Tubular vs Clincher Comparison

How much of a difference does 8-12 psi make? Quite a bit, particularly in slippery conditions. We’ll use our current tyre rating scale for comparison.

Pavement: On pavement, neither tyre is a star performer. The heavy, relatively tall knobs combined with a lack of a closely spaced centre knob area make the tyres both slightly squirmy and comparatively slow compared to their Racing Ralph stablemate. The tubular was slightly more nervous as the lower tyre pressure caused the tread to roll around on the rim.

Hardpack and dry grass: Still out of the sweet spot for either of these tyres. They both grip exceptionally well, but they’re still slower than the Racing Ralph, which is built for these conditions. The tubular starts to show some advantage over the clincher as grip is superior and ride quality is better over the bumps of hard pack and grass.

Wet grass: The tubular starts to pull away. The Rocket Ron is one of the best clincher wet condition tyres we tested all season, but the confidence of the tubular through wet grassy turns and on off camber sections is unmatched. The clincher has to rely on a smaller contact patch as the tyre doesn’t flatten as readily, while the tubular compresses to get more of the Rocket Ron tread on the ground when it was really needed.

Wet grass and mud – it’s what cyclocross is all about…

Sodden grass and light mud: More of the same here. The Rocket Ron clincher is a top performer in the mud. The tubular is just better. Mud clears more readily, the tyre grabs the ground more confidently, and traction is even more abundant than the clincher.

Mud: When the going got really sloppy, we took the Rocket Ron tubular down below 25 PSI. Even with a latex tube and the wide Ritchey rim, we didn’t dare do the same with the clincher. In these conditions, the benefits of the tubular are most apparent. The tyre rolls smoothly through treacle, cleaning quickly, while providing confidence inspiring handling. The clincher isn’t bad, it just doesn’t provide the same level of grip or cushioning the tubular provides.

Our only wish for the Rocket Ron tubular would be for more volume. The tyre, compared to other market offerings is both a little narrower and shallower. When running a lower pressure this means a little less forgiveness when hitting a particularly sharp bump. We didn’t dent a rim, but a casing depth and width closer to the clincher might make just about the perfect tyre!

The wetter and muddier it is the wider the gap becomes between tubular and clincher

FINAL THOUGHTS

Tubular cyclocross tyres are more painful than their clincher siblings in just about every regard. They are harder to mount, they require some expertise when gluing, they cannot be easily swapped, and they cost at least twice as much. All of this pain is forgotten when racing. The Rocket Ron tubulars, in their element, mud and slop, are quite a bit better than the clincher alternative. We’ve found the same is true when comparing dry condition hard pack tubulars with clinchers. If you plan to jockey at the front of your local cross race, a quiver of tubular wheels with mixtures of tread types is the best way to go. However if you’re training or racing for fun, the logistics and expense of maintaining multiple tubular wheel sets may not make sense. If you do choose clinchers over tubulars, you aren’t alone; Dave Taylor at Schwalbe mentioned they sell 5 clincher Rocket Rons for every tubular!

Schwalbe UK