AERO Wheels
markwalker
Posts: 953
Hi i need some more aero wheels for tt and races, i dont want tubs, theyre a pain to glue.
torn between the mavic carbone SLR and the duraace 50mm clinchers. Cant find any of either though, can anyone help?
torn between the mavic carbone SLR and the duraace 50mm clinchers. Cant find any of either though, can anyone help?
0
Comments
-
I have just got some Mavic Carbone SL's as clinchers. Very nice wheels, and no doubt the SLR's are even nicer, and a little lighter.
I think the only real difference is the ali braking surface, and the slight difference in weight.
Some of the online retailers sell them, plus no doubt you could get them at a LBS, I got mine from a LBS.0 -
IMHO. Note that I said that please.
All that money for clinchers? :roll: :roll:
And the only reason you can come up with is "they're a pain to glue"? :roll: :roll:
Clinchers are for training and these are not training wheels. These wheels are RACE
wheels. If you must have them for everyday bling then go clincher but for serious racing,
tubulars.
IM(maybe not so)HO, anyway.
Dennis Noward0 -
HiDennis and Bezza,
Thank you for your replies.
Dennis youre right about bling but it rains a lot here and a 5 mile walk back to the start and punctures are a common fact of life. Its a lot more convienient to carry an inner tube than a spare tub. either way its a dnf.
regards
Mark0 -
markwalker wrote:HiDennis and Bezza,
Thank you for your replies.
Dennis youre right about bling but it rains a lot here and a 5 mile walk back to the start and punctures are a common fact of life. Its a lot more convienient to carry an inner tube than a spare tub. either way its a dnf.
regards
Mark
With tubs you don't need to carry a spare as you can ride....slowly back to the start on a punctured tub.'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 -
schlepcycling wrote:markwalker wrote:HiDennis and Bezza,
Thank you for your replies.
Dennis youre right about bling but it rains a lot here and a 5 mile walk back to the start and punctures are a common fact of life. Its a lot more convienient to carry an inner tube than a spare tub. either way its a dnf.
regards
Mark
With tubs you don't need to carry a spare as you can ride....slowly back to the start on a punctured tub.
??? on a set of carbon race wheels? these things cost a lot of money and it might be ok for a pro doing paris roubaix to keep going cause hes not paying the cost of replaicng the rim and tub.
As for suitability of clinchers, it used to be the case that tubs were lighter, more supple, could be run at lower pressure which all adds up to improved performace and feel but things have moved on and the differences are not quite what they were. Its a bit like shaving legs it looks a bit more pro but doesnt make much realworld difference anymore. In fact I'm sure one of the pro teams is riding clinchers now.0 -
OK Dennis. Let's break this down into manageable chunks:
(1) are clinchers IYHO unsuitable for road racing? If so, why?
(2) if they are suitable for road racing, are they nevertheless IYHO inferior in any way to tubulars? If so, in what way?
Terongi0 -
terongi wrote:dennisn wrote:
OK Dennis. Let's break this down into manageable chunks:
(1) are clinchers IYHO unsuitable for road racing? If so, why?
(2) if they are suitable for road racing, are they nevertheless IYHO inferior in any way to tubulars? If so, in what way?
Terongi
(1) No, never said they were "unsuitable"(you said that).
(2)Yes. Tubulars stay on the rim if you have a flat. This can be a very important control issue at high speeds. They weigh less. Will take much higher pressures. Puncture less. It's the pros race wheel of choice.
Dennis Noward0 -
Except Lampre who use Fortezza tricomps.... 0
-
On the Cosmic Carbone I'd probably go with a clincher because the weight difference is insignificant. On all carbon rims I'd go with a tub because the clincher versions do tend to be heavier and I've heard others say that a tub stuck to the rim offers it some protection in the event of a puncture. I think sprint rims are probably a bit more robust too as you don't need the bit to hook a tyre bead under - when you are talking about £600 plus for a set of wheels you want them to last.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I doubt a record tub is much lighter than my record clinchers with a latex tube, certainly not enough to notice a difference.
Also very easy to repair an inner tube, not such an easy job to repair a punctured tub.
