you* won, Tom? --D-y

Date: 27 Oct 2007 08:01:26
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 26, 11:22 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>
> > Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> > durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> > Dan
>
> Why must a carbon rim not be as durable as metal?

Because, as Dan wrote, that's not their design point.
You could presumably make a carbon rim as durable as
an aluminum rim, but then it wouldn't be as light as
possible, and the reason to use a carbon rim is to
make it lighter (while being aero, perhaps, but
lighter).

Someone could make a magnesium stem as durable as a
Salsa steel stem by adding metal. It might still
be lighter than the Salsa. But that's not why
anyone buys magnesium stems, so they don't make them
that way.

Life is a series of engineering tradeoffs.

Ben

Date: 27 Oct 2007 15:29:36
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> > Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> > durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>>
>> > Dan
>>
>> Why must a carbon rim not be as durable as metal?
>
> Because, as Dan wrote, that's not their design point.
> You could presumably make a carbon rim as durable as
> an aluminum rim, but then it wouldn't be as light as
> possible, and the reason to use a carbon rim is to
> make it lighter (while being aero, perhaps, but
> lighter).

But it *could* be a design point and, in fact, that appears to be the case
for my particular rims. They are not as light as they could be, at 1350
grams for the pair (there are aluminum Rolf wheels that light), but seem to
be pretty darned bomb-proof. They are *not* aero; the aero versions add
another 250 grams for the pair, if I recall correctly. Still, that would be
lighter than most other aero wheels. These are clincher rims, by the way,
not tubulars.

But the point is simply that I am riding on carbon wheels that seem to have
been optimized for strength first, other things second. It does happen that
way from time to time.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1193472086.617519.9960@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 11:22 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>>
>> > Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> > durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>>
>> > Dan
>>
>> Why must a carbon rim not be as durable as metal?
>
> Because, as Dan wrote, that's not their design point.
> You could presumably make a carbon rim as durable as
> an aluminum rim, but then it wouldn't be as light as
> possible, and the reason to use a carbon rim is to
> make it lighter (while being aero, perhaps, but
> lighter).
>
> Someone could make a magnesium stem as durable as a
> Salsa steel stem by adding metal. It might still
> be lighter than the Salsa. But that's not why
> anyone buys magnesium stems, so they don't make them
> that way.
>
> Life is a series of engineering tradeoffs.
>
> Ben
>

Date: 27 Oct 2007 09:11:31
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:22 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>>
>>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>>> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>>> Dan
>> Why must a carbon rim not be as durable as metal?
>
> Because, as Dan wrote, that's not their design point.
> You could presumably make a carbon rim as durable as
> an aluminum rim, but then it wouldn't be as light as
> possible, and the reason to use a carbon rim is to
> make it lighter (while being aero, perhaps, but
> lighter)....

It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as aluminium
alloy if rim brakes are used.

[1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to brake
track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit commonly encountered.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 29 Oct 2007 12:49:38
From: Paul O
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Tom Sherman wrote:
<snip >
> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as aluminium
> alloy if rim brakes are used.
>
> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to brake
> track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit commonly
> encountered.
>
Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has a
very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond surface is
slipperier than Teflon.

Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
grease to your metal rims.
--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:31:38
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Paul D Oosterhout writes:

>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.

>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>> commonly encountered.

> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
> surface is slipperier than Teflon.

Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.

> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
> grease to your metal rims.

Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
information.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 29 Oct 2007 16:54:51
From: Paul O
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Paul D Oosterhout writes:
>
>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.
>
>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>>> commonly encountered.
>
>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.
>
> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.
>
>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
>> grease to your metal rims.
>
> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
> information.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Oops, my memory has been playing tricks on me! I looked up the
coefficient of friction on several sites and diamond has a much higher
coefficient of friction than Teflon.

Diamond's static COF on metal is 0.10 to 0.15 which is about the same as
the COF for graphite. In contrast, Teflon is much slipperier with a
static COF on steel of 0.04. See:

http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm

I don't know what's happening with my mind these days. Maybe I was
thinking about diamond's thermal conductivity...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

Date: 29 Oct 2007 21:46:34
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Paul D Oosterhout writes:

>>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.

>>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>>>> commonly encountered.

>>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
>>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
>>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
>>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.

>> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
>> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
>> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
>> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.

>>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
>>> grease to your metal rims.

>> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
>> information.

> Oops, my memory has been playing tricks on me! I looked up the
> coefficient of friction on several sites and diamond has a much
> higher coefficient of friction than Teflon.

> Diamond's static COF on metal is 0.10 to 0.15 which is about the
> same as the COF for graphite. In contrast, Teflon is much
> slipperier with a static COF on steel of 0.04. See:

http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/frictioncoefficients.htm
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm

> I don't know what's happening with my mind these days. Maybe I was
> thinking about diamond's thermal conductivity...

Graphite is not a good comparison because its lubricity arises from
adsorbed moisture. In a vacuum, (absence of water vapor) graphite is
just so much grinding grit.

Besides, my understanding of coefficient of friction is that it is a
value for a material pair. It has little meaning for a single
material. The coefficient is derived from the number of asperity
contacts and the shear force of the weaker material. For that reason,
diamond on diamond has a low value because it has few asperity
contacts from its high modulus of elasticity.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 29 Oct 2007 12:51:34
From: Dave
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Paul D Oosterhout writes:
>
>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.
>
>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>>> commonly encountered.
>
>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.
>
> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.
>
>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
>> grease to your metal rims.
>
> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
> information.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Google is your friend

http://frictioncenter.siu.edu/databaseSearch.html

It would seem that teflon is still more slippery than diamond, but not
by much.

Dave

Date: 29 Oct 2007 19:58:11
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Dave who? writes:

>>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.

>>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>>>> commonly encountered.

>>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
>>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
>>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
>>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.

>> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
>> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
>> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
>> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.

>>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
>>> grease to your metal rims.

>> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
>> information.

> Google is your friend

> http://frictioncenter.siu.edu/databaseSearch.html

> It would seem that Teflon is still more slippery than diamond, but not
> by much.

You did notice the pairing in that table? We don't use diamond brake
pads. We need the coefficient of friction between a soft brake pad
and a diamond to make any sense of the claim.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 29 Oct 2007 14:21:28
From: Dave
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Dave who? writes:
>
>>>>> It is hard to imagine a CFRP (not solely carbon [1]) rim being as
>>>>> durable as one made of even a relatively soft metal such as
>>>>> aluminium alloy if rim brakes are used.
>
>>>>> [1] A pure carbon (diamond) rim would have great resistance to
>>>>> brake track wear, as it would be harder than the silica grit
>>>>> commonly encountered.
>
>>>> Diamond rims would have great wear resistance but they would be a
>>>> terrible choice for a braking surface. This is because diamond has
>>>> a very low coefficient of friction. In fact, a polished diamond
>>>> surface is slipperier than Teflon.
>
>>> Could you give a reference to where you found that information. My
>>> experience with diamond like carbon on storage disks did not show any
>>> signs of low friction, only that the wear debris in normal atmosphere,
>>> unlike from other coatings, is benign to the disk/head interface.
>
>>>> Riding with diamond wheels would be like applying a thick layer of
>>>> grease to your metal rims.
>
>>> Again, please cite some material pairings and source for this
>>> information.
>
>> Google is your friend
>
>> http://frictioncenter.siu.edu/databaseSearch.html
>
>> It would seem that Teflon is still more slippery than diamond, but not
>> by much.
>
> You did notice the pairing in that table? We don't use diamond brake
> pads. We need the coefficient of friction between a soft brake pad
> and a diamond to make any sense of the claim.
>
> Jobst Brandt

I read the claim as "a polished diamond surface is slipperier than
Teflon." I see no mention of diamond's relative performance with soft
brake pads. If this is the case, the table referenced seems to provide
the right comparison.

Dave

Date: 27 Oct 2007 07:55:00
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 26, 7:09 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
>
> > Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
> > training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
> > when you're touring or training?
>
> > Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> > durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
> because of carbon rims?

You can't ever name a race that was won because of
a component, other than maybe Lemond's aerobars
in 1989. You never know what the influence of a
component was, unless it breaks and causes a loss.
However, racing is a game of seconds, so at the
pro level, they have to take advantage of weight
shavings and so on, whether or not you can assign
any single victory to a component improvement.

At the amateur level, of course, carbon rims aren't
for racing. They're for showing off on the Saturday
ride.

Ben

Date: 26 Oct 2007 05:30:09
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 12:22 pm, Diablo Scott <DiabloScottNOS...@terra.es > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> >> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
>
> > Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
> > end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
> > easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.
>
> Wow, I've been waiting for months for someone to ask - my photo sequence
> of my preferred spare tubie folding technique:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire

Nice set of pix..thanks!!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 10:14:26
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 25, 12:22 pm, Diablo Scott <DiabloScottNOS...@terra.es> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
>>>> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
>>> Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
>>> end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
>>> easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.
>> Wow, I've been waiting for months for someone to ask - my photo sequence
>> of my preferred spare tubie folding technique:
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire
>
> Nice set of pix..thanks!!
>

You're welcome, I just added one more you'll like:

http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire/photo#5125693388001368754

Date: 26 Oct 2007 20:25:32
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Diablo Scott writes:

>>>>> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
>>>>> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?

>>>> Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
>>>> end of tubies, turn each side 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
>>>> easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.

>>> Wow, I've been waiting for months for someone to ask - my photo sequence
>>> of my preferred spare tubie folding technique:

http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire

>> Nice set of pix..thanks!!

> You're welcome, I just added one more you'll like:

http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire/photo#5125693388001368754

Don't do that unless you get so many flats that the tire doesn't
reside there for long. As I said, four-fold the tire and then tightly
wrap it in a stiff brown paper bag and secure it under the saddle with
a toe strap. I saw enough sidewall blowouts from wear when spare
tires were casually carried as shown. It might look keen but it
doesn't work well.

Oh, and by the way, that clement tire you have in that picture was a
TT tire without carbon (it is red) and was discovered the hard way in
the days of yore to have terrible wet traction. It doesn't look like
it has much use judging from the, like new, ribbed tread.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:17:03
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Diablo Scott writes:
>
>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire/photo#5125693388001368754
>
> Don't do that unless you get so many flats that the tire doesn't
> reside there for long. As I said, four-fold the tire and then tightly
> wrap it in a stiff brown paper bag and secure it under the saddle with
> a toe strap. I saw enough sidewall blowouts from wear when spare
> tires were casually carried as shown. It might look keen but it
> doesn't work well.
>
> Oh, and by the way, that clement tire you have in that picture was a
> TT tire without carbon (it is red) and was discovered the hard way in
> the days of yore to have terrible wet traction. It doesn't look like
> it has much use judging from the, like new, ribbed tread.
>
> Jobst Brandt

The orange tire is a Michelin Club; I'm not sure how long ago "days of
yore" was, but I don't think that Mich Club is that old. It had maybe
500 miles on it before I got a gash in the other one of the pair and
this one has been serving as a spare ever since - used twice in about 6
years.

