Track cycling is a sport deeply rooted in tradition, where every component in the system from the shoes to helmet and everything in between can influence performance by fractions of a second. Tubular tyres have been the trusted choice on the velodrome for years - prized for their lightweight design and secure attachment. However, advancements in clincher tyre technology and world records being broken have brought new options to the track, which are challenging the long-held assumptions about what works best.
As tyre and rim technology continue to evolve, the debate between clinchers and tubulars continues. In this blog, we’ll take a close look at both tyre types, examining their advantages, drawbacks, and how they fit into today’s track cycling landscape. My main aim with this blog post is to start the conversation and give people things to think about when deciding what set up to go for. So even if you’re a seasoned racer or a local club race hitter, understanding these set up changes can help you make better choices for your riding goals.
The Basics: Clincher vs Tubular
Before diving into the pros and cons of each tyre type, it’s important to understand the fundamental differences between clincher and tubular tyres.
Clinchers: They feature a tyre casing that hooks onto the rim’s bead seat, enclosing an inner tube that holds the air. They are the most common tire on the road, however, more recently these traditional clinchers with latex or TPU tubes have become a go to for some of the worlds fastest track athletes too! They’re normally cheaper in price and the ease of installation, paired with the wide availability make them a popular choice for many cyclists.
Tubular: On the other hand, Tubulars are constructed by sewing the tyre casing around an inner tube, forming a single, airtight unit. The tyre is then glued directly onto a specially designed rim without a bead hook. Tubular rims tend to be lighter and stronger, and are generally able to withstand much higher pressures when compared to its clincher counterpart - something we will discuss later.
Both systems have distinct features and a long-standing history in the cycling industry. Understanding these differences is key to appreciating the on-going debate around performance and convenience.
We decided to not include tyre pressure into the pros and cons as the traditional view was that clinchers were only suitable for endurance events, not sprinting. The concern was that the lower pressures typically used with clincher setups caused the tyres to deform, roll, and feel unstable under the extreme loads generated during sprinting particularly when driving through the bends.
That assumption was challenged when Matthew Richardson (GBR) broke the flying 200m track record, stopping the clock at 8.857 seconds on a full clincher setup. This performance demonstrated that, when properly configured, clinchers are capable of handling the forces of elite-level sprinting without the perceived drawbacks.
In saying that, there are some important unknowns. The exact tyre pressure used was never disclosed, nor do we know the tube choice (latex or TPU) both of which can significantly influence rolling resistance, tyre stability, and overall feel at speed. Whether or not Richardson used a tyre pressure within a standard range is unknown and so we are unable to comment on if the lower tyre pressure generally associated with clincher tyres is a positive or negative for sprinters.
That being said, if I were choosing my next setup, a clincher system is definitely something I would seriously consider for my track bike. Performances like this show that, when correctly optimized, clinchers are no longer just an endurance option but a viable choice at the highest level of sprinting as well.
If you’re thinking about making the switch or want to chat more about track tech, feel free to reach out to hello@velobike.co.nz
0 comments