I doubt there is any difference in real performance.0 -
A set of Corima Aeros the difference is 235gs per pair between tub and clinchers, on a set of Zipp 303s the difference is well over 400gs. Depends what you call significant but if you are spending large amounts of money on the wheels then it's a consideration at least.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
The fastest tyres currently available in terms of aerodynamics and rolling resistance are clincher tyres, faster than their tubular counterparts. Provided they are inflated correctly and one uses latex inner tubes.
As for weight, these fast clincher+latex inner tubes are often lighter than their tub counterpart (not that such mass makes much difference anyway, at least no where near the difference that improved rolling resistance offers).
Indeed in terms of rolling resistance, many tubs now rate quite poorly against the top clincher tyres.
Tubs offer some benefits wrt punctures/safety but an argument that they are faster no longer carries any weight.0 -
ok, you want some race hoops ... I say go aero and light. If it rains a lot during your races then there is a good argument for not using carbon rims, which are pretty hairy in the wet. I would not ride them in a race (or a group ride) in the wet if I could help it.
So, if it has to be alu rimmed, then I'd certainly consider the Cosmic Carbone SLs, the Bontrager Aeolus's, Zipp 303s /404s, and those Dura Ace ones if you can get them. I've only ridden the CC SLs of this bunch, and they were fast but not the lightest. If you want low weight, then what about a shallow rim with low spoke count?0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:The fastest tyres currently available in terms of aerodynamics and rolling resistance are clincher tyres, faster than their tubular counterparts. Provided they are inflated correctly and one uses latex inner tubes.
As for weight, these fast clincher+latex inner tubes are often lighter than their tub counterpart (not that such mass makes much difference anyway, at least no where near the difference that improved rolling resistance offers).
Indeed in terms of rolling resistance, many tubs now rate quite poorly against the top clincher tyres.
Tubs offer some benefits wrt punctures/safety but an argument that they are faster no longer carries any weight.
On your first statement, there is conflicting evidence on this point. Some evidence says the fastest tyres are actually tubulars, provided they are inflated properly. Either way, it looks like between the top tubs and clinchers there is not much in it.
weight of the rim is an issue for speed, an overrated one, but not insignificant if you are talking about a 1000g set of tubs versus, say a 1700g set of clinchers.0 -
I have a set of the Mavic Cosmic SL's - the 2009 model. Great wheels and right now am using them every day.
OK - they aren't light. So - what kind of racing do you do? Lots of hills in there or mostly flat?
These wheels are great for flat TTs - not great for hill climbs as the weight DOES become a small issue.
Agree that it's easier to change a flat clincher tyre as opposed to a tub - but as others have said - you CAN ride on a flat tub. And it won't damage your rims if you ride it slowly.
As for where you can get them - Evans seems to have some SLRs in stock and can order the SLs. Plus their prices are good for a retail shop.
I bought mine off eBay and saved some money - consider it as an option if you can find them.
The Dura Ace wheels are always a lot harder to find.0 -
Mavic should have plenty of stock, well they did when I got mine through my LBS the other week.0
-
Havent you considered the following?
Vuelta Carbon pro
Vuelta carbon pro WR
SRAM S60
Flashpoint FP60
Dalkiia SixZero
Okay, the carbon pro WR, S60, FP60 and SixZero all use the Zipp/Hed torodial rim, so could be considered to the same wheel, but it seems you can get some of them for quite good prices.
I saw the Vuelta Carbon Pro (50mm clincher or tubular) for 480 plus postage on eBay.
All less than a grand a set - whats your budget anyway0 -
I thought the argument for tubs was that weight saved on the wheel is at the rim which has much greater impact than static weight (e.g. carbon bottle holder) if significant climbing involved + helps acceleration?
Be grateful if this could be clarified one way or other as considering getting some tubs for road race use (puncture not such an issue as most events have neutral support that will provide spare wheel).Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
felgen wrote:Okay, the carbon pro WR, S60, FP60 and SixZero all use the Zipp/Hed torodial rim
Just a question - I thought Hed rims were made by Gigantex? I know Sram now owns Zipp so are using similar rims now (The Sram rims don't have the dimples).
Are you saying that HED and Sram and Zipp rims are all the same?0 -
bahzob wrote:I thought the argument for tubs was that weight saved on the wheel is at the rim which has much greater impact than static weight (e.g. carbon bottle holder) if significant climbing involved + helps acceleration?