It still has good tread, having been used on the front originally.

No evidence of chafing, it being tied to the saddle with cotton cord.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:04:22
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Diablo Scott wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Diablo Scott writes:
>>
>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire/photo#5125693388001368754
>>>
>>
>> Don't do that unless you get so many flats that the tire doesn't
>> reside there for long. As I said, four-fold the tire and then tightly
>> wrap it in a stiff brown paper bag and secure it under the saddle with
>> a toe strap. I saw enough sidewall blowouts from wear when spare
>> tires were casually carried as shown. It might look keen but it
>> doesn't work well.
>>
>> Oh, and by the way, that clement tire you have in that picture was a
>> TT tire without carbon (it is red) and was discovered the hard way in
>> the days of yore to have terrible wet traction. It doesn't look like
>> it has much use judging from the, like new, ribbed tread.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
>
> The orange tire is a Michelin Club; I'm not sure how long ago "days of
> yore" was, but I don't think that Mich Club is that old. It had maybe
> 500 miles on it before I got a gash in the other one of the pair and
> this one has been serving as a spare ever since - used twice in about 6
> years.
>
> It still has good tread, having been used on the front originally.
>
> No evidence of chafing, it being tied to the saddle with cotton cord.
>

what seat is that?

Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:31:36
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

jim beam wrote:
> Diablo Scott wrote:

>>
>> The orange tire is a Michelin Club; I'm not sure how long ago "days of
>> yore" was, but I don't think that Mich Club is that old. It had maybe
>> 500 miles on it before I got a gash in the other one of the pair and
>> this one has been serving as a spare ever since - used twice in about
>> 6 years.
>>
>> It still has good tread, having been used on the front originally.
>>
>> No evidence of chafing, it being tied to the saddle with cotton cord.
>>
>
> what seat is that?

Rolls Titanio. Hard to read the badge, it being ridden hard and put
away wet.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 17:23:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> Diablo Scott writes:
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire/photo#5125693388001368754

> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Don't do that unless you get so many flats that the tire doesn't
>> reside there for long. As I said, four-fold the tire and then tightly
>> wrap it in a stiff brown paper bag and secure it under the saddle with
>> a toe strap. I saw enough sidewall blowouts from wear when spare
>> tires were casually carried as shown. It might look keen but it
>> doesn't work well.
>> Oh, and by the way, that clement tire you have in that picture was a
>> TT tire without carbon (it is red) and was discovered the hard way in
>> the days of yore to have terrible wet traction. It doesn't look like
>> it has much use judging from the, like new, ribbed tread.

Diablo Scott wrote:
> The orange tire is a Michelin Club; I'm not sure how long ago "days of
> yore" was, but I don't think that Mich Club is that old. It had maybe
> 500 miles on it before I got a gash in the other one of the pair and
> this one has been serving as a spare ever since - used twice in about 6
> years.
> It still has good tread, having been used on the front originally.
> No evidence of chafing, it being tied to the saddle with cotton cord.

I, like Jobst, thought it was the time trial version of the Clement
Criterium Seta, a.k.a. 'redhead'. Rumored to be 'faster' than the black
tire, they wore quickly and slid on wet pavement.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 26 Oct 2007 20:06:02
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Date: 26 Oct 2007 05:28:32
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 11:27 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47208aab$0$2897$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> > Howard Kveck wrote:
> >>> >I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>
> > Howard Kveck wrote:
> >> He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>
> > Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.
>
> There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did, in
> fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the bike there.
> Yikes!
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

We have many that ask if there is a charge for air..in Boulder, the
air is free....

Date: 26 Oct 2007 19:46:55
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Dans le message de
news:1193401712.353782.106700@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com <peter@vecchios.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :
> On Oct 25, 11:27 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47208aab$0$2897$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>>>>> I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>>
>>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>>> He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>>
>>> Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.
>>
>> There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did,
>> in fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the
>> bike there. Yikes!
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Likely V�lo Oxyg�ne on Grande Arm�e, and to get the air, you have to make an
appointment for next Tuesday.
>
> We have many that ask if there is a charge for air..in Boulder, the
> air is free....

Hot and cold?
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

Date: 26 Oct 2007 09:09:15
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did, in
>> fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the bike
>> there.
>> Yikes!
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> We have many that ask if there is a charge for air..in Boulder, the
> air is free....

And we've got this one customer who comes in at least three times a week
asking to borrow a pump. Don't think he's ever bought anything from us, and
he's often on a different bike. This has been going on for years; I'm sure
he'salready exceeded the amount of use someone buying a pump gets (on
average, not you or me). At some point I may half-jokingly suggest that he
buy a pump and we'll store it for him for free.

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

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1193401712.353782.106700@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 11:27 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47208aab$0$2897$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>>
>> > Howard Kveck wrote:
>> >>> >I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>>
>> > Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>>
>> > Howard Kveck wrote:
>> >> He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>>
>> > Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.
>>
>> There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did, in
>> fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the bike
>> there.
>> Yikes!
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> We have many that ask if there is a charge for air..in Boulder, the
> air is free....
>

Date: 26 Oct 2007 05:26:57
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 6:04 am, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1193312361.097789.134030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > How many riders need to lose that 1.6kg off their arse istead of
> > fretting and whining about rolling resistence and 5 watts at 50 kph(30
> > miles per hour, see that a lot don't we?)
>
> > It's all lost in the noise when anybody talks about any significant
> > advantages or disadvantages in the bicycle. If you want to improve
> > performance, focus on the rider in terms of fitness, bike fit, rider
> > fat and riding finesse. The bicycle is only the 'vehicle' to cycling
> > performance, the means to the end. BUT today, buy speed, don't train
> > and make the 'engine' better....
>
> Ideally, I'd agree. But early in the season this year I bought a set of 36
> spoke wheels to train on, with the "what doesn't kill you makes you
> stronger" mentality. I used them, but I found myself slipping back to a set
> of 28 spoke wheels that I felt a little faster on and because of some other
> convenience factors. I knew this was "buying speed" and felt a certain sense
> of guilt or cheating (if no one but myself), but the pleasure of being able
> to go just that small bit faster made me want to ride and train that much
> more. I was more excited about the upcoming training with the 28s than I was
> with the 36s. Having transitioned from a full time rider to an after work,
> squeeze it in when you can rider, for me that is an appreciable reason (if
> not justifiable) to "buy speed". And yes, I still need to lose that 1.6 kg
> off my arse.

I have a wheelset with Phil hubs and one with C-Record hubs, otherwise
both the same..the Campag hubbed ones 'feel' faster, so I use them in
the summer, the Phils in the winter..'feel' is a big word.

Peter-.1 offa ton and 56% of a century-

Date: 25 Oct 2007 15:11:25
From: Tom_A
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 1:43 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <7EKTi.47614$RX.38...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
> >>> or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
> >>> at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
> >>> cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
> >>> unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
> >>> careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.
> >> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good number of
> >> people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the required detective
> >> work to figure out what caused their flat in the first place. So they put in
> >> a new tube and have another flat down the road. And then possibly another.
> >> Can't tell you how many people come into the shop complaining that "This is
> >> the 4th flat I've had on this wheel in two days"...
>
> > In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as tubes so I
> > could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then I'd find the thing that had
> > caused the puncture later at work (or home). Sometimes it isn't that easy: a couple
> > of weeks ago, I picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I couldn't even
> > find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of wire that stuck
> > into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed it in front of your Cupertino
> > store - thanks for the air!
>
> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:09:28
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <1193350285.439310.327060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
Tom_A <theanhalts@yahoo.com > wrote:

> The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.

It was just a bloody pump.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 26 Oct 2007 09:10:33
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.
>
> It was just a bloody pump.

Must have been one of those silcas with the campy steel end. Those two
prongs could do serious damage.

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

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-546A55.23092825102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <1193350285.439310.327060@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom_A <theanhalts@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.
>
> It was just a bloody pump.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 00:21:25
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.
>> It was just a bloody pump.
>
> Must have been one of those silcas with the campy steel end. Those two
> prongs could do serious damage.

I got one of those -- but is the head steel, or brass? Their primary
purpose is as a dog discourager.

--

David L. Johnson

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely,
if not entirely, the use of textbooks
-- Thomas Edison, 1922

Date: 27 Oct 2007 21:14:47
From: John Thompson
Subject: Campy pump heads (was: question about tubulars)

On 2007-10-27, David L. Johnson <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>> Must have been one of those silcas with the campy steel end. Those two
>> prongs could do serious damage.

> I got one of those -- but is the head steel, or brass?

All four of the Campy pump heads I checked here are magnetic, so I'm
guessing "steel."

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 27 Oct 2007 20:45:34
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Campy pump heads (was: question about tubulars)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:14:47 -0500, John Thompson
<john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:

>On 2007-10-27, David L. Johnson <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>
>>> Must have been one of those silcas with the campy steel end. Those two
>>> prongs could do serious damage.
>
>> I got one of those -- but is the head steel, or brass?
>
>All four of the Campy pump heads I checked here are magnetic, so I'm
>guessing "steel."

The poiint of failure is the chromed, I'm guessing brass, (it's
yellow metal under the chrome) knurled, threaded cap with a hole that
covers the washer. (Catalogue No.17, page 17, part # 641)
--
zk

Date: 26 Oct 2007 23:36:09
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> The air is free. It's the compressing and storing that cost money.
>>> It was just a bloody pump.
>>
>> Must have been one of those silcas with the campy steel end. Those two
>> prongs could do serious damage.
>
> I got one of those -- but is the head steel, or brass? Their primary
> purpose is as a dog discourager.

> David L. Johnson

You're right, my bad, we were always told (and I assume it's the truth) that
they were brass.

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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 13:12:34
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 12:37 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Scott" <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Carl,
>
> > Try this: put the 36's on, but tell yourself they're the 28's. It's
> > all in your head anyway, so why not just tell yourself that the
> > heavier wheels are plenty fast enough. You'll still want to train AND
> > you'll get more out of it.
>
> Far easier said than done, no?

Races are sometimes won or lost by an inch. In a pure objective
sense, what does it take to make an inch of difference? (I am not
talking about creams and potions available on the internet.)

Date: 25 Oct 2007 22:15:45
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Races are sometimes won or lost by an inch. In a pure objective
> sense, what does it take to make an inch of difference? (I am not
> talking about creams and potions available on the internet.)

Those creams and potions really mess up the taste of doughnuts.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 14:47:02
From: Steve Freides
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"KV" <kvaughn3@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:XJ9Ti.1478$od4.1249@trnddc04...
> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
> Or, can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would
> this allow you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much
> done and have to limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.

Given that you didn't ask about the value or lack thereof of tubulars
and got that debate, anyway, I'll try to answer your question without
the debate.

Yes, carry a spare.

