Which Tyres?

That looks like four words masquerading as two!

I did think that

Did you get my PM?

I did

I was trying to work out if I replied, would it become a group message.

I commute on strada biancas. But this is in NZ where the roads are completely different, no flints and way fewer punctures. I get a couple a year.
They're really nice but really on the 'race' end of the spectrum. Vittoria paves are a bit tougher than SBs. Vittoria Corsa SCs are less tough than SBs.

PM'd

They look good, but at 32mm the tread profile changes to this, and my Sammy Slicks are very similar to that.

I'll trial the Strada Biancha's.

1 Attachment

The 'New' gravelking 32 comes in that slick thread. Not sure if it's released yet though. Been looking for it myself. Had the 28's and they performed well.

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.

I ordered 32 from winstanleys and it is the slick file thread not te chunky one.

The chunky ones are listed separately.

You want the tan walls don't ya 😉

28mm on Sagan's bike for the Classics?

Ah, maybe I'll wait then.

... They are available, I am riding a pair.

http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/product/69995/Panaracer_Gravel_King_Tyre_PA700GRAVK28FB?gclid=COKrw_mS6MsCFbYK0wodjzoMfg

Ah, thanks.

While I like the way gumwalls look, they don't belong on my slightly-electric blue Dolan.

Clinchers are faster aerodynamically.

Not even according to Zipp. While wider clinchers have greatly improved their aerodynamics they still lag in what is possible with tubular constructions.

Clinchers are faster in rolling resistance terms. That'll do me.

Most of these statements seem to refer back to either the IRC or Tour's tests which were extremely flawed. Tom Anhalt's tests are not great but a bit more realistic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C37Wq7d6d1Chig_ClcbsWuG8ugTxKLEmvAajTD9tcU0/edit#gid=1189800693

If you want to kill the performance of tubular tyres you just need to use weak sticky mastics (such as Pastali) or tape.

Tub systems are lighter but the difference isn't huge and weight weenies died out with drillium and purple ano.

At least 150g difference per wheel is not "weight weenie". Tubular tyres allow not just for lighter systems but the shape of the tyre is "more ideal". They handle better in curves-- which also makes them faster.

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

These days most races allow for wheel changes-- no need to sling a tyre along.... but tyre changes? Not sure what a "regular" tubular rider is. But if you ask? Are tubulars idiot proof.. They are, of course, not..

around a corner at 70kph and see which tyre actually hangs on after being inflated.

112 km/h? Other than in a slipstream or downhill I doubt anyone is going to hit that speed.. And hitting 100 km/h on a descent and taking a corner will just wash out .. That said the lateral forces acting on tyres on the track are not tiny-- and I've seen quite a few blowouts at highspeed without seeing the tyre roll off. In amateur road races I've seen clinchers leave their rims...

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.

We're talking now about "weekend warrior turf".. Speed here is not the ultimate issue but passion, comfort, fun, handling etc. Here the guys on deep section carbon are doing it for "style points"..

Tubulars in shops? Those days are behind us-- and the tubulars I've seen in bicycle shops over the past few years nearly always seem to be the crappy Continental Giros (and at absurdly high prices). That said.. how 'bot when the shops are closed. I've ridden trashed tubular tyres home. When my clincher rear blew last month I walked the the 10+ miles home. I would have had no qualms riding the bicycle home if it had been a tubular tyre.

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

I'm talking about tubular tyres.

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: 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

Sure a number of Conti sponsored riders-- I've mentioned this quite a few times-- request their ProLtd tyres with latex inner-tubes. They are handmade in Korbach and they do a number of variants-- including heavier duty inner-tubes. Most ProLtd tyres, however, are made with their special butyl and not latex inner-tubes. While some riders in Team BMC might have gotten latex I think most got butyl.

of Conti's tubs, whereas the retail plebs get butyl.

Hardly. I had over the years a large number of team tyres. Most of the Competitions were butyl. Looking even at their high-end track tyres... I see butyl..

