| |
Main
Date: 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08
From:
Subject: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
My questions are:
1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
and I tour).
3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
hating them.
4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
pains specifically?
Any first hand use information would be really great!
Owen
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 22:58:23
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 29, 1:15 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> The wheels probably "felt" fantastic because you knew that they were
> new, lightweight wheels.
Thanks again, Carl... for the very interesting information. You may be
exactly right about why my new wheels feel great while climbing. Also,
I did forget to mention that my chain was rubbing my frame, constantly
while pedalling, with the new wheels. This may or may not have helped
add the 4 mins of xtra time to my normal 2hrs 11min ride time... which
I've recorded the last 5 rides, before switching wheels. Actually
there were 3 rides in the middle of these 5 that I recorded 2hrs 15min
each time. This was when I changed my tires to a new set of
Continental GP 4000 S tires which are 30gms lighter and only hold
120psi... compared to my Vittoria Paves at 130psi (yes, I max them
out). These tires felt very slow on the flat, but again climbed
wonderfully (i.e. allowed me to use 1 gear higher than normal on the
hilly portion of my ride). I sold these tires 7 days after receiving
them. Instead of putting the Paves back on, after selling the Contis,
I put on a set of Michelin Carbons which are exactly the same weight
as the Paves but they only allow maximum 116psi. My ride times on
these are exactly 2hrs 11min, just like the Paves. One day perhaps
I'll see a pattern in all of this (enlightenment?) and be able to make
sound choices based on that info... or not.
Owen
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:29:08
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 1:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> >climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> >fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> >and I tour).
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Owen,
>
> Lighter tires improve speed _very_ slightly uphill, have no
> discernable effect on the flats, and--sorry--reduce speed _very_
> slightly downhill.
>
> The tiny benefits of lighter tires are greatest on theoretical
> calculators, particularly with the gentle grades likely to be found on
> railroad grades converted to bicycle paths.
>
> http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
>
> If you found an imaginary 19.3 mile grade of 3% to ride up and down at
> a steady 200 watts on the hoods with tubulars with the default
> weights, your trip up would take 70.263 minutes, the trip down would
> take 38.909 minutes, and the total time would be 109.172 minutes.
>
> Take an exaggerated pound off the equipment (227 grams off each tire
> is unlikely), and your time uphill would improve to 70.097 minutes,
> but your descent would slow to 38.953 minutes (sorry, but lighter
> bikes and riders roll slower downhill). The round trip with lighter
> tires is 109.050 minutes--0.122 minutes faster.
>
> lbs 19.3 19.3 38.6
> bike miles miles miles
> weight 3% uphill downhill total minutes
>
> 22.0 70.263 38.909 109.172
> 21.0 70.097 38.953 109.050
> 0.122 minutes faster
>
> That's about 7 seconds gained in nearly two hours if your new tires
> are a pound lighter and the bike trail has an impressive grade for an
> old railroad bed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Thanks for the very detailed explanation, Carl! On this evenings ride
I used a new set of lighweight wheels. They felt absolutely fantastic
on the hill portions of my ride, but they did slow me down overall. On
my regular (heavy) wheels I usually complete my ride in about exactly
2hrs 11mins. The new lightweight wheels slowed my time to 2hrs 15min.
i was disappointed! I'm very glad that I read what you wrote here.
>From now on I know not to concern myself with lightweight wheels,
tires, tubes...
Owen
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 23:15:11
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:29:08 -0700, owencoors@bright.net wrote:
>On Jul 28, 1:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
>> >climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
>> >fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
>> >and I tour).
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Owen,
>>
>> Lighter tires improve speed _very_ slightly uphill, have no
>> discernable effect on the flats, and--sorry--reduce speed _very_
>> slightly downhill.
>>
>> The tiny benefits of lighter tires are greatest on theoretical
>> calculators, particularly with the gentle grades likely to be found on
>> railroad grades converted to bicycle paths.