Yes, your spare should be pre-glued. Best if you ride one a bit, take
it off, and use it as your spare. If you repair your tubulars, one of
those is perfect as a spare. (I used to use a place called Tire Alert
to repair mine in batches, but I've ridden little enough and have enough
spares that I haven't had to use them lately.) If your spare is _not_
preglued, you'll still get a little adhesion but not much, and you'd be
best to take it easy when braking and cornering. (Yes, I've done this,
but only on a training ride, yes the tire rolled some but not enough to
hurt me or it.)

I always folded mine up and stuck it at the back of my saddle, sitting
mostly between the rails and sticking out the back some, held in place
with an old toe strap and usually a rubber band or another toe strap to
help keep the tire folded.

A previously glued spare ought to hold pretty well, let's say almost but
not quite as good as a freshly glued tire.

Hope that helps.

Oh, rec.bicycles.tech would be a good place to ask this one, IMHO, so
I'll add it to your list.

-S-

Date: 25 Oct 2007 18:54:43
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Steve Freides writes:

>> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is
>> it necessary to pre-glue the spare, and if so, how is it best to
>> carry it? Or, can you put the spare on using the residual glue on
>> the rim-would this allow you to continue with the ride/race, or are
>> you pretty much done and have to limp back? Any pointers/opinions
>> appreciated.

> Given that you didn't ask about the value or lack thereof of
> tubulars and got that debate, anyway, I'll try to answer your
> question without the debate.

> Yes, carry a spare.

> Yes, your spare should be pre-glued. Best if you ride one a bit,
> take it off, and use it as your spare. If you repair your tubulars,
> one of those is perfect as a spare. (I used to use a place called
> Tire Alert to repair mine in batches, but I've ridden little enough
> and have enough spares that I haven't had to use them lately.) If
> your spare is _not_ pre-glued, you'll still get a little adhesion
> but not much, and you'd be best to take it easy when braking and
> cornering. (Yes, I've done this, but only on a training ride, yes
> the tire rolled some but not enough to hurt me or it.)

> I always folded mine up and stuck it at the back of my saddle,
> sitting mostly between the rails and sticking out the back some,
> held in place with an old toe strap and usually a rubber band or
> another toe strap to help keep the tire folded.

Carefully packaging that spare is important because jiggling under the
saddle can wear through the sidewall and furnish a blowout in waiting.
After folding the tire in fours, tightly wrap it in a brown paper bag
and secure it with a foot strap under th saddle so it cannot wobble.

> A previously glued spare ought to hold pretty well, let's say almost
> but not quite as good as a freshly glued tire.

If you ride tubulars, you will soon have enough spares and these
should all have been well glued, meaning they retain about half the
rim glue which is enough to make a well glued tire when changed.

> Hope that helps.

> Oh, rec.bicycles.tech would be a good place to ask this one, IMHO,
> so I'll add it to your list.

You might look at:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tubular-repair.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tubular-folding.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/snakebites.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/tubular-fables.html

Jobst Brandt

Date: 25 Oct 2007 09:38:00
From: Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 6:04 am, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1193312361.097789.134030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > How many riders need to lose that 1.6kg off their arse istead of
> > fretting and whining about rolling resistence and 5 watts at 50 kph(30
> > miles per hour, see that a lot don't we?)
>
> > It's all lost in the noise when anybody talks about any significant
> > advantages or disadvantages in the bicycle. If you want to improve
> > performance, focus on the rider in terms of fitness, bike fit, rider
> > fat and riding finesse. The bicycle is only the 'vehicle' to cycling
> > performance, the means to the end. BUT today, buy speed, don't train
> > and make the 'engine' better....
>
> Ideally, I'd agree. But early in the season this year I bought a set of 36
> spoke wheels to train on, with the "what doesn't kill you makes you
> stronger" mentality. I used them, but I found myself slipping back to a set
> of 28 spoke wheels that I felt a little faster on and because of some other
> convenience factors. I knew this was "buying speed" and felt a certain sense
> of guilt or cheating (if no one but myself), but the pleasure of being able
> to go just that small bit faster made me want to ride and train that much
> more. I was more excited about the upcoming training with the 28s than I was
> with the 36s. Having transitioned from a full time rider to an after work,
> squeeze it in when you can rider, for me that is an appreciable reason (if
> not justifiable) to "buy speed". And yes, I still need to lose that 1.6 kg
> off my arse.

Carl,

Try this: put the 36's on, but tell yourself they're the 28's. It's
all in your head anyway, so why not just tell yourself that the
heavier wheels are plenty fast enough. You'll still want to train AND
you'll get more out of it.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 14:37:12
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Scott" <hendricks_scott@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193330280.097110.61440@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ideally, I'd agree. But early in the season this year I bought a set of
>> 36
>> spoke wheels to train on, with the "what doesn't kill you makes you
>> stronger" mentality. I used them, but I found myself slipping back to a
>> set
>> of 28 spoke wheels that I felt a little faster on and because of some
>> other
>> convenience factors. I knew this was "buying speed" and felt a certain
>> sense
>> of guilt or cheating (if no one but myself), but the pleasure of being
>> able
>> to go just that small bit faster made me want to ride and train that much
>> more. I was more excited about the upcoming training with the 28s than I
>> was
>> with the 36s. Having transitioned from a full time rider to an after
>> work,
>> squeeze it in when you can rider, for me that is an appreciable reason
>> (if
>> not justifiable) to "buy speed". And yes, I still need to lose that 1.6
>> kg
>> off my arse.
>
> Carl,
>
> Try this: put the 36's on, but tell yourself they're the 28's. It's
> all in your head anyway, so why not just tell yourself that the
> heavier wheels are plenty fast enough. You'll still want to train AND
> you'll get more out of it.
>

Far easier said than done, no?

BTW, did you do a crit next to the Superdrome in Frisco back on Memorial Day
weekend? I meant to come over and say hi.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 05:35:33
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 25, 8:22 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >> >I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>
> Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.

Or bundle it with the breathing system, BS, and say that the two were
inseparable. Open source air!

R

Date: 25 Oct 2007 04:39:21
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 24, 1:42 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
>
>
> >> Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
> >> same thing. BFD
>
> >> Fred
>
> > some will argue that 1/4 watt IS significant but it is in the middle
> > of BFD...
>
> The difference between the best tubulars and the best clinchers is on the order 5 watts at 50 kph.
>
> Rolling resistance is typically 10% of power. So a 20% difference in Crr is 2% of power. If your bike weighs 2% more of total weight, that's 1.6 kg or so. How many would buy a frame weighing 2.6 kg instead of 1.0kg?
>
> Dan

How many riders need to lose that 1.6kg off their arse istead of
fretting and whining about rolling resistence and 5 watts at 50 kph(30
miles per hour, see that a lot don't we?)

It's all lost in the noise when anybody talks about any significant
advantages or disadvantages in the bicycle. If you want to improve
performance, focus on the rider in terms of fitness, bike fit, rider
fat and riding finesse. The bicycle is only the 'vehicle' to cycling
performance, the means to the end. BUT today, buy speed, don't train
and make the 'engine' better....

Date: 25 Oct 2007 13:28:57
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

> How many riders need to lose that 1.6kg off their arse istead of
> fretting and whining about rolling resistence and 5 watts at 50 kph(30
> miles per hour, see that a lot don't we?)

All of the above.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 07:04:41
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1193312361.097789.134030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> How many riders need to lose that 1.6kg off their arse istead of
> fretting and whining about rolling resistence and 5 watts at 50 kph(30
> miles per hour, see that a lot don't we?)
>
> It's all lost in the noise when anybody talks about any significant
> advantages or disadvantages in the bicycle. If you want to improve
> performance, focus on the rider in terms of fitness, bike fit, rider
> fat and riding finesse. The bicycle is only the 'vehicle' to cycling
> performance, the means to the end. BUT today, buy speed, don't train
> and make the 'engine' better....
>

Ideally, I'd agree. But early in the season this year I bought a set of 36
spoke wheels to train on, with the "what doesn't kill you makes you
stronger" mentality. I used them, but I found myself slipping back to a set
of 28 spoke wheels that I felt a little faster on and because of some other
convenience factors. I knew this was "buying speed" and felt a certain sense
of guilt or cheating (if no one but myself), but the pleasure of being able
to go just that small bit faster made me want to ride and train that much
more. I was more excited about the upcoming training with the 28s than I was
with the 36s. Having transitioned from a full time rider to an after work,
squeeze it in when you can rider, for me that is an appreciable reason (if
not justifiable) to "buy speed". And yes, I still need to lose that 1.6 kg
off my arse.

Date: 24 Oct 2007 18:56:46
From: Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 24, 1:42 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
>
>
> >> Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
> >> same thing. BFD
>
> >> Fred
>
> > some will argue that 1/4 watt IS significant but it is in the middle
> > of BFD...
>
> The difference between the best tubulars and the best clinchers is on the order 5 watts at 50 kph.
>
> Rolling resistance is typically 10% of power. So a 20% difference in Crr is 2% of power. If your bike weighs 2% more of total weight, that's 1.6 kg or so. How many would buy a frame weighing 2.6 kg instead of 1.0kg?
>
> Dan

Your example would only make sense IF changes in the weight of the
bike affected the total power requirements along the same order of
magnitude as changes in rolling resistance. Except for moderately
steep climbs, weight isn't that big a deal, marketing hype
notwithstanding.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:17:06
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Scott wrote:
> On Oct 24, 1:42 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
>>>> same thing. BFD
>>>> Fred
>>> some will argue that 1/4 watt IS significant but it is in the middle
>>> of BFD...
>> The difference between the best tubulars and the best clinchers is on the order 5 watts at 50 kph.
>>
>> Rolling resistance is typically 10% of power. So a 20% difference in Crr is 2% of power. If your bike weighs 2% more of total weight, that's 1.6 kg or so. How many would buy a frame weighing 2.6 kg instead of 1.0kg?
>>
>> Dan
>
> Your example would only make sense IF changes in the weight of the
> bike affected the total power requirements along the same order of
> magnitude as changes in rolling resistance. Except for moderately
> steep climbs, weight isn't that big a deal, marketing hype
> notwithstanding.
>

Exactly correct. But that assumption was sufficient to make my point. The reality is a 20% change in rolling resistance is comparable to much more than a 1.6 kg difference in mass.