Tub user comments...
"newer, cutting-edge carbon clinchers like the Zipp Firecrest series can more seamlessly integrate the clincher rim without resorting to an aerodynamic compromise. And moreover, the Firecrest hoops seem highly immune to pinch flats, perhaps because of their much wider rim bed. And the convenience of these things is quite compelling. I'm highly considering going back to clinchers because of these wheels."
http://www.tririg.com/articles.php?id=2011_07_31_Clinchers_or_Tubulars

Clinchers beating tubs...

The very spreadsheet you link to (Tom Anhalt's tests) shows two clinchers at the top of the list: http://microcosm.app/out/b6bdh

"At least 150g difference per wheel is not "weight weenie"."

The weight difference btw clincher and tubular for 808FC wheels is 85 grams. Weight Weenie.

"These days most races allow for wheel changes"
So your "Puncture resistance? All of these soft features come together to define if something is "faster"." point is moot anyway, unless we're not talking about races, which case my point stands.

"112 km/h?" No, "70kph". brodouevenunitsofmeasurement?
"In amateur road races I've seen clinchers leave their rims..." Yeah, with the wheel sideways mid-crash.

But since wheel swaps are allowed in races and we're talking about punctures, it must be training rides we're talking about, in which case I can inflate my new tube back to what it was when I left the house and it will operate as expected whereas tub-rider now has a poorly-glued/taped replaced tub on their wheel. Clinchers please.

"how 'bot when the shops are closed. I've ridden trashed tubular tyres home. When my clincher rear blew last month I walked the the 10+ miles home. I would have had no qualms riding the bicycle home if it had been a tubular tyre."

Spare tube and/or patch kit vs. getting home with a decidedly second-hand tyre/rim. Clinchers please.

Latex are faster. My point stands. Latex tubes please.

Latex tubes please

Are there any Latex tubes with short valves (and thus readily usable with discs with fiddly valve holes)?

Michelin has one with a 38mm valve

38mm 700 x 18-20 C
40mm 700 x 22-23 C
60mm 700 x 22-23 C

Hmmm yeah, I think it's the 38mm Michelin AirComp that I currently use, but there still isn't much space for my crack pipe. I almost broke the valve core yesterday.

I did find some super short butyl inner tubes that had a valve length of 20 something mm (24?) and they were a dream to pump but I can't remember the brand and I lost my entire supply when I dropped my toolkit in a race.

then a diy project :)
get a removable core and a thread tap with same size.
Cut down valve on your favorite tube.
Tap valve stump with new thread
Screw removable core in

(Not tested.....)

"newer, cutting-edge carbon clinchers like the Zipp Firecrest series can more seamlessly integrate the clincher rim without resorting to an aerodynamic compromise. And moreover, the Firecrest hoops seem highly immune to pinch flats, perhaps because of their much wider rim bed. And the convenience of these things is quite compelling. I'm highly considering going back to clinchers because of these wheels."

I note Veloflex put on their boxes not for use with Carbon clinchers (rims cutting through sidewalls apparently). There's also the historical (?) problem of rim/brake wall failures under heat.
Tubulars still seem like the better choice for crabon unless there problems are sorted now.

There's historical problem of tubs rolling when glue melts too.

I use clinchers because they're faster.

If you're worried about alpine descents use alu rims or disc brakes or learn not to ride your brakes down the descents.

To the Firecrests.. Fine that TriTrig thinks they are better but Zipp who make them don't. Let me see if I can find their drag numbers...

The very spreadsheet you link to (Tom Anhalt's tests) shows two clinchers at the top of the list: http://microcosm.app/out/b6bdh

The difference in rolling resistance of the tyres at the top are all to be taken with a large heaping of salt. Yes, the rolling resistance of clinchers has vastly improved over the years but your claim was that their rolling resistance is lower.. Note also that, if I recall correctly, Tom uses two coats of Continental cement to glue the tyres. While Conti mastic is quite good it is not the glue with the lowest rolling resistance. It is, afterall, still a softer sticky glue rather than hard. In the Peleton most of the team mechanics don't use it alone but tend to mix other cements in. Don't know what is popular these days but a few years ago Patex was pretty popular with carbon wheels.. On the track-- and I've mentioned this on a number of occasions-- Terokal 2444 is the go-to glue.

"At least 150g difference per wheel is not "weight weenie"."

The weight difference btw clincher and tubular for 808FC wheels is 85 grams. Weight Weenie.