>>
>> http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
>>
>> If you found an imaginary 19.3 mile grade of 3% to ride up and down at
>> a steady 200 watts on the hoods with tubulars with the default
>> weights, your trip up would take 70.263 minutes, the trip down would
>> take 38.909 minutes, and the total time would be 109.172 minutes.
>>
>> Take an exaggerated pound off the equipment (227 grams off each tire
>> is unlikely), and your time uphill would improve to 70.097 minutes,
>> but your descent would slow to 38.953 minutes (sorry, but lighter
>> bikes and riders roll slower downhill). The round trip with lighter
>> tires is 109.050 minutes--0.122 minutes faster.
>>
>> lbs 19.3 19.3 38.6
>> bike miles miles miles
>> weight 3% uphill downhill total minutes
>>
>> 22.0 70.263 38.909 109.172
>> 21.0 70.097 38.953 109.050
>> 0.122 minutes faster
>>
>> That's about 7 seconds gained in nearly two hours if your new tires
>> are a pound lighter and the bike trail has an impressive grade for an
>> old railroad bed.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Thanks for the very detailed explanation, Carl! On this evenings ride
>I used a new set of lighweight wheels. They felt absolutely fantastic
>on the hill portions of my ride, but they did slow me down overall. On
>my regular (heavy) wheels I usually complete my ride in about exactly
>2hrs 11mins. The new lightweight wheels slowed my time to 2hrs 15min.
>i was disappointed! I'm very glad that I read what you wrote here.
>>From now on I know not to concern myself with lightweight wheels,
>tires, tubes...
>
>Owen
Dear Owen,
Your four-minute difference is probably just ordinary real-world
day-to-day variation, with the tiny potential improvement from
slightly lighter tires and wheels swamped by a tiny headwind or a
slightly less-than-average effort on your part.
The wheels probably "felt" fantastic because you knew that they were
new, lightweight wheels.
But the wind probably had more effect than lighter wheels.
Here's how much headwind slows you from 131 minutes to 135 minutes:
http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
Use 180.3985 watts, tubulars, drops, and 38.3 miles.
With no headwind, 111.00007 minutes.
With a 1.162225 mph headwind, 115.00008 minutes.
A 1.2 mph headwind is roughly 1.8 feet per second. Move your hand
about the width of your shoulders while counting one-thousand-one and
you'll see how unlikely we are to notice whether the headwind has
increased that much.
Similarly, you may average 2 hours and 11 minutes for your 38.3-mile
ride, but your individual times probably bounce up and down around
that average more than four minutes during the year.
Just dropping the temperature from 80F to 60F will slow you down about
80 seconds, assuming that you somehow maintained the impossibly steady
180.3985 watts as the temperature rose or fell twenty degrees.
Many of the more expensive equipment improvements that we argue about
will make less difference than what you ate for breakfast and whether
you sat up for a few minutes while enjoying the scenery. The
calculators are a good way to remind ourselves of this when the
marketing department is trying to persuade us to buy lighter valve
caps.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 23:59:30
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:15:11 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:29:08 -0700, owencoors@bright.net wrote:
>
>>On Jul 28, 1:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> >2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
>>> >climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
>>> >fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
>>> >and I tour).
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Dear Owen,
>>>
>>> Lighter tires improve speed _very_ slightly uphill, have no
>>> discernable effect on the flats, and--sorry--reduce speed _very_
>>> slightly downhill.
>>>
>>> The tiny benefits of lighter tires are greatest on theoretical
>>> calculators, particularly with the gentle grades likely to be found on
>>> railroad grades converted to bicycle paths.
>>>
>>> http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
>>>
>>> If you found an imaginary 19.3 mile grade of 3% to ride up and down at
>>> a steady 200 watts on the hoods with tubulars with the default
>>> weights, your trip up would take 70.263 minutes, the trip down would
>>> take 38.909 minutes, and the total time would be 109.172 minutes.