Be grateful if this could be clarified one way or other as considering getting some tubs for road race use (puncture not such an issue as most events have neutral support that will provide spare wheel).
That is correct. Lighter wheels spin up faster. They say wheel weight is the most place you can save weight on a bike in terms of performance.
But - it depends on the kind of racing. In a flat TT - wheel weight won't matter - aerodynamics does. Thus heavy disc wheels come into play.
A hilly road course - you want lightweight wheels with an aero advantage - thus your full carbon, deep section tubular wheels.
A flat crit course - depends. If there are lots of corners where you need to slow down and accelerate quickly after, then again - you want stiff, lightweight wheels that will get you moving out of the corners as fast as possible. If the crit course doesn't feature a lot of corners and constant acceleration isn't a big issue - then you could get away with deep section clinchers. Once you get them up to speed - the extra weight isn't a big issue.
All depends on your type of racing, the terrain, etc.0 -
Well I rely on data published by some very smart people who do this testing on a compeltely independnt basis, no manufacturer bias.wildmoustache wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:The fastest tyres currently available in terms of aerodynamics and rolling resistance are clincher tyres, faster than their tubular counterparts. Provided they are inflated correctly and one uses latex inner tubes.
As for weight, these fast clincher+latex inner tubes are often lighter than their tub counterpart (not that such mass makes much difference anyway, at least no where near the difference that improved rolling resistance offers).
Indeed in terms of rolling resistance, many tubs now rate quite poorly against the top clincher tyres.
Tubs offer some benefits wrt punctures/safety but an argument that they are faster no longer carries any weight.
On your first statement, there is conflicting evidence on this point. Some evidence says the fastest tyres are actually tubulars, provided they are inflated properly. Either way, it looks like between the top tubs and clinchers there is not much in it.
weight of the rim is an issue for speed, an overrated one, but not insignificant if you are talking about a 1000g set of tubs versus, say a 1700g set of clinchers.
Are you saying there is a 700g difference between the same model of wheel in a tub v clincher model? I just had a quick look at Zipp's site. There is a 365g difference between a pair of Zipp 404 clincher and tubs wheels.
Let's see, 365 grams extra up a 7% grade of 2km for an 80kg mass of bike + rider capable of 300 watts average equates to a time difference of 1.6 seconds or 0.38%.
Or put it another way, for hill climbing on steeper gradients, that extra weight that's so bad costs a little over 1 extra watt to ride at the same speed. I don't know a rider on the planet that can detect a 1 watt difference in their power output....0 -
All good answers thank you everyone.
Im going to get the 404s. they have a good reputation, seem to be the aero standard for that depth of wheel and arent too heavy. I have used some before and they seem to carry speed well through bends
I avoid races with steephills so thats not a problem and more practically theye available!
I had a good look a the Cosmic carbone clinchers with the carbon spokes, they are seriously sexy looking bits of kit but broken spoke means the wheel has to be returned to Mavic.
At least the 404 can be repaired by me (might invalidate the warranty but that only lasts 12months anyway)0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
Are you saying there is a 700g difference between the same model of wheel in a tub v clincher model? I just had a quick look at Zipp's site. There is a 365g difference between a pair of Zipp 404 clincher and tubs wheels.
Let's see, 365 grams extra up a 7% grade of 2km for an 80kg mass of bike + rider capable of 300 watts average equates to a time difference of 1.6 seconds or 0.38%.
Or put it another way, for hill climbing on steeper gradients, that extra weight that's so bad costs a little over 1 extra watt to ride at the same speed. I don't know a rider on the planet that can detect a 1 watt difference in their power output....
Alex - you seem to know what you're talking about - but I want to point out a few things...
First- the previous poster was basically saying that SOME aero clinchers weigh around 1700g while the lighter aero tubs are in the 1000g range. Not necessarily in the same brand (you compared Zipps to Zipps).
Even so - is it not true that it is not a simple matter of carrying extra weight up the hill - as you seem to indicate? An extra 365 grams of WHEEL weight is not the same as an extra 365 grams of frame weight (or a bottle cage or saddle, etc).
