tubular widths over time?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 15 Sep 2007 14:51:33
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: tubular widths over time?

something i've been wondering about and haven't seen much information
about:
what exactly is the history of tubular tire widths from the "golden
age" to now? is it kinda similar to clinchers, except somehow wider,
affordable tubulars ended up with semi-unicorn status? what widths
were typical, back in the day?

Date: 16 Sep 2007 14:03:41
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: tubular widths over time?

Date: 16 Sep 2007 01:38:15
From:
Subject: Re: tubular widths over time?

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:51:33 -0700, Nate Knutson <bikenate@riseup.net >
wrote:

>something i've been wondering about and haven't seen much information
>about:
>what exactly is the history of tubular tire widths from the "golden
>age" to now? is it kinda similar to clinchers, except somehow wider,
>affordable tubulars ended up with semi-unicorn status? what widths
>were typical, back in the day?

Dear Nate,

If you enlarge this page, you can see that the 28-inch tubulars sold
by Morley Bros. in 1916 were mostly 1 & 1/2 to 1 & 5/8, roughly 38 mm
to 41 mm:

http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/08.jpg

Numerous companies sold clincher rims and what were called cement
rims, typically standardized for the 1 & 1/2 and the 1 & 5/8 sizes.

There are several possible explanations for why tires were fatter back
then.

The roads were considerably rougher. The balloon pneumatic tire had
just replaced the thin solid rubber tire, which that had made its way
from the highwheelers to the first solid tire safeties. The idea of
pumping the wonderfully soft new pneumatics up as hard as possible and
making them as thin as supermodels had to wait for the physics of
rolling resistance to sink in, for the typical road to improve to
avoid disaster, for tire makers to improve their products enough not
to explode, and for a large market to appear for spindly multi-speed
bikes with caliper brakes, metal rims, and hard seats.

Wood rims don't lend themselves to extremely thin tires.

In passing, I wonder what the arguments were back then over which kind
of spoke washers to use on wood rims. The washers came in two kinds,
smooth and saw-toothed:

http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/ScannedLit/catalog+%2D+1919+Harley+Davidson+accy+07%2Ejpg

The bottom of that 1919 catalogue shows that saw-tooth spoke washers
for wood rims cost 33% more even in bulk, but what was the advantage?
Did smooth washers spin? Shift back and forth somehow? Were the
saw-tooth washers biting into the wood the equivalent of our modern
debates about whether linseed oil and other gunk should be used to
keep nipples from loosening?

To get back to why the old tubies were so full-figured, remember that
the Tour de France banned derailleurs until just before the Second
World War and that several tours required everyone to ride the same
brand of bicycle to make it a contest between the different riders,
not between their different equipment. It took a long time to develop
our modern craze for exploring every possible technical advantage.
First the tires slimmed down, then the brake cables were hidden for
aerodynamics, and now we wind-tunnel test bladed spokes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 15 Sep 2007 22:38:34
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: tubular widths over time?

On Sep 15, 4:12 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
> > something i've been wondering about and haven't seen much information
> > about:
> > what exactly is the history of tubular tire widths from the "golden
> > age" to now? is it kinda similar to clinchers, except somehow wider,
> > affordable tubulars ended up with semi-unicorn status? what widths
> > were typical, back in the day?
>
> Depends upon what you mean by "the day". In the late '60s- early '70s,
> tubulars certainly did not advertise widths like they do now with
> clinchers. The fattest tubulars were cheap cotton tires that we used
> for training when we were poor. They were lumpy, hard to patch, and
> quick to wear out, but they were cheap. They weighed as much as 400g.
> They typically were 28mm, some more like 25mm.
>
> Tires like the Clement Campionato del Mundo were a differenet breed. It
> was a beautiful, big, silk tire that wore like iron. I guess it was
> about a 28 by todays measurements, maybe a 25. Perfect training and
> touring tire. (290g including tube, of course)
>
> Clement Criterium Seta were a very common and excellent racing tire.
> Maybe 22mm across (225g, IIRC). You didn't get much smaller except for
> specialized track and time-trial tires.
>
> More recent tubulars were more like clincher widths, and some actually
> labelled themselves -- occasionally accurately.
>
> Really old tubulars, from what I vaguely recall seeing, tended to be
> bigger, but I don't have any real experience with them, aside from
> seeing a friend's collection of old wooden wheels.
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
> that mine are all greater.
> -- A. Einstein

thanks for the info david. exactly the kind of thing i was wondering!

Date: 15 Sep 2007 19:12:58
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: tubular widths over time?

Nate Knutson wrote:
> something i've been wondering about and haven't seen much information
> about:
> what exactly is the history of tubular tire widths from the "golden
> age" to now? is it kinda similar to clinchers, except somehow wider,
> affordable tubulars ended up with semi-unicorn status? what widths
> were typical, back in the day?
>
Depends upon what you mean by "the day". In the late '60s- early '70s,
tubulars certainly did not advertise widths like they do now with
clinchers. The fattest tubulars were cheap cotton tires that we used
for training when we were poor. They were lumpy, hard to patch, and
quick to wear out, but they were cheap. They weighed as much as 400g.
They typically were 28mm, some more like 25mm.

Tires like the Clement Campionato del Mundo were a differenet breed. It
was a beautiful, big, silk tire that wore like iron. I guess it was
about a 28 by todays measurements, maybe a 25. Perfect training and
touring tire. (290g including tube, of course)

Clement Criterium Seta were a very common and excellent racing tire.
Maybe 22mm across (225g, IIRC). You didn't get much smaller except for
specialized track and time-trial tires.

More recent tubulars were more like clincher widths, and some actually
labelled themselves -- occasionally accurately.

Really old tubulars, from what I vaguely recall seeing, tended to be
bigger, but I don't have any real experience with them, aside from
seeing a friend's collection of old wooden wheels.

--

David L. Johnson

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
that mine are all greater.
-- A. Einstein