Have someone like Colorado Cyclist make you some wheels. Use Stans Alpha 340 rims, DT Swiss double butted spokes and good hubs (King, etc.) If you are racing use tubeless Hutchinson Atoms or tubeless Hutchinson Fusion 3’s for training.
Not nearly as expensive as the Zipps and certainly more durable. Very fast.
I bought a Carbent recumbent in September with Zipp 404 Firecrest wheels. I’m saving seven pounds off my other recumbent, so it’s hard to tell what gives me the two mile per hour difference in speed. The Zipps do give me steering trouble in 30 plus cross winds, but I haven’t gone down yet. And by the way, even averaging 20 mph you can benefit on downhills, or into headwinds where the net effect is over 25 mph. My average speed is 19 mph, but I’ve been up to 50 mph on the downhills. I also use latex tubes which are supposed to give up to 10% less rolling resistance.
Actually, Cycling Magazine did a roll down test and the latex did better in all catagories. Plus you don’t have all the mess of the sealant. Or the expense and trouble of converting. Latex is a quick, simle way to get more speed or less effort.
Here we go again. Debunking the tubeless myths (ask any mountain biker who has used them for the past 5 + years).
Use a sealant like Stans. Washes with water easily (not like Slime), white liquid with consistency of skim milk. Takes only seconds to install and lasts until it evaporates over about 3 to 4 months and you top off the tire with 2 oz. more of sealant.. And you don’t get pinch flats (no tubes). I have not had a flat in 2 years. I cut a tire two years ago (cut was 1/2 inch and too long to seal) and simply threw in a tube – was no mess whatsoever).
And if you go read articles by Lenard Zinn, etc., you’ll find that virtually all manufacturers and INDEPENDENT testing services agree that at the right pressure, tubeless has less rolling resistance than any tubed tire (i.e., if you normally run a tubed tire at, say, 105 or 110 psi, you probably will run a tubeless clincher at about 90 psi). Why less resistance? Surprisingly it has to do with a high psi causing tires to “bounce” more off even the small imperfections in the road, thereby losing contact with the surface of the road. It’s true – certainly surprised me. If you run tubeless clincher and tubed clincher at same pressure, no difference in rolling resistance.
Now, unless you are a pro, you probably won’t really even notice the difference between a tubeless clincher and a good tubed tire. So go with the convenience of tubeless.
Why would someone say a tube does better? Money. That’s the reason Continental, Michelin, etc. are not marketing road tubeless – yet. They will sell the same number of tires whether tubed or tubeless so why would they want to lose out on the tube revenue? They finally had to give in with mountain bikes and sell mountain tubeless. It will happen soon with road bikes. It happened 50 years ago with auto tires. It’s not like it’s some new technology.
I love my tubeless tires! I converted after listening to Iceman. For the past 2 months, I’ve noticed a decrease in rolling resistance, which has forced me to work on my pedal stoke (my fault not the tires)! My wife has ridden tubeless for 2 years and she’s never had a flat! No more pinch flats! Iceman is correct about the sealant, it looks like milk and not much thicker! Less time fixing flats means more Kurb time for me, I’m a convert!!!!
Atta boy, Mich. Old habits die hard but sooner or later the best practices prevail. I’m just surprised because, as I said earlier, when’s the last time you saw a car with tubed tires? 50 years ago? Why would bikes be any different?
If you are going to compare cycling with auto travel, then I must assume that you carry a compete spare wheel with you on your bike as you do in your car. That could be why there is a difference. Besides, you apparently carry a spare tube with you as you said you used one to fix a cut. So, you don’t get that weight savings either.
I don’t know of any mountain bikers who have tried latex.