FWIW, my buddy uses 26" tubes in his 29er wheels. They're lighter than 29er UL tubes (and half the cost) as well as the tubeless fluids/strips. He's pretty happy with his set up, and doesn't puncture very often. He says it's not a hassle to mount them, but YMMV.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery < thill....@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't want to get into a 2nd hand argument with Eric Hjertberg about > aerodynamics of spokes, but I would suggest that the OP is riding a > Hillborne (not the usual choice for the TT crowd) and that he just did > his first century with relatively large, heavy touring tires. I'm sure > there are at least a dozen things he could do to refine his technique > or free/cheap ways to make his bike faster that would have more effect > than cutting the aero drag of a few spokes. But now that you mentioned > it, maybe Jan Heine can repeat his tire rolling resistance tests, > except to test the effect of different numbers and lacing patterns of > spokes. I have an academic background in fluid mechanics for whatever > that's worth (not much), and based on no data, I believe the > aerodynamic effect of a few spokes is negligible. But I've been wrong > before. > > I don't believe ultralight tubes get punctured more often. If > something sharp goes through the tire, it'll most likely poke a hole > in any tube, regardless of whether that tube is ultralight or normal > thickness. I've been using UL tubes for a couple years, with no > noticeable increase in my flat-rate. Nothing fancy, just Kenda or QBP- > brand lightweight tubes. Curiously, probably because a lot of people > are leery of lightweight tubes, I often find them cheaper than regular > tubes. > > On Jun 14, 9:05 pm, "XO-1.org Rough Riders" <adventureco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Eric Hjertberg, who knows more about wheels than the rest of the > > planet combined, told me that the combined frontal area of 36 spokes > > is more than the bicycle frame itself, plus the spokes are spinning > > through the air as the bike moves forward, further adding drag to our > > forward movement. Thus, "the point" of having less spokes is about > > aerodynamics, NOT weight. > > > > As for ultralight tubes, any time saved because they are lighter and > > offer less rolling resistance is probably negligible, especially when > > compared to the time lost to the higher frequency of punctures they > > will provide. > > > > - Chris Kostman > > La Jolla, CAhttp://www.XO-1.orghttp://www.adventurecorps.com > > > > On Jun 14, 6:39 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The spoke count matters very little compared to the weight of the tire/ > > > tube/rim combination. You can save a bunch of rolling weight and > > > probably improve rolling resistance, for example, simply by switching > > > to an ultralight tube (I almost always use ultralight tubes). You save > > > even more rolling weight by switching to any of the 200-250-ish gram > > > 25-28 mm tires on the market. If you go with new wheels, I second an > > > earlier recommendation of the Velocity Aerohead. Lacing radial in the > > > front and half-radial in the back probably saves as much spoke weight > > > as going to an exotically low number of spokes (exotic in the sense > > > that there aren't many economical 24h hubs). You could even splurge on > > > DT Revolution butted spokes if you wanna go crazy. Buying expensive > > > lightweight hubs and cassettes will give you considerably less bang > > > for your buck. > > > > > Also: Consider ways to improve aerodynamics, reduce the number and > > > duration of stops, work on eating/drinking on the bike without > > > stopping, etc. > > > > > Or, my favorite solution: reject the dominant racing paradigm and > > > embrace your slowness! > > > > > On Jun 14, 12:39 am, andrew hill <neurod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > thanks guys - good suggestion. > > > > > > i'm using Mavic rims with 36h XT hubs front and rear, with 40mm > Schwalbe Mara Supremems. > > > > a lighter 32h wheelest/tires for event rides is an extremely good > idea. and then i'd have one for a road-ey bike if i wanted to go more > dedicated :) > > > > > > best, > > > > andrew > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rbw-owners-bunch%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- Cheers, David Redlands, CA "Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There is something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym." ~Bill Nye, scientist guy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
