-
By They, you mean Zipp, Continental, Schwalbe, HED, Specialized, Enve, Bontrager, Shimano, Reynolds etc.?
Since I've never heard anyone claim that clinchers are lighter than tubular solutions... So are we talking about aerodynamics (whatever that means since its not that easy to talk about especially on the road given side winds and pack effects but even on the track its hard to address)? Handling? Rolling resistance? Puncture resistance? All of these soft features come together to define if something is "faster".
Can't really speak about Schwalbe and some of the others.. Bontrager? You mean Trek? Did not know they did any R&D on tyres... Don't they source their better tyres from Lion (Vittoria)? I've never seen any studies by Schwalbe-- heck they, I think, stopped being in manufacturer decades ago and morphed into more of a trading house with their tyres being made by Swallow, these days Hunga's Indonesian factory. Conti, of course, still makes tyres-- and still makes their top tyres in Germany (and some even handsewn). The studies they've done working with elite riders I've seen did not support the claim. Continental is, if I recall, not even convinced that latex inner-tubes are, in practice, "faster". They afterall equip their top riders typically with special buytl tubes-- within the ProLtd production teams that demand latex can get them but most get buytl. Changing production and materials (such as their abandonment of cotton)? I asked a few years back and was told it was related to the availability of materials from within the Conti group and not performance. Zipp? Does not seem to be Zipp's well published opinion either.. Is there consumer pressure towards clincher solutions? Sure. Its large. Most of the European and American makers of high end full carbon wheels I've spoken with-- including those selling clincher wheels-- don't really like them but try to offer what they consider is the best product they can under the given constraints. Most of these companies need, afterall, to sell their wheels.
EdwardZ-
Clinchers are faster aerodynamically. Clinchers are faster in rolling resistance terms. That'll do me.
Tub systems are lighter but the difference isn't huge and weight weenies died out with drillium and purple ano.
Tubs are more resistant to pinch flats but if you're pinch flatting you're either a shit mechanic, can't bunnyhop or aren't watching where you're going. I'd like to see a timed tyre/tube change between regular clincher rider and regular tub rider. I'd then like to see them both ride around a corner at 70kph and see which tyre actually hangs on after being inflated.
Or ride through glass (aka the London) and hike a bike to the nearest bike shop and see what they have in stock - tubs or clinchers? See who's fastest home then.
Conti might not be into latex tubes but that was more likely to be the pain in the arse they are with people who don't know what they're doing tying up their support line. "My tyre's gone flat but I can't find a puncture?!" or "how do I install this floppy tube, it won't stay still". All the tests I've seen show latex tubes are faster (here's one: http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/road-bike-reviews/continental-grand-prix-4000s-ii-latex-tube-2014). "BMC, Orica-GreenEdge, Lotto and Lampre as well as some British teams" use latex versions of Conti's tubs, whereas the retail plebs get butyl.
hippy
By They, you mean Zipp, Continental, Schwalbe, HED, Specialized, Enve, Bontrager, Shimano, Reynolds etc.?