PeteHski

Ok, now I’m totally convinced.

tungsten

Impressed the hell outta' me!
Did I mention he belong to cycling clubs growing up over there and religiously followed the tour and sh*t physically - I mean actually being there on teh Tourmalet - not just sprawled out in front of the teevee?
He also started the very first cycling club at the uni he teaches at out on the Cdn. prairies.
Dr. Peter is like those old EF Hutton ads.

PeteHski

What does he think about carbon frames, disc brakes and tubeless tires?

tungsten

Pretty sure he'd think they all have their place and application.

Although I can't imagine why with the advances in clincher tech anyone would want to f*ck around trying to roll a gooped up tubular onto a rim. Maybe they does it different now? It's been decades since I rode tubs.

Doge

The CAV thing is the thing. Two stage wins in a tour is certainly nice. Others have done that this tour. No big deal.

As to tubulars - I ride them now. Do it right and they are lighter and quicker. There is more to winning a sprint than being faster, but the best you can get tubular will be a few hundred grams lighter than the best you can get anything else. Racers race what they are paid to race. The mechanics also have a say.

slcbob

Tubeless <> tubular. At least the insight is consistent.

PeteHski

If they weren’t paid they would still be racing with the same gear, or the nearest they could afford.

tungsten

heh....I tubeless on my mtn. bike. 3 silk Paris-Roubaix stored unglued on rims for posterity.

Doge

There are preferences. It depends who the sponsor is.
Froome was riding silk FMBs on ax-lightness rims a year he won. Next year he was on team sponsor 300g heavier setup.
I've seen the UAE Colnagos with Campy, Dura-Ace and his TT bike was SRAM cranks this year. Clearly ENVE had some skin in this one - in 2024.

PeteHski

Sure, but they are all riding very similar gear. When people say they only ride those bikes because they are paid to they are usually trying to imply that they would ride something completely different given a free choice. If you gave Pog a free choice of bike he would probably just ride his team Colnago anyway. At that level, those team bikes are all competitive. Individual riders are bound to have their personal preferences, but I don’t think it makes much difference to what they actually ride.

Doge

I was responding specifically to the tubular ("sew-ups") in post 54 by @tungston.
I would guess they are riding tubeless (clinchers) because they and the team are paid to and that is what the mechanic have.
In all but the smoothest constant speed (like an ITT) rides the weight, ride and suppleness matter. With disc brakes more bikes could use that pound of weight cut before hitting the UCI limits anyway. If they lowered UCI weights to 12# you would see rim brakes and tubulars come back - at least for going up.

Below are likely 1Kg less that what they were riding uphill with this year and fairly robust.

1370g with glue, tires, cassette and skewers.

PeteHski

They are riding tubeless because the major tire manufacturers have developed them to the point where they are equal or faster than tubulars, where there is now little or no development occurring. The UCI limit is what it is and given a free choice of tires under current regulations doesn’t change that fact.

Weight doesn’t matter as much as you probably think it does beyond pure climbing. But the pros are close enough to the UCI min weight for the big mountain stages that it’s of no concern.

79pmooney

You are forgetting the other difference. That axle. The quick releases. No disc brake. This bike is burdened with those 14 second wheel changes. On the new stuff, they just do far faster bike changes (and often a second change down the road if the first was to a teammate's bike or a neutral bike or it doesn't have the computer on-board).

Doge

Several teams are a 1Kg over UCI. It is the pure climbing where it matters - and the psychological.
The article below state Powless bike was 7.82kg. But moving the weight also matters. Taking 1Kg off the wheels and putting it on the frame is going to feel way faster.

200g too much?

PeteHski

The article you quote should tell you that bike weight is not super critical unless you are a sore loser looking for an excuse for their poor performance.

Doge

The post (#54) I responded to was about what would they ride if they were not paid to ride. The sore losers clearly would not choose to ride the company machine - but as I posted, they must. The riders do not have the luxury of choice and some think it matters. Because they think that, and physics it matters in many cases.

We can keep going back and forth. 2lbs matter going up a hill. I never claimed they matter so much other than that. I also claim that moving 1-2lbs in wheels to other places is always better.
I have re-glued the actual tires of TdF winners (DQ'd) and also compare to multiple FMB silks - several Francois made for me.
Here is a little video I posted before of a clincher (I have compared to the current GP5000 - a customer of mine BTW)
You cannot beat a silk in anything but seating on the rim. I claim they TdF riders ride what they are paid to ride and they could do much better without that constraint.

Trakhak

PeteHski

So you think the likes of Ineos, UAE and Visma are leaving significant performance gains on the table? Likewise the major bike, wheel and tire manufacturers are all moving in the wrong direction?