I've been led to believe that WHEEL weight makes a HUGE difference - especially when riding up hills - because of the energy required to get and keep the wheels rolling. (Not sure if this is to do with rolling resistance)?
Basically - a heavier wheel requires more effort to get it moving - and keep it moving. In a flat terrain situation - this is not important as once the wheel is moving, inertia helps keep it going. But uphill you have to constantly push to keep the wheel (and the bike) moving forward or you will stop a LOT quicker than on the flat.
Does any of this make sense or ring true?
Therefore - and maybe this is wheel manufacturer's voodoo to try and sell me more expensive lighter wheels - the lighter the wheel - the less energy it will take to keep it moving.
Yes? No? Please explain....0 -
No.Pokerface wrote:Does any of this make sense or ring true?
Wheel mass only has an effect when accelerating (let's put aside steering characteristics). When riding up hill we are in essence in a steady state speed situation and not accelerating, so the impact of extra mass is only that additional energy required to move that additional mass up the hill.
I compared like for like wheels because that is a fair comparison. You don't compare the best rolling tub against the worst rolling clincher and conclude tubs are better. Likewise you don't comapre a heavy clincher wheel with a competely different tub wheel and expect us to believe they are all a LOT heavier.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:Likewise you don't comapre a heavy clincher wheel with a competely different tub wheel and expect us to believe they are all a LOT heavier.
+1 especially as a 1000gm tub wheelset, is going to cost a hell of alot more than a 1700gm clincher wheelset. You can only compare wheels in the same price bracket, and that is what Alex did.0 -
I don't know about 700gs but the difference between tub and clincher for the same model can easily be 400gs plus on the rim as in the example I posted above. If you aren't bothered about weight at all then you probably aren't going to be spending over a grand on a set of wheels in the first place. If you accept that even going up a hill there are likely to be accelerations then that's some kind of advantage for tubs - even if it isn't a massive advantage. Plus I'd still be more worried about trashing a clincher rim by puncturing or hitting a pot hole than trashing a tub rim.
For carbon race wheels I think there are very small advantages either way and it doesn't make a lot of difference which you go for - for all round wheels used for racing, training, sportives etc I do think the cost of replacing or repairing tubs rather than a new tube means clinchers would be my preferred choice.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
markwalker wrote:I had a good look a the Cosmic carbone clinchers with the carbon spokes, they are seriously sexy looking bits of kit but broken spoke means the wheel has to be returned to Mavic.
The aerodynamics on the SLR are poor compared to the older clincher cosmics because of the very large holes where the spokes enter the fairing. And whilst an alloy braking surface may be preferable in the wet, carrying a kilo or two of water inside the fairings is no fun... You have to have a pretty serious crash or have a pedal stuck in them to break those spokes too. Saying that I do know someone who's RD went into the spokes a few km after he'd ridden them out of the shop and trashed them. Ahem.
The 404s are a good option though the clinchers are not very stiff compared to the tubulars 2008 and before as well as the weight differential. I had a set and ended up selling them for that reason. The 2009 Zipp hub flanges are chunkier which should have improved this however. Whether this is important will depend on your weight and how much your rely on being able to sprint in races. I find stiffer wheels make a significant difference in a sprint but your mileage may vary... I ride tubs a lot and find them no more hassle than clinchers and prefer the ride and handling.0 -
Well lets just do the maths on each scenario. Ignoring the power required to overcome air, rolling and drivetrain resistance, which are exactly the same for each, then:Tom Butcher wrote:I don't know about 700gs but the difference between tub and clincher for the same model can easily be 400gs plus on the rim as in the example I posted above.
Adding 400 grams to the rim of a set of a 2kg wheels:
Power required to accelerate from 15km/h to 40km/h in 10 seconds*:
80kg bike + rider (with 2kg wheels) : 435 watts
80.4 kg bike + rider (with 2.4kg wheels): 440 watts
i.e. an additional 5 watts.
Any accelerations on a hillclimb won't be of that order of magnitude - that is a flat land acceleration scenario. And hence the difference in power requirements between wheels accelerating on a hillclimb will be even smaller.
I have already covered the difference in climbing power/speed.
* This incorporates the change in overall kinetic energy of bike + rider (including the increased moment of inertia of the heavier rims).0