Dan

Date: 24 Oct 2007 12:18:40
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 24, 12:04 pm, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Oct 23, 10:06 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > 1) They are really expensive and a couple of spare tubulars are heavier
> > > and take up more room than a couple of spare innertubes.
>
> > Tubulars are generally race wheels, where you don't carry spares.
>
> > > 2) Finding good tubulars is a problem though not as bad as it used to be
> > > before the advent of the internet.
>
> > Not a problem, at all, with the internet.
>
> > > 3) Unless you really know how to sew them back up after a repair, there
> > > will be a hard spot in the tire that feels like a lump. And the tire
> > > won't corner as well because of that.
>
> > > 4) Repairs of a sewup is a time consuming pain in the butt that no one
> > > in their right mind would take on. Racing teams want the feel of
> > > tubulars because they do ride smoother and that might translate into
> > > less fatigue in a long race. But they also toss out tubulars that have
> > > flatted - they don't take chances with a repair.
>
> > Generally, tubulars are restricted to race wheels, so the expense of replacing tires is considered acceptable.
>
> > > The fact is that you can race better on $30 Michelin tires than you can
> > > on $100 Clements.
>
> > Personally, the best riding clinchers I've tried are Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX.
>
> > But the #1 argument for clinchers is, when paired with latex tubes, they have lower rolling resistance:http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm
>
> > The Vittoria's scored very well.
>
> > This is a quantitative advantage which is hard to argue against. Given this, why did I just get some Reynolds tubular wheels? They were much lighter than the clincher version, but hardly worth the difference in rolling resistance. I did buy Veloflex Carbon tubulars, which scored lowest for >20mm tubulars in the Tour rolling resistance test (different test data), but still, significantly more RR than the Open Corsa's. I suppose I succumbed to the usual arguments, and the lower weight.
>
> > Dan
>
> The quantitative advantage isn't really that hard to argue against, if
> you put it in terms of significance. In other words, just because the
> difference is measurable doesn't mean it'll matter. For example, I
> recently read a thread on another forum discussing the value of moving
> the spoke nipples from the rim to the hub (ala Cane Creek wheels).
> Everyone was yammering on and on about how much it affected the
> rotational mass, etc... Someone took the time to crunch the numbers
> and guess what, it saved less than a 1/4 of a watt of power during a
> standing start acceleration. Falls clearly smack dab in the middle of
> BFD!
>
> Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
> same thing. BFD
>
> Fred

some will argue that 1/4 watt IS significant but it is in the middle
of BFD...

Date: 24 Oct 2007 19:42:30
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

>>
>> Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
>> same thing. BFD
>>
>> Fred
>
> some will argue that 1/4 watt IS significant but it is in the middle
> of BFD...
>

The difference between the best tubulars and the best clinchers is on the order 5 watts at 50 kph.

Rolling resistance is typically 10% of power. So a 20% difference in Crr is 2% of power. If your bike weighs 2% more of total weight, that's 1.6 kg or so. How many would buy a frame weighing 2.6 kg instead of 1.0kg?

Dan

Date: 24 Oct 2007 11:04:43
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 23, 10:06 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > 1) They are really expensive and a couple of spare tubulars are heavier
> > and take up more room than a couple of spare innertubes.
>
> Tubulars are generally race wheels, where you don't carry spares.
>
>
>
> > 2) Finding good tubulars is a problem though not as bad as it used to be
> > before the advent of the internet.
>
> Not a problem, at all, with the internet.
>
>
>
> > 3) Unless you really know how to sew them back up after a repair, there
> > will be a hard spot in the tire that feels like a lump. And the tire
> > won't corner as well because of that.
>
> > 4) Repairs of a sewup is a time consuming pain in the butt that no one
> > in their right mind would take on. Racing teams want the feel of
> > tubulars because they do ride smoother and that might translate into
> > less fatigue in a long race. But they also toss out tubulars that have
> > flatted - they don't take chances with a repair.
>
> Generally, tubulars are restricted to race wheels, so the expense of replacing tires is considered acceptable.
>
>
>
> > The fact is that you can race better on $30 Michelin tires than you can
> > on $100 Clements.
>
> Personally, the best riding clinchers I've tried are Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX.
>
> But the #1 argument for clinchers is, when paired with latex tubes, they have lower rolling resistance:http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm
>
> The Vittoria's scored very well.
>
> This is a quantitative advantage which is hard to argue against. Given this, why did I just get some Reynolds tubular wheels? They were much lighter than the clincher version, but hardly worth the difference in rolling resistance. I did buy Veloflex Carbon tubulars, which scored lowest for >20mm tubulars in the Tour rolling resistance test (different test data), but still, significantly more RR than the Open Corsa's. I suppose I succumbed to the usual arguments, and the lower weight.
>
> Dan

The quantitative advantage isn't really that hard to argue against, if
you put it in terms of significance. In other words, just because the
difference is measurable doesn't mean it'll matter. For example, I
recently read a thread on another forum discussing the value of moving
the spoke nipples from the rim to the hub (ala Cane Creek wheels).
Everyone was yammering on and on about how much it affected the
rotational mass, etc... Someone took the time to crunch the numbers
and guess what, it saved less than a 1/4 of a watt of power during a
standing start acceleration. Falls clearly smack dab in the middle of
BFD!

Minimally measurable differences in rolling resistance is much the
same thing. BFD

Fred

Date: 24 Oct 2007 08:33:50
From: Sir Ridesalot
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 24, 7:45 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> > necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
>
> Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
> end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
> easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.
>
> Or,
>
> > can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this allow
> > you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and have to
> > limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.
>
> Prelube the spare and after you put it on and pump up..ride but be
> careful about high speed corners..not as safe as a well glued one.

Hi there.

The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.

I like the feel of tubulars but like the no hassel ease of repair of
clinchers more.

Cheers from Peter

Date: 24 Oct 2007 16:44:51
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
> or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
> at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
> cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
> unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
> careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good number of
people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the required detective
work to figure out what caused their flat in the first place. So they put in
a new tube and have another flat down the road. And then possibly another.
Can't tell you how many people come into the shop complaining that "This is
the 4th flat I've had on this wheel in two days"...

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

"Sir Ridesalot" <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca > wrote in message
news:1193240030.550168.311950@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 7:45 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
>> > necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
>>
>> Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
>> end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
>> easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> > can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this
>> > allow
>> > you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and
>> > have to
>> > limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.
>>
>> Prelube the spare and after you put it on and pump up..ride but be
>> careful about high speed corners..not as safe as a well glued one.
>
>
> Hi there.
>
> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
> or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
> at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
> cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
> unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
> careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.
>
> I like the feel of tubulars but like the no hassel ease of repair of
> clinchers more.
>
> Cheers from Peter
>

Date: 24 Oct 2007 23:34:41
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <7EKTi.47614$RX.38533@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

> > The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
> > or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
> > at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
> > cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
> > unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
> > careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.
>
> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good number of
> people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the required detective
> work to figure out what caused their flat in the first place. So they put in
> a new tube and have another flat down the road. And then possibly another.
> Can't tell you how many people come into the shop complaining that "This is
> the 4th flat I've had on this wheel in two days"...

In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as tubes so I
could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then I'd find the thing that had
caused the puncture later at work (or home). Sometimes it isn't that easy: a couple
of weeks ago, I picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I couldn't even
find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of wire that stuck
into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed it in front of your Cupertino
store - thanks for the air!

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 25 Oct 2007 03:43:39
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <7EKTi.47614$RX.38533@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
>>> or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
>>> at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
>>> cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
>>> unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
>>> careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.
>> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good number of
>> people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the required detective
>> work to figure out what caused their flat in the first place. So they put in
>> a new tube and have another flat down the road. And then possibly another.
>> Can't tell you how many people come into the shop complaining that "This is
>> the 4th flat I've had on this wheel in two days"...
>
> In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as tubes so I
> could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then I'd find the thing that had
> caused the puncture later at work (or home). Sometimes it isn't that easy: a couple
> of weeks ago, I picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I couldn't even
> find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of wire that stuck
> into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed it in front of your Cupertino
> store - thanks for the air!

Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 05:02:20
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <ffpks4$kmn$4@registered.motzarella.org >,
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <7EKTi.47614$RX.38533@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the flat
> >>> or changed the tube and reinflated it you are set just like you were
> >>> at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to *WORRY* about
> >>> cornering. This means you can ride the same way as you have been
> >>> unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you need to be very
> >>> careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre roll off the rim.
> >> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good number
> >> of
> >> people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the required detective
> >> work to figure out what caused their flat in the first place. So they put
> >> in
> >> a new tube and have another flat down the road. And then possibly another.
> >> Can't tell you how many people come into the shop complaining that "This
> >> is
> >> the 4th flat I've had on this wheel in two days"...
> >
> > In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as
> > tubes so I
> > could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then I'd find the thing
> > that had
> > caused the puncture later at work (or home). Sometimes it isn't that easy:
> > a couple
> > of weeks ago, I picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I
> > couldn't even
> > find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of wire that
> > stuck
> > into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed it in front of your
> > Cupertino
> > store - thanks for the air!
>
> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)

He's a business titan, let me tell you.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 25 Oct 2007 14:22:48
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck wrote:
>> >I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!

Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)

Howard Kveck wrote:
> He's a business titan, let me tell you.

Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 17:27:13
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:47208aab$0$2897$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> >I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>
> Howard Kveck wrote:
>> He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>
> Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.

There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did, in
fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the bike there.
Yikes!

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

Date: 27 Oct 2007 09:15:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47208aab$0$2897$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>>>> I fixed it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Mike J. owns the air in front of his stores? ;)
>> Howard Kveck wrote:
>>> He's a business titan, let me tell you.
>> Lucky he's not from Seattle or he'd try to patent the air.
>
> There was a thread here a while back about a shop in Paris that did, in
> fact, charge 1.5 euro (about $2) for air, if you didn't buy the bike there.
> Yikes!

Andrew Muzi advertises free air 24 hours per day:
<http://www.yellowjersey.org/wru.html >.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?

Date: 25 Oct 2007 19:35:34
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

* "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > a �crit profondement:

Date: 25 Oct 2007 07:42:52
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck writes:

>>> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the
>>> flat or changed the tube and re-inflated it you are set just like
>>> you were at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to
>>> *WORRY* about cornering. This means you can ride the same way as
>>> you have been unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you
>>> need to be very careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre
>>> roll off the rim.

>> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good
>> number of people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the
>> required detective work to figure out what caused their flat in the
>> first place. So they put in a new tube and have another flat down
>> the road. And then possibly another. Can't tell you how many
>> people come into the shop complaining that "This is the 4th flat
>> I've had on this wheel in two days"...

> In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as
> tubes so I could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then
> I'd find the thing that had caused the puncture later at work (or
> home). Sometimes it isn't that easy: a couple of weeks ago, I
> picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I couldn't even
> find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of
> wire that stuck into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed
> it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!

The fear of rolling a tubular tire, especially a used one, seems to
arise for rims that have ancient glue, tired without any glue and for
reasonably tacky spares that are not used in descending. I say this
because in the many years of riding tubulars in the Santa Cruz
mountains no one rolled a tire although we often had to change a tire
on rough roads for snake bites.

On one of these rides, a rider changed a tire and the replacement had
not seen service so long that it barely had any useful glue. We rode
down the local steepest and most curvy ten mile long descent, Page
Mill Road... and we hurried. When we got home, we pulled off the
spare and discovered that it was essentially not glued. It had
advanced some from braking, piling up against the valve stem.

I was glad it wasn't my bicycle, but it assured me that rolling a tire
required some misstep, like a side slip. It was at that time that I
analyzed how far the center of contact pressure of a tire moves from
center with lean angle on a 25mm cross section tire. Descending roads
that require continuous braking, rims get hot enough for all the glue
to get soft and the tire to creep enough to bulge at the stem and
ultimately to cause a flat by ripping the stem from the inner tube.