Doge

Yes. Hard to argue the physics. Are you saying 1kg does not matter up a hill? Some TdF riders have bikes 1Kg over the UCI min weight. Why would they do that if that was not what they were paid to do?
A good tubular is going to beat any tubeless uphill taking an easy 1lb off the wheels. Rim brakes (and all associated with them) will take another 1kg.
Once you get to UCI limit, better move from wheels to frame.

You may know, maybe not as I don't post here much more - As a junior, my kid got to use mfg stuff or better stuff because free was the best we could get and no one else cared. He got to choose between free what the pros use or non so free other stuff. He would ride a <12# bike up hills. That mattered.
Look at old posts in the 33 racing forum and see some of the stuff we were using. No current pro bike comes close, mainly because of the rules. But 1Kg matters on climbs and the riders think so to.

PeteHski

Look ,it’s easy enough to calculate the effect of weight on a climb. The pro teams have dynamic simulation models, which take account of weight (static and rotating), aero and rolling resistance.

1 kg for me happens to cost around 45 seconds on a 1 hour climb at an average 8% slope gradient. But that’s assuming no reduction in aero for that weight penalty. The pro teams tune their bike builds for specific stages and the top teams are not likely to be 1 kg overweight on the big mountain stages. They might be a few hundred grams over, but they look at the overall package and aero gains usually outweigh the small weight penalty, even with significant climbing. For flatter stages they can afford to trade off more weight for additional aero gains.

There is no point in talking about bikes under the UCI weight limit because the pros would be forced to comply regardless of what bikes and equipment they chose.

If you did give riders a total free choice of equipment I’m sure a few of them would still choose tubulars and rim brakes for certain stages, but I think a large majority would stick with tubeless tires and disc brakes. The top 10 lowest rolling resistance tires are now all tubeless and the fastest rolling tubular only just makes it into the top 20. Lack of development has inevitably left tubulars behind at this point.

As you say, it is hard to argue with the physics and the pro teams and their equipment suppliers certainly don’t.

Doge

Froome was told to go back to sponsor brand. I'd have to search to find it, but he did his best climb on ax-lightness and FMB silks. Next year he added a kilo in the wheels. I recall he was slower. This was all before hitting the wall.

Below are silk FMBs. I believe Francois (F in FMB) sent me that. At the time, my customer was their tire sponsor, and they were not riding their tires.
Next year they all road the sponsors tires. You can search the Internet and find his climbing wheels.

This alone is proof what I said is true. They ride what they are paid to ride. And it matters.

Doge

They don't test FMB silks. They test commercial brands.
I've got tests of many FMBs, Dugast, Champion vs Vittoria, Specialized, Continental, Michelin.
The silk casing (with the tube) is far more supple and faster than any of the tires they test. Top is against a 180g Vittoria, bottom a clincher. All same pressure.


Raw silk casing


Same PSI. Silk gives

PeteHski

Ok, so you don’t think tyre development marches on. I remember when FMBs were considered the gold standard for Paris Roubaix and yet average speeds have increased in recent years with tubeless. Same with TT tyres I think.

What pressures are the tyres above?

PeteHski

Teams still do use non-sponsor equipment IF there is a significant advantage. I just think recent tyre development has finally left tubulars behind. From the little info I can find, the current top performing TLR tyres are at least as fast rolling as any niche brand tubular. The landscape was very different back when that photo was taken. Most teams were still racing on tubulars and TLR was unheard of IIRC.

Doge

I'd have to look it up. Likely 100 PSI. My kid had a Strava KOM on the closing mile or so on Paris Roubaix on heavy FMBs. Had dad's recommendations on tyres been followed he's still have it.

Your argument has been around 4 decades. Sometimes it is true. On tyres/tires - not yet. I think tubeless/clinchers seat better. They would do the best on a track. Yet - on a track, when winning matters more, and there may not paid by brand sponsors you see the same 40-50 year old technology. Most the RR and ITT riders were on their team bikes, not the country bike. When it comes to going all-in...

'We always just stick with 200 psi' - Behind the now-extinct tyres used to break the Olympic and World Team Sprint records | Cyclingnews
Same ridden by the women.The Dutch track team chose to use Dugast latex tubulars. If you aren't sure, tubular tyres are comprised of an inner tube (often latex) that's sewn into a casing which is usually cotton. The rubber tyre tread is applied and a base tape then goes over the stitched together casing. A glue is then applied to the tyre's base tape and the wheel's rim to bond them together. Tyres have to be glued properly to ensure the tyres are on straight and that the tyre and wheel don't become unbonded at a crucial moment.

Dugast tubulars have long been considered to be some of the fastest around, but a couple of years ago the small Dutch company was acquired by Vittoria.

As I've already stated what the commercial teams (TdF) use is likely based on who sponsors them.