>>>
>>> Take an exaggerated pound off the equipment (227 grams off each tire
>>> is unlikely), and your time uphill would improve to 70.097 minutes,
>>> but your descent would slow to 38.953 minutes (sorry, but lighter
>>> bikes and riders roll slower downhill). The round trip with lighter
>>> tires is 109.050 minutes--0.122 minutes faster.
>>>
>>> lbs 19.3 19.3 38.6
>>> bike miles miles miles
>>> weight 3% uphill downhill total minutes
>>>
>>> 22.0 70.263 38.909 109.172
>>> 21.0 70.097 38.953 109.050
>>> 0.122 minutes faster
>>>
>>> That's about 7 seconds gained in nearly two hours if your new tires
>>> are a pound lighter and the bike trail has an impressive grade for an
>>> old railroad bed.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>Thanks for the very detailed explanation, Carl! On this evenings ride
>>I used a new set of lighweight wheels. They felt absolutely fantastic
>>on the hill portions of my ride, but they did slow me down overall. On
>>my regular (heavy) wheels I usually complete my ride in about exactly
>>2hrs 11mins. The new lightweight wheels slowed my time to 2hrs 15min.
>>i was disappointed! I'm very glad that I read what you wrote here.
>>>From now on I know not to concern myself with lightweight wheels,
>>tires, tubes...
>>
>>Owen
>
>Dear Owen,
>
>Your four-minute difference is probably just ordinary real-world
>day-to-day variation, with the tiny potential improvement from
>slightly lighter tires and wheels swamped by a tiny headwind or a
>slightly less-than-average effort on your part.
>
>The wheels probably "felt" fantastic because you knew that they were
>new, lightweight wheels.
>
>But the wind probably had more effect than lighter wheels.
>
>Here's how much headwind slows you from 131 minutes to 135 minutes:
>
>http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
>
>Use 180.3985 watts, tubulars, drops, and 38.3 miles.
>
>With no headwind, 111.00007 minutes.
>
>With a 1.162225 mph headwind, 115.00008 minutes.
>
>A 1.2 mph headwind is roughly 1.8 feet per second. Move your hand
>about the width of your shoulders while counting one-thousand-one and
>you'll see how unlikely we are to notice whether the headwind has
>increased that much.
>
>Similarly, you may average 2 hours and 11 minutes for your 38.3-mile
>ride, but your individual times probably bounce up and down around
>that average more than four minutes during the year.
>
>Just dropping the temperature from 80F to 60F will slow you down about
>80 seconds, assuming that you somehow maintained the impossibly steady
>180.3985 watts as the temperature rose or fell twenty degrees.
>
>Many of the more expensive equipment improvements that we argue about
>will make less difference than what you ate for breakfast and whether
>you sat up for a few minutes while enjoying the scenery. The
>calculators are a good way to remind ourselves of this when the
>marketing department is trying to persuade us to buy lighter valve
>caps.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Aaargh!
Just goes to show how fiddly such things are--I carelessly used
111/115 minutes instead of 131/135 minutes, which would make the
possible headwind even smaller.
A mere 116.869 watts gives 131.0004 minutes for 38.3 miles for
tubulars on the drops with other fields at default.
A headwind of 0.8582 mph will slow that time to 135.0004 minutes.
A drop from 80F to 60F will add about 100 seconds to the ride.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:23:00
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 11:30 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> owenco...@bright.net wrote:
> > I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> > tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> > tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> > I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> > always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> > thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
> > My questions are:
> > 1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> > light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
>
> no.
>
> > 2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> > climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> > fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> > and I tour).
>
> no. see above.
>
> > 3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> > lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> > hating them.
>
> ride in the rain and flat every single time. sometimes twice a ride.
>
> > 4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> > pains specifically?
>
> sealant is just messy. valve tends to gum up.