Locally, Hicks Road can do that task and both there and on Metcalf
road, riders crashed fatally when their tire came off or flatted. The
police, being unaware of the problem, attributed the crash to excess
speed in a turn... there being no significant turns in either road.
On these roads, in the days of tubulars, riders often had their front
tire lift off in a large arc at the bottom of the grade with strings
of glue spanning the gap. On lesser grades, turning the front wheel
around so the tire would creep back to normal, was a common operation.

I rode down Hicks road last weekend on clinchers and was careful to
use both brakes equally and sparingly going as fast as practical so
more energy went into wind drag while rim cooling was maximized.

I don't want to ride no more steenkin tubulars. I did that far too
long.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 26 Oct 2007 15:57:47
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:472048fc$0$14135$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Howard Kveck writes:
>
>>>> The best thing about clinchers is that once you have repaired the
>>>> flat or changed the tube and re-inflated it you are set just like
>>>> you were at the beginning of your ride and you do *NOT* have to
>>>> *WORRY* about cornering. This means you can ride the same way as
>>>> you have been unlike the in-the-field-changed tubular where you
>>>> need to be very careful in cornering and braking lest the tyre
>>>> roll off the rim.
>
>>> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. For you & I, maybe yes. There's a good
>>> number of people who don't bother (or can't figure out) with the
>>> required detective work to figure out what caused their flat in the
>>> first place. So they put in a new tube and have another flat down
>>> the road. And then possibly another. Can't tell you how many
>>> people come into the shop complaining that "This is the 4th flat
>>> I've had on this wheel in two days"...
>
>> In the past, when I was commuting I'd carry a spare tire as well as
>> tubes so I could swap the whole mess out and save some time. Then
>> I'd find the thing that had caused the puncture later at work (or
>> home). Sometimes it isn't that easy: a couple of weeks ago, I
>> picked up something that caused a super slow leak - I couldn't even
>> find the puncture on the tube. Eventually I found a tiny piece of
>> wire that stuck into the inside of the tire by about .005". I fixed
>> it in front of your Cupertino store - thanks for the air!
>
> The fear of rolling a tubular tire, especially a used one, seems to
> arise for rims that have ancient glue, tired without any glue and for
> reasonably tacky spares that are not used in descending. I say this
> because in the many years of riding tubulars in the Santa Cruz
> mountains no one rolled a tire although we often had to change a tire
> on rough roads for snake bites.
>
> On one of these rides, a rider changed a tire and the replacement had
> not seen service so long that it barely had any useful glue. We rode
> down the local steepest and most curvy ten mile long descent, Page
> Mill Road... and we hurried. When we got home, we pulled off the
> spare and discovered that it was essentially not glued. It had
> advanced some from braking, piling up against the valve stem.
>
> I was glad it wasn't my bicycle, but it assured me that rolling a tire
> required some misstep, like a side slip. It was at that time that I
> analyzed how far the center of contact pressure of a tire moves from
> center with lean angle on a 25mm cross section tire. Descending roads
> that require continuous braking, rims get hot enough for all the glue
> to get soft and the tire to creep enough to bulge at the stem and
> ultimately to cause a flat by ripping the stem from the inner tube.

There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.

Phil Holman

Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:41:07
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Phil Holman wrote:

> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>
> Phil Holman

Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages when you're touring or training?

Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.

Dan

Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:09:05
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:UGwUi.941$nN3.310@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and
>> heavy
>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique
>> tubulars.
>>
>
>
> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not
> for training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed
> advantages when you're touring or training?

Apparently quite a few riding up and down North Oracle Rd, Tucson.

>
> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>

Yep, I have a pair of Zipp 404s just for racing.

Phil H

Date: 29 Oct 2007 15:44:50
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Phil Holman wrote:
> Apparently quite a few riding up and down North Oracle Rd, Tucson.
>

Yeah -- weight is a primary goal for some, not a means to a goal:
http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/

Dan

Date: 27 Oct 2007 06:35:17
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Dan Connelly writes:

>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.

> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not
> for training, or touring the Alps. Who cares about 0.5% speed
> advantages when you're touring or training?

> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.

Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should slip,
even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor and will not
appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is that the brakes
don't work with rims that have no heat capacity and do not conduct
because brake pads are even better insulators and will burn off as
they did with wood rims of yore. Braking with wooden rims was a
burning mess.

I don't know where the story that tubular tire stems cut rims in half
arose but I see it as highly improbable.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 26 Oct 2007 23:58:27
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should slip,
> even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor and will not
> appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is that the brakes
> don't work with rims that have no heat capacity and do not conduct
> because brake pads are even better insulators and will burn off as
> they did with wood rims of yore. Braking with wooden rims was a
> burning mess.

At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two years old,
with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on the original brake pads,
which simply refuse to wear. No problem with braking power either. I will
finally retire the pads at the two year mark and measure their thickness vs
new ones. It's all very odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping
power will be diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard
aluminum rims with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.

And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's all I do.

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

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:4722dc25$0$14096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dan Connelly writes:
>
>>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>
>> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not
>> for training, or touring the Alps. Who cares about 0.5% speed
>> advantages when you're touring or training?
>
>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should slip,
> even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor and will not
> appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is that the brakes
> don't work with rims that have no heat capacity and do not conduct
> because brake pads are even better insulators and will burn off as
> they did with wood rims of yore. Braking with wooden rims was a
> burning mess.
>
> I don't know where the story that tubular tire stems cut rims in half
> arose but I see it as highly improbable.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 18:49:38
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

>>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be
>>> as durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.

>> Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should slip,
>> even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor and will
>> not appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is that the
>> brakes don't work with rims that have no heat capacity and do not
>> conduct because brake pads are even better insulators and will burn
>> off as they did with wood rims of yore. Braking with wooden rims
>> was a burning mess.

> At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two years
> old, with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on the
> original brake pads, which simply refuse to wear. No problem with
> braking power either. I will finally retire the pads at the two
> year mark and measure their thickness vs new ones. It's all very
> odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping power will be
> diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard aluminum rims
> with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.

> And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's all
> I do.

Most hills in that area (Santa Cruz Mts) don't demand continuous
braking, but rather short applications before curves.

I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot they
get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all friction
brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do these rims
get? Can you touch them without burning your hand? I just came down
Mt. Umunhum, one of the most hazardous descents for rim overheating.
I've measured rim temperatures on this grade with an instrumented test
that showed 125 degC on Mavic MA-2 rims. That is hotter than I like
to touch.

Hicks Road, Metcalf Road, and Old Watsonville Road are brake burners.

http://tinyurl.com/3xkn7k
http://tinyurl.com/2r8whj
http://tinyurl.com/3adg2t

These roads have sections of 18% grades, dropping continuously more
than 1000ft.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 15:26:11
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two years
>> old, with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on the
>> original brake pads, which simply refuse to wear. No problem with
>> braking power either. I will finally retire the pads at the two
>> year mark and measure their thickness vs new ones. It's all very
>> odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping power will be
>> diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard aluminum rims
>> with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.
>
>> And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's all
>> I do.
>
> Most hills in that area (Santa Cruz Mts) don't demand continuous
> braking, but rather short applications before curves.
>
> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot they
> get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all friction
> brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do these rims
> get? Can you touch them without burning your hand? I just came down
> Mt. Umunhum, one of the most hazardous descents for rim overheating.
> I've measured rim temperatures on this grade with an instrumented test
> that showed 125 degC on Mavic MA-2 rims. That is hotter than I like
> to touch.

The rims do, in fact, get very hot. But so do aluminum rims. It would be
interesting to know just exactly how hot, but I have yet to have a tire/tube
issue.

As for the hills I ride, the rims are also veterans of several Sierra
crossings as well (hwys 120, 108, 4). 120 requires virtually no braking, of
course, but the other two represent the opposite extreme. Worse than just
being steep, they also don't allow you to get up any speed for any sustained
period of time, so the effects of air-brakes are minimized.

So regarding heat & carbon rims- the issue is that carbon doesn't conduct
heat, correct? And since it doesn't conduct heat, you have less surface area
to dissipate it, so it takes longer to cool down. Am I correct so far? So
the question I have is this- if the material doesn't conduct heat, does that
mean it takes longer to transfer heat from the outside of the rim to the
inside? Logic says yes, and also says that, overall, the effect is going to
be the rim staying hotter, longer. Maybe. Or do you just have a much-smaller
heat zone (basically just the surface that's hitting the pad)?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Date: 27 Oct 2007 23:31:47
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

>>> At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two
>>> years old, with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on
>>> the original brake pads, which simply refuse to wear. No problem
>>> with braking power either. I will finally retire the pads at the
>>> two year mark and measure their thickness vs new ones. It's all
>>> very odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping power
>>> will be diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard
>>> aluminum rims with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.

>>> And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's
>>> all I do.

>> Most hills in that area (Santa Cruz Mts) don't demand continuous
>> braking, but rather short applications before curves.

>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do
>> these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand? I
>> just came down Mt. Umunhum, one of the most hazardous descents for
>> rim overheating. I've measured rim temperatures on this grade with
>> an instrumented test that showed 125 degC on Mavic MA-2 rims. That
>> is hotter than I like to touch.

> The rims do, in fact, get very hot. But so do aluminum rims. It
> would be interesting to know just exactly how hot, but I have yet to
> have a tire/tube issue.

> As for the hills I ride, the rims are also veterans of several
> Sierra crossings as well (hwys 120, 108, 4). 120 requires virtually
> no braking, of course, but the other two represent the opposite
> extreme. Worse than just being steep, they also don't allow you to
> get up any speed for any sustained period of time, so the effects of
> air-brakes are minimized.

> So regarding heat & carbon rims- the issue is that carbon doesn't
> conduct heat, correct? And since it doesn't conduct heat, you have
> less surface area to dissipate it, so it takes longer to cool down.
> Am I correct so far? So the question I have is this- if the
> material doesn't conduct heat, does that mean it takes longer to
> transfer heat from the outside of the rim to the inside? Logic says
> yes, and also says that, overall, the effect is going to be the rim
> staying hotter, longer. Maybe. Or do you just have a much-smaller
> heat zone (basically just the surface that's hitting the pad)?

If you haven't had brake pad burn on your legs, then carbon rims
conduct moderately well. As I said, I don't have any to test. I'll
have to assume that they have something in the mix that lets them
conduct. I don't know what racing cars use for their carbon disks,
but they get glowing hot and seem to thrive under that treatment.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 19:43:40
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <4723ca63$0$14086$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> If you haven't had brake pad burn on your legs, then carbon rims
> conduct moderately well. As I said, I don't have any to test. I'll
> have to assume that they have something in the mix that lets them
> conduct. I don't know what racing cars use for their carbon disks,
> but they get glowing hot and seem to thrive under that treatment.

The carbon-carbon brakes on race cars and top level GP motorcycles are intended to
get hot to work. That's why the earliest versions had covers that were intended to
keep the air flow from cooling them off. They also were rarely used on very cool days
or when it rained (teams would revert back to metal rotors and the associated pads).
As far as I know, the most recent ones don't seem to be as badly effected by getting
cooled down. Different mixes of the base material or bonders?