Really? Lets look at the Zipp numbers:
CC: 1885g (see http://zipp.com/wheels/808-firecrest---carbon-clincher/# )
Tubular: 1700g
(these are the numbers that Zipp publish on their Web)
Difference: 185g. The font wheel difference is 85g. The rear difference is listed as 100g. That is an average 92.5g per wheel difference.

Lets now look at the difference in weight for the tyres. For the sake of things I'll leave off the weight of the rim tape as its quite similar to the weight of mastic.
My Continental 22 Comps are ~260g, Veloflex Carbons were ~250g, Vittoria Corsas were ~260g,.. again I'm just choosing really robust and not ultralight tyres... Lets go with 260g.
Lets look at tyres that claim to be "similar"... My GP4000SII 23mm were ~210g. My 23mm Open Corsa CX were 220g. Veloflex Master was just under 200g. Lets go with 205g. The lighest inner-tubes around are the Continental Supersonic at 50g but they are scary thin.. Good inner-tubes are generally at least 100g each. Just weighed some of my inner-tubes. My latex Paribas came in at 104g. Vittoria UltraLight (Butyl) was 111g. Both weighed on an analytical balance. Lets say 100g. Sum tyre+inner-tube = 305g.
Difference here is: 45g.
45+92.5 = 137.5g. That is pretty much the min. average difference. My experience is also that something like the Continental Competition is robuster than a Veloflex Master clincher.. Most people here will probably see a bit larger gap.

"These days most races allow for wheel changes"
So your "Puncture resistance? All of these soft features come together to define if something is "faster"." point is moot anyway, unless we're not talking about races, which case my point stands.

Many races have been won with people riding the last km on flat. Sometimes there is no time for a change. With clinchers there is no choice.

"112 km/h?" No, "70kph". brodouevenunitsofmeasurement?

Imperial riders are faster, right?

But since wheel swaps are allowed in races and we're talking about punctures, it must be training rides we're talking about, in which case I

Why. You mean there are no punctures or other kinds of tyre defects in races? Heck even on the track I've seen tyres fail-- even explode.

can inflate my new tube back to what it was when I left the house and it will operate as expected whereas tub-rider now has a poorly-glued/taped replaced tub on their wheel. Clinchers please.

I don't use tape. I strongly advise against their use. But.. after a flat and a roadside repair or tyre swap.. With tubulars they are not 100%. But that does not say that they are horribly unsafe. For riding about I use something like Mastic One or Conti glue. How many time over the years have I struggled to remove one of those tyres when I got home to glue them correctly.

"how 'bot when the shops are closed. I've ridden trashed tubular tyres home. When my clincher rear blew last month I walked the the 10+ miles home. I would have had no qualms riding the bicycle home if it had been a tubular tyre."

Spare tube and/or patch kit vs. getting home with a decidedly second-hand tyre/rim. Clinchers please.

A patch kit would not have helped. The tyre (Continental) was completely trashed-- massive sidewall failure. I had a patch kit, some sealant, spare inner-tube and a mini-pump but no replacement tyre. When years ago I had total failure from a tubular (Vittoria) I just rode it home-- the tyre delaminated and so was a complete write-off.

Latex are faster. My point stands. Latex tubes please.

Is the problem with Veloflex clinchers on carbon rims not a thing then ? Veloflex being overly touchy ?

Re tubs rolling vs clincher rims failing - I can't remember many tubs rolling on pro bikes due to heat build up in descending. Beloki was one many years back ? One of the spring arab races this year where the peloton sheltered under a bridge from the heat ?
There was a spate of Sportives banning carbon clinchers a few years back. It may, as you say, be down to riders riding brakes down descents. It may be due to the tech failing under heat build up. Heat build up on Carbon clinchers may even be sorted now - I've not really seen this addressed and confirmed though.

I do have a soft spot for tubs, I enjoy the ritual around the prepping and gluing and the feel of them on the road. However, I'm not entirely convinced in a blind test I could tell the difference between a good cotton/latex tub and a 'open' clincher and latex tube.
Genuine question - Say I wanted to run Veloflex on carbon rims. Are Veloflex's warning on carbon clinchers false, and their clinchers are ok to run on them ? Or should I stick to their tubs on carbon rims