>
> > Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> > Owen
>
> worst thing is that because they're seamless, you can't repair them
> properly - you're dependent on sealant. if the cut is of a size that
> doesn't want to seal, game over. with a "real" tubie, you get the
> benefits of using a lighter rim [all clincher rims are heavier] /and/
> the ability to repair the thing properly.
>
> only thing positive i can say about tufo's is that they /do/ give that
> nice smooth tubie ride on a clincher rim. but when you're standing at
> the side of the road in the pissing rain with latex sprayed all down the
> back of your leg and all over your bike and the freakin' hole is not
> sealing, and you're late for something at work, and you're praising the
> deities that you had the foresight to pack an old clincher & tube just
> in case, you really don't care about that. i say "stay away".
I can see the light now... I do not want to go through those kind of
problems just to get the "tubular ride" qualities... which I've never
experienced, yet. Thank you for your help!
Owen
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:20:35
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 9:32 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
> >I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> >tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> >tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> >I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> >always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> >thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
>
> Oh boy... see the other thread. Looks like the clinchers are now
> winning the rolling resistance surveys. As a generalization, you can
> find "lower" with either.
>
> >My questions are:
> >1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> >light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
>
> As a vast generalization? Maybe. Tubular rims and tires do typically
> weigh in lighter overall.
>
> >2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> >climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> >fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> >and I tour).
>
> Then you won't even notice. If your goal is actually to get exercise,
> you might consider adding weight, not removing it :-). The rolling
> resistance and weight issues are infinitesimal in terms of daily
> riding.
>
> I think tubulars corner better, but I am sure others will argue that.
> I also like the feel better, but I'm sure people will argue that and I
> haven't tried the late breaking clinchers (nor do I plan to).
>
> >3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> >lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> >hating them.
>
> Maybe. I think it's more a case of the (traditional) amount of rubber
> between you and the road. However, with clinchers now being designed
> to compete against tubulars, you can get clinchers that flat just as
> frequently if you want.
>
> I think more of the reputation comes from the fact that a tubie flat
> typically means a hour of repair time in more expensive tire, and a
> clincher flat typically means at most a tube replacement. Tufo changes
> that equation a bit, for better or worse.
>
> >4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> >pains specifically?
> >Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> I'll leave that for others since I ride traditional tubies with tubes.
Thank you for putting things in perspective for me. I'll be sticking
with clinchers!... and I agree that heavier can be better on these
paved converted railroad beds. I've proven that a few times lately
with different tires and wheels.
Owen
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:16:56
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 9:32 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
> >I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> >tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> >tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> >I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> >always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> >thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
>
> Oh boy... see the other thread. Looks like the clinchers are now
> winning the rolling resistance surveys. As a generalization, you can
> find "lower" with either.
>
> >My questions are:
> >1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> >light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
>
> As a vast generalization? Maybe. Tubular rims and tires do typically
> weigh in lighter overall.
>
> >2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> >climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> >fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> >and I tour).
>
> Then you won't even notice. If your goal is actually to get exercise,
> you might consider adding weight, not removing it :-). The rolling
> resistance and weight issues are infinitesimal in terms of daily
> riding.
>
> I think tubulars corner better, but I am sure others will argue that.
> I also like the feel better, but I'm sure people will argue that and I
> haven't tried the late breaking clinchers (nor do I plan to).
>
> >3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> >lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> >hating them.
>
> Maybe. I think it's more a case of the (traditional) amount of rubber
> between you and the road. However, with clinchers now being designed
> to compete against tubulars, you can get clinchers that flat just as
> frequently if you want.
>
> I think more of the reputation comes from the fact that a tubie flat
> typically means a hour of repair time in more expensive tire, and a
> clincher flat typically means at most a tube replacement. Tufo changes
> that equation a bit, for better or worse.
>
> >4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> >pains specifically?
> >Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> I'll leave that for others since I ride traditional tubies with tubes.
Excercise is my primary reason for cycling, yes. It definitely looks
like I'm better off sticking with the clinchers for my own limited
part in cycling. Thanks for shariong the great technical bits about
the tire types.