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 29 Oct 2007 02:46:03
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <YOURhoward-EA6160.19434027102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <4723ca63$0$14086$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > If you haven't had brake pad burn on your legs, then carbon rims
> > conduct moderately well. As I said, I don't have any to test. I'll
> > have to assume that they have something in the mix that lets them
> > conduct. I don't know what racing cars use for their carbon disks,
> > but they get glowing hot and seem to thrive under that treatment.
>
> The carbon-carbon brakes on race cars and top level GP motorcycles are
> intended to
> get hot to work. That's why the earliest versions had covers that were
> intended to
> keep the air flow from cooling them off. They also were rarely used on very
> cool days
> or when it rained (teams would revert back to metal rotors and the associated
> pads).
> As far as I know, the most recent ones don't seem to be as badly effected by
> getting
> cooled down. Different mixes of the base material or bonders?

Who knows. To directly answer Jobst's question, they use a somewhat odd
material: carbon-carbon.

I can't find a direct explanation what this is, except that it is not CF:

http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2004/6/1688.html

I believe it's effectively pure carbon, though of course structure is
everything, and more so with carbon than most materials. I think the
painfully complex creation process may be because they're effectively
molding the brake as a single component through a rather complex version
of vapor deposition.

http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1109/1109.htm

And here's a page that says they use C-C for high-speed train brakes!

http://www.carbon.com.ua/bd.htm

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Date: 28 Oct 2007 22:38:14
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <rcousine-881232.19461128102007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:

> In article <YOURhoward-EA6160.19434027102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <4723ca63$0$14086$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >
> > > If you haven't had brake pad burn on your legs, then carbon rims
> > > conduct moderately well. As I said, I don't have any to test. I'll
> > > have to assume that they have something in the mix that lets them
> > > conduct. I don't know what racing cars use for their carbon disks,
> > > but they get glowing hot and seem to thrive under that treatment.
> >
> > The carbon-carbon brakes on race cars and top level GP motorcycles are
> > intended to get hot to work. That's why the earliest versions had covers that
> > were intended to keep the air flow from cooling them off. They also were rarely
> > used on very cool days or when it rained (teams would revert back to metal
> > rotors and the associated pads). As far as I know, the most recent ones don't
> > seem to be as badly effected by getting cooled down. Different mixes of the
> > base material or bonders?
>
> Who knows. To directly answer Jobst's question, they use a somewhat odd
> material: carbon-carbon.
>
> I can't find a direct explanation what this is, except that it is not CF:
>
> http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2004/6/1688.html

You're right, Ryan - I'd forgotten that those weren't a cf composite anymore. They
have come a long way since the first uses of them on GP motorcycles. The earliest
ones were set up to stay hot but they're doing a lot to keep the car ones cooler. By
the way, I saw this info on an AP Brakes page:

"H14 Pads New 31.5mm - Pads are allowed to wear down to 12mm which give
19.5mm of wear x 2 = 39.0mm."

http://www.apracing.com/car/carbonbrakedisc/userguide.htm

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:52:42
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:47238842$0$14069$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Mike Jacoubowsky writes:
>
>>>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be
>>>> as durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
>>> Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should slip,
>>> even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor and will
>>> not appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is that the
>>> brakes don't work with rims that have no heat capacity and do not
>>> conduct because brake pads are even better insulators and will burn
>>> off as they did with wood rims of yore. Braking with wooden rims
>>> was a burning mess.
>
>> At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two years
>> old, with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on the
>> original brake pads, which simply refuse to wear. No problem with
>> braking power either. I will finally retire the pads at the two
>> year mark and measure their thickness vs new ones. It's all very
>> odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping power will be
>> diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard aluminum rims
>> with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.
>
>> And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's all
>> I do.
>
> Most hills in that area (Santa Cruz Mts) don't demand continuous
> braking, but rather short applications before curves.
>
> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot they
> get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all friction
> brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do these rims
> get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?

Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat transfer
material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting all day long on a
motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch it (not the metal bits). It
will be warm, but it won't burn you.

Date: 27 Oct 2007 20:20:38
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Carl Sundquist writes:

>>>>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to
>>>>> be as durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.

>>>> Well, I don't understand why a tubular on a carbon rim should
>>>> slip, even with heavy braking, since the rim is a non conductor
>>>> and will not appreciably warm its rim glue. The real problem is
>>>> that the brakes don't work with rims that have no heat capacity
>>>> and do not conduct because brake pads are even better insulators
>>>> and will burn off as they did with wood rims of yore. Braking
>>>> with wooden rims was a burning mess.

>>> At the end of November, my carbon clincher wheels will be two
>>> years old, with probably about 13k miles on them. And still on
>>> the original brake pads, which simply refuse to wear. No problem
>>> with braking power either. I will finally retire the pads at the
>>> two year mark and measure their thickness vs new ones. It's all
>>> very odd, since everything I've heard says that stopping power
>>> will be diminished and pad life shortened compared to standard
>>> aluminum rims with standard rubber (KoolStop) pads.

>>> And you know where I ride; it's not as if I avoid hills. That's
>>> all I do.

>> Most hills in that area (Santa Cruz Mts) don't demand continuous
>> braking, but rather short applications before curves.

>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do
>> these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?

> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting all
> day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch it
> (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't burn you.

Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim? As I
explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and on hard
braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs while brake pads
wore out rapidly.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 16:09:41
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:47239d96$0$14066$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Carl Sundquist writes:
>
>>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
>>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
>>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot do
>>> these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?
>
>> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
>> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting all
>> day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch it
>> (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't burn you.
>
> Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim? As I
> explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and on hard
> braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs while brake pads
> wore out rapidly.
>

Stop acting like a jackass. Where did I write that it doesn't go into the
rim? You asked if you can touch them without burning your hand. I answered.

Date: 27 Oct 2007 22:12:52
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Carl Sundquist writes:

>>>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
>>>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
>>>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot
>>>> do these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?

>>> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
>>> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting
>>> all day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch
>>> it (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't burn you.

>> Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim? As
>> I explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and on
>> hard braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs while
>> brake pads wore out rapidly.

> Stop acting like a jackass. Where did I write that it doesn't go
> into the rim? You asked if you can touch them without burning your
> hand. I answered.

You didn't say that the rim got hot or that the brake pads didn't
melt. The motorcycle exhaust pipe example shows only that carbon
conducts so poorly that ambient air can cool the outer surface faster
than exhaust heat is conducted outward.

That tells me that braking on carbon rims must be similar to braking
on wood rims. Brake pads melt in the absence of a heat sink.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 22:11:06
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Carl Sundquist writes:

>>>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
>>>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
>>>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot
>>>> do these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?

>>> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
>>> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting
>>> all day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch
>>> it (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't burn you.

>> Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim? As
>> I explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and on
>> hard braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs while
>> brake pads wore out rapidly.

> Stop acting like a jackass. Where did I write that it doesn't go
> into the rim? You asked if you can touch them without burning your
> hand. I answered.

You didn't say that the rim got hot or that the brake pads didn't
melt. The motorcycle exhaust pipe example shows only that carbon
conducts so poorly that ambient air can cool the outer surface faster
than exhaust heat is conducted outward.

That tells me that braking on carbon rims must be similar braking on
wood rims. The brake pads melt in the absence of a heat sink.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 19:43:46
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <4723b77a$0$14097$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> Carl Sundquist writes:
>
> >>>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho hot
> >>>> they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does with all
> >>>> friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat. How hot
> >>>> do these rims get? Can you touch them without burning your hand?
>
> >>> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
> >>> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting
> >>> all day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still touch
> >>> it (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't burn you.
>
> >> Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim? As
> >> I explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and on
> >> hard braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs while
> >> brake pads wore out rapidly.
>
> > Stop acting like a jackass. Where did I write that it doesn't go
> > into the rim? You asked if you can touch them without burning your
> > hand. I answered.
>
> You didn't say that the rim got hot or that the brake pads didn't
> melt. The motorcycle exhaust pipe example shows only that carbon
> conducts so poorly that ambient air can cool the outer surface faster
> than exhaust heat is conducted outward.
>
> That tells me that braking on carbon rims must be similar braking on
> wood rims. The brake pads melt in the absence of a heat sink.

When I had a chance to use some Reynolds carbon rims last year, I was also given a
set of Koolstop pads that Reynolds recommended to use with the wheels. Well, even on
very brief braking on a hill, there was pad meltage. I figured out the was the
problem when they would start squealing immediately and I could see bits of stuff
shooting out the front. I came to a halt and felt the rim, which was very hot (though
it cooled pretty fast). I looked at the pads and there was obvious evidence of them
melting (the grooves were filled and there were stalactites (or would they be
stalacmites?) of pad off the front. I'd think the braking was seriously impaired
because the rim-pad interface was now filled with a liquid. Anyway, the rim did get
really hot but it cooled rapidly.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 28 Oct 2007 14:02:14
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck writes:

>>>>>> I haven't tried descending with such rims so I don't know ho
>>>>>> hot they get. The energy has got to go somewhere as it does
>>>>>> with all friction brakes. They convert kinetic energy to heat.
>>>>>> How hot do these rims get? Can you touch them without burning
>>>>>> your hand?

>>>>> Since carbon is a poor conductor of heat, it is also a poor heat
>>>>> transfer material (perhaps the same thing). You can go blasting
>>>>> all day long on a motorcycle with a carbon exhaust and still
>>>>> touch it (not the metal bits). It will be warm, but it won't
>>>>> burn you.

>>>> Well? So where does the heat go if it doesn't go into the rim?
>>>> As I explained, wood rims also dissipated no significant heat and
>>>> on hard braking hot bits of melted brake pad burned the legs
>>>> while brake pads wore out rapidly.

>>> Stop acting like a jackass. Where did I write that it doesn't go
>>> into the rim? You asked if you can touch them without burning
>>> your hand. I answered.

>> You didn't say that the rim got hot or that the brake pads didn't
>> melt. The motorcycle exhaust pipe example shows only that carbon
>> conducts so poorly that ambient air can cool the outer surface
>> faster than exhaust heat is conducted outward.

>> That tells me that braking on carbon rims must be similar braking
>> on wood rims. The brake pads melt in the absence of a heat sink.

> When I had a chance to use some Reynolds carbon rims last year, I
> was also given a set of Kool-stop pads that Reynolds recommended to
> use with the wheels. Well, even on very brief braking on a hill,
> there was pad meltage. I figured out the was the problem when they
> would start squealing immediately and I could see bits of stuff
> shooting out the front.

> I came to a halt and felt the rim, which was very hot (though it
> cooled pretty fast). I looked at the pads and there was obvious
> evidence of them melting (the grooves were filled and there were
> stalactites (or would they be stalagmites?) of pad off the front.
> I'd think the braking was seriously impaired because the rim-pad
> interface was now filled with a liquid. Anyway, the rim did get
> really hot but it cooled rapidly.

That it cooled quickly is an indication of low heat capacity (in the
material) and low thermal conductivity by which the surface can cool
without being kept warm by heat in the body of the rim. I find this
interesting in light of what Jake said about no such problems. but
then he sells these things and you appear to be just a user.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 26 Oct 2007 23:22:29
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>>
>> Phil Holman
>
>
>
> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
> training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
> when you're touring or training?
>
> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Dan

Why must a carbon rim not be as durable as metal?

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

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:UGwUi.941$nN3.310@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>>
>> Phil Holman
>
>
>
> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
> training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
> when you're touring or training?
>
> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Dan
>

Date: 26 Oct 2007 19:09:31
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:UGwUi.941$nN3.310@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>
> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
> training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
> when you're touring or training?
>
> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.

Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
because of carbon rims?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:27:33
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of
> to use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was
> won because of carbon rims?
>

I seem to remember Millar losing because one disintegrated??

Date: 27 Oct 2007 15:55:45
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5ogsjdFlltn3U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
>> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
>> because of carbon rims?
>>
>
> I seem to remember Millar losing because one disintegrated??

You're sure he would have won excepting the wheel problem?

Date: 26 Oct 2007 23:34:14
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

>>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>>
>> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
>> training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
>> when you're touring or training?
>>
>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
> because of carbon rims?

My guess is that there have been quite a few. Carbon has allowed riders the
choice of a wheel that's both lightweight & aero, vs just lightweight. In
that contest, lightweight & aero offers a substantial advantage, possibly
the difference between winning and not.

What about lightweight & aero vs heavy & aero? In the case of an aero wheel,
the difference in weight is pretty substantial. You can try and be picky and
suggest that adding 120 grams of weight to your wheels isn't going to make
enough difference, but where do you draw the line? That same logic says 120
grams more in your seat, 120 grams more in your handlebars, 120 grams more
in your tires... it all starts adding up pretty fast. But then you'll say
you're just talking about the 120 grams in the wheels. Well, is there no
tipping point? At some point, that 120 grams will make a difference.

A better question might be whether the carbon wheels on my bike (not aero,
just light) (clinchers, for what it's worth) will make a difference on
whether I ride a century in 5.5 hours or 5.75, or even whether that should
matter in the first place. They won't, after all, make a difference in
whether I actually finish the ride. But, to me, they make my bike feel
better, so I enjoy riding more. That might not count as much as whether I
won a race back in the day or not (which was more frequently "or not"), but
it still counts for something. To me.

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

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13i57f12ctlc633@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote in message
> news:UGwUi.941$nN3.310@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>> Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>> There is a more disturbing failure mode with carbon tubulars and heavy
>>> braking. The stem cuts its way through the rim until it gets to the
>>> first spoke hole. Another negative aspect of carbon boutique tubulars.
>>
>> Boutique? Carbon wheels are substantially lighter for racing. Not for
>> training, or touring the Alpes. Who cares about 0.5% speed advantages
>> when you're touring or training?
>>
>> Carbon wheels serve a purpose very well. They're not going to be as
>> durable as metal rims, but that's not their design point.
>
> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
> because of carbon rims?
>

Date: 27 Oct 2007 12:24:55
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:09:31 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
> because of carbon rims?

There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where small
differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the difference
between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to drop someone or
not, particularly when the riders are very light.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:00:01
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:1uv6uqpbitobw$.11u6i3cgshkx6$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:09:31 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
>> use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
>> because of carbon rims?
>
> There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where small
> differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the difference
> between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to drop someone or
> not, particularly when the riders are very light.

Saying something like that doesn't make it so. Climbers seldom win by tiny
margins.

Date: 29 Oct 2007 15:37:47
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Tom Kunich wrote:

>> There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where small
>> differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the difference
>> between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to drop someone or
>> not, particularly when the riders are very light.
>
> Saying something like that doesn't make it so. Climbers seldom win by
> tiny margins.

At the same aerodynamics, carbon wheels probably save 500 grams. Let's say 75 kg for baseline weight.

Power versus speed :
P ~ (v + a v^3)
so dP/dv ~ 1 + 3 a v^2
so (v/P) dP/dv ~ (1 + 3 a v^2) / (1 + a v^2) =~ 1 + 2 a v^2
or (P/v) dv/dP =~ 1 - 2 a v^2

Assume 10% of power is wind resistance. Then a 1% advantage in weight is a 0.8% advantage in speed. So this saves 19 seconds per hour of climbing.

I'll take it.

Dan

Date: 27 Oct 2007 14:36:43
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:00:01 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

> Saying something like that doesn't make it so. Climbers seldom win by tiny
> margins.

Do you do much competitive climbing? Once you've been dropped, losing the
psychological and drafting benefits of being on someone's wheel, even
at 15km/h, are significant.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 20:17:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <1uv6uqpbitobw$.11u6i3cgshkx6$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:09:31 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can think of to
> > use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single race that was won
> > because of carbon rims?
>
> There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where small
> differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the difference
> between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to drop someone or
> not, particularly when the riders are very light.

One could say the very same thing that Tom did about metal rims versus wooden
ones. People use carbon rims now because they can. They're often lighter and offer a
bit of cushion to the ride, even with taller profiles.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 06:42:10
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck writes:

>>> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can
>>> think of to use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single
>>> race that was won because of carbon rims?

>> There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where
>> small differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the
>> difference between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to
>> drop someone or not, particularly when the riders are very light.

> One could say the very same thing that Tom did about metal rims
> versus wooden ones. People use carbon rims now because they can.
> They're often lighter and offer a bit of cushion to the ride, even
> with taller profiles.

That cushion comes from the same place softer rides from the curl on
the end of steel forks came from. Imagination. Just because the
resonance of a carbon component is acoustically quieter, does not mean
that vibrations below the audible range are similarly damped, just as
wake-up ribs on highways don't go away with carbon components.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 27 Oct 2007 19:43:49
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <4722ddc2$0$14096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> Howard Kveck writes:
>
> >>> Well, I don't know about you Dan, but there's no reason I can
> >>> think of to use carbon wheels in any case. Can you name a single
> >>> race that was won because of carbon rims?
>
> >> There would be plenty of mountain stage and race results where
> >> small differences in bike weight were critical. It can make the
> >> difference between hanging on and being dropped, or being able to
> >> drop someone or not, particularly when the riders are very light.
>
> > One could say the very same thing that Tom did about metal rims
> > versus wooden ones. People use carbon rims now because they can.
> > They're often lighter and offer a bit of cushion to the ride, even
> > with taller profiles.
>
> That cushion comes from the same place softer rides from the curl on
> the end of steel forks came from. Imagination. Just because the
> resonance of a carbon component is acoustically quieter, does not mean
> that vibrations below the audible range are similarly damped, just as
> wake-up ribs on highways don't go away with carbon components.

I've heard many anecdotal stories of how carbon wheels seemed to give a much
cushier ride compard to tall section aluminum rims. Of course, there is a tire
wrapped around these rims and I'd think that did the majority of the shock
absorption. My anecdotal story is riding down Calaveras Rd. and going through a
couple of turns that are fairly rough. On my bike with Ksyriums or Open 4 Pro rims, I
could easily feel the bike doing a mild skipping or stuttering. But the same bike and
tires on a set of Reynolds carbon wheels did not do that. Maybe it's the rims, maybe
it's the small gauge spokes? It would obviously be a very hard thing to quantify. It
was a very noticable difference when I rode my bike with its regular wheels and then
changed to the Reynolds. Now, you did mention that you didn't have set of these
wheels to try out - you really ought to check them out, Jobst. You might be surprised.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 00:12:31
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> One could say the very same thing that Tom did about metal rims versus wooden
> ones. People use carbon rims now because they can. They're often lighter and offer a
> bit of cushion to the ride, even with taller profiles.
>
I usually let slide comments on how carbon components "cushion" the
ride, since with things like handlebars it's a lost cause. But, come
on. The rim? Cushion? Nonsense.

Carbon components, for all but the elite racers -- end even for them,
except on time-trial bikes -- are all about having the fanciest dohicky
and being able to brag about how light the bike is.

A friend of mine carries around a fish scale to rides, just to compare
his new, mostly organic, bike, to others. Just for bragging rights.

Me, I brag about how my new cranks only cost me $30.

--

David L. Johnson

"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
What are you on?"
--Lance Armstrong

Date: 27 Oct 2007 18:23:48
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message
news:E-idnfz9fIktJ7_anZ2dnUVZ_vShnZ2d@ptd.net...
>>
> I usually let slide comments on how carbon components "cushion" the ride,
> since with things like handlebars it's a lost cause. But, come on. The
> rim? Cushion? Nonsense.
>
> Carbon components, for all but the elite racers -- end even for them,
> except on time-trial bikes -- are all about having the fanciest dohicky
> and being able to brag about how light the bike is.
>
> A friend of mine carries around a fish scale to rides, just to compare his
> new, mostly organic, bike, to others. Just for bragging rights.
>
> Me, I brag about how my new cranks only cost me $30.

You guys know my collection by now and I have some of the nicest bikes
around. But you and Jobst are quite correct that essentially ALL of the
effects of these super expensive and somewhat light parts are in the eye of
the beholder.

As for Michael - how many races have you won because of your parts again?

Date: 24 Oct 2007 08:11:35
From:
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 22, 7:47 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> Pre-glue the spare. I always used a tire that had been ridden on
> already --- usually one that had flatted --- as my spare. If it is
> pre-glued it sticks pretty well. As you fold it up to carry it, first
> fold it in half and stick glue to glue. I would always then fold it to
> be about 6" long and stuff it in an old sock.

Definitely pre-glue. Another way to fold a spare is in half, base-tape
to base-tape then in thirds tread-to-tread. Then place in a sock. I
can get two spares side by side in a Jann bag (Tufo uses the same
design).

> We always continued the race after repairing a flat, unless it was
> hopeless, like it would be in a crit. Heck, you gotta get back to the
> start/finish anyway.

Follow vehicles should have your spare wheels in a road race. Chasing
back on for me was usually hopeless but not always. Not so hopeless in
a crit now with the free lap rule.

> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
> carries spare wheels.

I race on tubulars until they go flat, repair them myself (unless I
feel Tire Alert can do a better job) then use 'em as training tires.
When they can no longer be repaired (up to three patches sometimes)
then they're given to a friend that turns 'em into door mats. It's a
system that's worked for me these past 20 years.