Owen
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:11:50
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 8:58 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 3:16 pm, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> > tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> > tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> > I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> > always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> > thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
> > My questions are:
> > 1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> > light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
> > 2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> > climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> > fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> > and I tour).
> > 3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> > lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> > hating them.
> > 4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> > pains specifically?
> > Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> > Owen
>
> It may have been just bad luck but, last month a riding friend riding
> on Tufo Tubular-Clinchers flatted his front tire on Saturday and the
> rear tire on Sunday. He had to throw them away as there was now way to
> patch them. The Tufo tire sealant didn't work because the holes were
> too big. 150 bucks down the drain.
> I believe the sealant works for those little pin-hole leaks but, for
> anything bigger it's sayonara.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks very much for sharing this, Kenny... you probably helped save
me some money and frustration.
Owen
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 11:37:01
From:
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owencoors@bright.net wrote:
[snip]
>2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
>climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
>fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
>and I tour).
[snip]
Dear Owen,
Lighter tires improve speed _very_ slightly uphill, have no
discernable effect on the flats, and--sorry--reduce speed _very_
slightly downhill.
The tiny benefits of lighter tires are greatest on theoretical
calculators, particularly with the gentle grades likely to be found on
railroad grades converted to bicycle paths.
http://austinimage.com/bp/velocity/velocity.html
If you found an imaginary 19.3 mile grade of 3% to ride up and down at
a steady 200 watts on the hoods with tubulars with the default
weights, your trip up would take 70.263 minutes, the trip down would
take 38.909 minutes, and the total time would be 109.172 minutes.
Take an exaggerated pound off the equipment (227 grams off each tire
is unlikely), and your time uphill would improve to 70.097 minutes,
but your descent would slow to 38.953 minutes (sorry, but lighter
bikes and riders roll slower downhill). The round trip with lighter
tires is 109.050 minutes--0.122 minutes faster.
lbs 19.3 19.3 38.6
bike miles miles miles
weight 3% uphill downhill total minutes
22.0 70.263 38.909 109.172
21.0 70.097 38.953 109.050
0.122 minutes faster
That's about 7 seconds gained in nearly two hours if your new tires
are a pound lighter and the bike trail has an impressive grade for an
old railroad bed.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 08:30:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
owencoors@bright.net wrote:
> I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
> My questions are:
> 1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
no.
> 2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> and I tour).
no. see above.
> 3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> hating them.
ride in the rain and flat every single time. sometimes twice a ride.
> 4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> pains specifically?
sealant is just messy. valve tends to gum up.
> Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> Owen
>
worst thing is that because they're seamless, you can't repair them
properly - you're dependent on sealant. if the cut is of a size that
doesn't want to seal, game over. with a "real" tubie, you get the
benefits of using a lighter rim [all clincher rims are heavier] /and/
the ability to repair the thing properly.
only thing positive i can say about tufo's is that they /do/ give that
nice smooth tubie ride on a clincher rim. but when you're standing at
the side of the road in the pissing rain with latex sprayed all down the
back of your leg and all over your bike and the freakin' hole is not
sealing, and you're late for something at work, and you're praising the
deities that you had the foresight to pack an old clincher & tube just
in case, you really don't care about that. i say "stay away".
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 13:32:09
From: still me
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:16:08 -0700, owencoors@bright.net wrote:
>I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
>tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
>tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
>I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
>always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
>thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
Oh boy... see the other thread. Looks like the clinchers are now
winning the rolling resistance surveys. As a generalization, you can
find "lower" with either.
>My questions are:
>1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
>light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
As a vast generalization? Maybe. Tubular rims and tires do typically
weigh in lighter overall.
>2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
>climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
>fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
>and I tour).
Then you won't even notice. If your goal is actually to get exercise,
you might consider adding weight, not removing it :-). The rolling
resistance and weight issues are infinitesimal in terms of daily
riding.