Greg Hall

Date: 24 Oct 2007 04:49:44
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 23, 6:21 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
> > David L. Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
> >> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
> >> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
> >> carries spare wheels.
>
> > If glued on properly they won't roll off as clinchers do
> > :-(
>
> The idea of tires rolling off is exclusively related to tubulars, not
> clinchers. I've used both, and have rolled two tubulars, zero clinchers.
>
> Why don't you trot out the other usual advantages proclaimed for
> tubulars: that you can ride with them flat (not high on my list of
> advantages -- with clinchers, you can repair the flat, instead), that
> they grip the road better (how is a matter of denial of physics), that
> they don't pinch flat (I donno, I've only gone 10 years riding clinchers
> with, let's see, zero pinch flats).
>
> Look at ads for tubulars. The big selling points are that they are
> "round and straight" --- meaning that many tubulars are neither, and
> that you should buy this brand in order to get what most people take for
> granted with clinchers.
>
> I used to ride wonderful tubular tires, Clement Campionato del Mundo
> (sp?), or Criterium Setas. Clinchers, then, were just awful. Now, very
> nice, light, supple clinchers are $30, and a halfway-round tubular costs
> twice that.
>
> Sorry, unless you've got that team car following you, I just don't see
> the advantages.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson

OK..press on!!

'Merika...f__k ya!!(to quote a moovie line).

Date: 24 Oct 2007 04:47:54
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 22, 6:47 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> KV wrote:
> > I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> > necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it? Or,
> > can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this allow
> > you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and have to
> > limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.
>
> Pre-glue the spare. I always used a tire that had been ridden on
> already --- usually one that had flatted --- as my spare. If it is
> pre-glued it sticks pretty well. As you fold it up to carry it, first
> fold it in half and stick glue to glue. I would always then fold it to
> be about 6" long and stuff it in an old sock.
>
> We always continued the race after repairing a flat, unless it was
> hopeless, like it would be in a crit. Heck, you gotta get back to the
> start/finish anyway.
>
> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
> carries spare wheels.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson

Here we go..must be winter-safer, more comfy ride, wee bit less
weight, corner better...but if ya don't like 'em, don't use them. I
see no compelling reason to change my tubies to clinchers, but
YMMV..LOTS of tubie choices these days, LOTS of rims as well...

Date: 24 Oct 2007 04:45:31
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net > wrote:
> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?

Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.

Or,
> can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this allow
> you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and have to
> limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.

Prelube the spare and after you put it on and pump up..ride but be
careful about high speed corners..not as safe as a well glued one.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 11:22:41
From: Diablo Scott
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:45 pm, "KV" <kvaug...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
>> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it?
>
> Yes and just fold it up. I am sure there is a diagram somewhere..hold
> end of tubies, turn each siude 90 degrees and fold..hard to describe,
> easy if you see it..then secure with as toe strap under your saddle.
>

Wow, I've been waiting for months for someone to ask - my photo sequence
of my preferred spare tubie folding technique:

http://picasaweb.google.com/DiabloScottsBikeBlog/FoldingATubularTire

Date: 24 Oct 2007 09:39:55
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

> Prelube the spare and after you put it on and pump up..ride but be
> careful about high speed corners..not as safe as a well glued one.

No, no. You lube the tapers on your cranks, not your tires...

--

David L. Johnson

Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death.
And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not
be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
-- J. R. R. Tolkein

Date: 24 Oct 2007 16:12:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> Prelube the spare and after you put it on and pump up..ride but be
>> careful about high speed corners..not as safe as a well glued one.

David L. Johnson wrote:
> No, no. You lube the tapers on your cranks, not your tires...

Lube your rims. That way you go faster when you brake.

Date: 22 Oct 2007 20:47:49
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

KV wrote:
> I'm new to tubulars and have a question about carrying a spare-is it
> necessary to preglue the spare, and if so, how is it best to carry it? Or,
> can you put the spare on using the residual glue on the rim-would this allow
> you to continue with the ride/race, or are you pretty much done and have to
> limp back? Any pointers/opinions appreciated.

Pre-glue the spare. I always used a tire that had been ridden on
already --- usually one that had flatted --- as my spare. If it is
pre-glued it sticks pretty well. As you fold it up to carry it, first
fold it in half and stick glue to glue. I would always then fold it to
be about 6" long and stuff it in an old sock.

We always continued the race after repairing a flat, unless it was
hopeless, like it would be in a crit. Heck, you gotta get back to the
start/finish anyway.

Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
carries spare wheels.

--

David L. Johnson

"Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The common
welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence,
were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of
water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
--Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

Date: 23 Oct 2007 12:28:42
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

David L. Johnson wrote:

> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
> carries spare wheels.
>
If glued on properly they won't roll off as clinchers do
:-(

Date: 23 Oct 2007 20:21:16
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Dan Gregory wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
>> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
>> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
>> carries spare wheels.
>>
> If glued on properly they won't roll off as clinchers do
> :-(

The idea of tires rolling off is exclusively related to tubulars, not
clinchers. I've used both, and have rolled two tubulars, zero clinchers.

Why don't you trot out the other usual advantages proclaimed for
tubulars: that you can ride with them flat (not high on my list of
advantages -- with clinchers, you can repair the flat, instead), that
they grip the road better (how is a matter of denial of physics), that
they don't pinch flat (I donno, I've only gone 10 years riding clinchers
with, let's see, zero pinch flats).

Look at ads for tubulars. The big selling points are that they are
"round and straight" --- meaning that many tubulars are neither, and
that you should buy this brand in order to get what most people take for
granted with clinchers.

I used to ride wonderful tubular tires, Clement Campionato del Mundo
(sp?), or Criterium Setas. Clinchers, then, were just awful. Now, very
nice, light, supple clinchers are $30, and a halfway-round tubular costs
twice that.

Sorry, unless you've got that team car following you, I just don't see
the advantages.

--

David L. Johnson

Date: 24 Oct 2007 13:59:58
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
>>> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the
>>> edge of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your
>>> team car carries spare wheels.
>>>
>> If glued on properly they won't roll off as clinchers do
>> :-(
>
> The idea of tires rolling off is exclusively related to tubulars, not
> clinchers. I've used both, and have rolled two tubulars, zero clinchers.
My glum expression wass due to the fact that I blew a front clicher on
the descent of a col and it did roll off as well as snagging the front
forks. Onlookers said I did a perfect somersault.
When I raced I suffered several punctures and flats on tubs. Never had
one come off, except once when I hadn't glued it on properly as I was
only riding across town. It brought me down as I sprinted away from the
lights at the Place de la Concorde. Interesting experience that was.

Date: 23 Oct 2007 19:09:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu > wrote in message
news:xpKdnWdFaJSeDYPanZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@ptd.net...
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Of course all this begs the question of why you would bother with
>>> tubulars this day and age, anyway. If you are near enough to the edge
>>> of the performance curve to see an advantage, make sure your team car
>>> carries spare wheels.
>>>
>> If glued on properly they won't roll off as clinchers do
>> :-(
>
> The idea of tires rolling off is exclusively related to tubulars, not
> clinchers. I've used both, and have rolled two tubulars, zero clinchers.
>
> Why don't you trot out the other usual advantages proclaimed for tubulars:
> that you can ride with them flat (not high on my list of advantages --
> with clinchers, you can repair the flat, instead), that they grip the road
> better (how is a matter of denial of physics), that they don't pinch flat
> (I donno, I've only gone 10 years riding clinchers with, let's see, zero
> pinch flats).
>
> Look at ads for tubulars. The big selling points are that they are "round
> and straight" --- meaning that many tubulars are neither, and that you
> should buy this brand in order to get what most people take for granted
> with clinchers.
>
> I used to ride wonderful tubular tires, Clement Campionato del Mundo
> (sp?), or Criterium Setas. Clinchers, then, were just awful. Now, very
> nice, light, supple clinchers are $30, and a halfway-round tubular costs
> twice that.
>
> Sorry, unless you've got that team car following you, I just don't see the
> advantages.

I'll second Dave's comments. Though I've had plenty of pinch flats on
clinchers I'll also note that one of the reasons that you didn't pinch flat
on Clement tubulars was because they put a skirt over the sewing thread. I
have gotten quite a few pinch flats on Continental tubulars that are missing
that expensive detail. Continental believes that you don't get pinch flats
if you pump the pressure high enough. That's probably so but if you ride on
the street with 160+ psi the ride on the tubular is no better than with a
clincher.

As for ride - a 95 psi tubular rides very nicely indeed and feels
considerably better than a clincher at any pressure. That doesn't, however,
translate to faster times, better cornering or longer wear. In other words,
aside from the feel there are only slight advantages to tubulars and tons of
disadvantages:

1) They are really expensive and a couple of spare tubulars are heavier and
take up more room than a couple of spare innertubes.

2) Finding good tubulars is a problem though not as bad as it used to be
before the advent of the internet.

3) Unless you really know how to sew them back up after a repair, there will
be a hard spot in the tire that feels like a lump. And the tire won't corner
as well because of that.

4) Repairs of a sewup is a time consuming pain in the butt that no one in
their right mind would take on. Racing teams want the feel of tubulars
because they do ride smoother and that might translate into less fatigue in
a long race. But they also toss out tubulars that have flatted - they don't
take chances with a repair.

The fact is that you can race better on $30 Michelin tires than you can on
$100 Clements.

Date: 23 Oct 2007 21:06:45
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

Tom Kunich wrote:

> 1) They are really expensive and a couple of spare tubulars are heavier
> and take up more room than a couple of spare innertubes.

Tubulars are generally race wheels, where you don't carry spares.

>
> 2) Finding good tubulars is a problem though not as bad as it used to be
> before the advent of the internet.

Not a problem, at all, with the internet.

>
> 3) Unless you really know how to sew them back up after a repair, there
> will be a hard spot in the tire that feels like a lump. And the tire
> won't corner as well because of that.
>
> 4) Repairs of a sewup is a time consuming pain in the butt that no one
> in their right mind would take on. Racing teams want the feel of
> tubulars because they do ride smoother and that might translate into
> less fatigue in a long race. But they also toss out tubulars that have
> flatted - they don't take chances with a repair.

Generally, tubulars are restricted to race wheels, so the expense of replacing tires is considered acceptable.

>
> The fact is that you can race better on $30 Michelin tires than you can
> on $100 Clements.
>

Personally, the best riding clinchers I've tried are Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX.

But the #1 argument for clinchers is, when paired with latex tubes, they have lower rolling resistance:
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm

The Vittoria's scored very well.

This is a quantitative advantage which is hard to argue against. Given this, why did I just get some Reynolds tubular wheels? They were much lighter than the clincher version, but hardly worth the difference in rolling resistance. I did buy Veloflex Carbon tubulars, which scored lowest for >20mm tubulars in the Tour rolling resistance test (different test data), but still, significantly more RR than the Open Corsa's. I suppose I succumbed to the usual arguments, and the lower weight.

Dan

Date: 23 Oct 2007 22:38:41
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: question about tubulars

In article <qxzTi.210$%Y6.0@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com >,
Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote:

> This is a quantitative advantage which is hard to argue against. Given this,
> why did I just get some Reynolds tubular wheels? They were much lighter
> than the clincher version, but hardly worth the difference in rolling
> resistance.

I tried a set of the clincher version for a couple of weeks last year. Yeah, they
weigh more than the tubular version but they're still pretty damn light. They felt a
lot better than the Ksyriums. Certainly better on hilly rides.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:56:59
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: question about tubulars