I think tubulars corner better, but I am sure others will argue that.
I also like the feel better, but I'm sure people will argue that and I
haven't tried the late breaking clinchers (nor do I plan to).
>3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
>lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
>hating them.
Maybe. I think it's more a case of the (traditional) amount of rubber
between you and the road. However, with clinchers now being designed
to compete against tubulars, you can get clinchers that flat just as
frequently if you want.
I think more of the reputation comes from the fact that a tubie flat
typically means a hour of repair time in more expensive tire, and a
clincher flat typically means at most a tube replacement. Tufo changes
that equation a bit, for better or worse.
>4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
>pains specifically?
>Any first hand use information would be really great!
I'll leave that for others since I ride traditional tubies with tubes.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 05:58:24
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
On Jul 28, 3:16 pm, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
> I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
> tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
> tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
> I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
> always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
> thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
> My questions are:
> 1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
> light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
> 2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
> climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
> fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
> and I tour).
> 3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
> lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
> hating them.
> 4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
> pains specifically?
> Any first hand use information would be really great!
>
> Owen
It may have been just bad luck but, last month a riding friend riding
on Tufo Tubular-Clinchers flatted his front tire on Saturday and the
rear tire on Sunday. He had to throw them away as there was now way to
patch them. The Tufo tire sealant didn't work because the holes were
too big. 150 bucks down the drain.
I believe the sealant works for those little pin-hole leaks but, for
anything bigger it's sayonara.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 10:58:47
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Tufo Tubular-Clinchers... great or garbage?
|
Kenny wrote:
> On Jul 28, 3:16 pm, owenco...@bright.net wrote:
>> I've read some widely varrying opinions on the net about these type of
>> tires that Tufo is offering. As I understand it... these are actually
>> tubeless and not sew-ups so they require sealant to repair punctures.
Well, not really. there is a tube, or "bladder", as they call it (which
is what a tube is, anyway), but it is apparently glued to the casing,
which is not sewed together like a traditional tubular, so can't be
repaired. Seems like a great idea for them, since they make a sale on
every flat...
>> I do not know the first thing about tubular or tubeless tires, having
>> always used clinchers, but the super high pressures (220psi) and
>> thoughts of lower rolling resistance has appeal to me.
If you get off on riding at 220psi, go right ahead. But others in this
forum claim one of the benefits of tubulars is that you can ride at
lower pressure. Take your pick, but don't claim the benefits of both.
Most high-end clinchers can be inflated to absurd pressures as well --
mine are rated at 175psi, though I never go near that. Of course with
clinchers the rims also need to be strong to take that kind of pressure.
>> My questions are:
>> 1) Are these tires actually lighter (with the rim tape removed) than
>> light clincher, tube, rim-tape?
Marginally, maybe. The greater improvement on weight with tubies comes
from the rims, which of course doesn't apply with these tires.
>> 2) If so, will I only benefit from the weight reduction while
>> climbing? (I'm no racer... I ride 38.6miles of local rail-trail as
>> fast as I can (2hrs) every other evening, some local 30-50mile trips,
>> and I tour).
Infinitesimally. But against that you will have to carry a spare (extra
weight!), and on a rail-trail (paved? if not, you will get lots of
flats) I can't imagine it mattering. You are there to exercise, right?
More exercise per mile with heavier, not lighter, wheels. More fun if
you don't have to walk home, too. Real clinchers give you more options
to repair flats.
>> 3) Do these tires have a reputation of flatting often? To talk with a
>> lbs mechanic, they do and everyone that buys these tires ends up
>> hating them.
Well, one-flat throwaway tires are what they are. That would piss me off.
>> 4) Is using sealant in tubeless tires a pain? If so, what are these
>> pains specifically?
It won't work on anything beyond a pinpoint hole, and can gum up the
valve.
--
David L. Johnson
Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
that mine are all greater.
-- A. Einstein
|
|
