AERO Wheels
Comments
-
So how come when I'm climbing with my lightweight wheels it feels so much easier than with my heavier, aero clinchers?
Is it all just in my head? Or do I need to do the same climb over and over - swapping wheels each time to get results to back it up?
(Realizing, of course, that simply be DOING the same climb over and over - I will gain fitness and times will gradually improve!) 0 -
Pokerface wrote: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?
You are right - the HED's are the not the same, I just heard that they jointly held the patent for the rim shape. But SRAM S60, Flashpoint FP60, sixzero and Carbonpro WR are all definitely toroidal, as the the 404's of course.
Thanks for all the info Alex - it was basically what I was thnking anyway that in general, and for me in particular it wouldnt make much difference if the wheels were a little heavier. I am a big 95kg rider with plenty of power, and I just decided that firstly I needed something stiff, and secondly, I wanted something to help me on the flat where I can keep up a decent pace potentially something to use in TT's (I plan to start a few of these sometime soon).0 -
I thought HED and Zipp shared the mouldings for their rims. I do not think Gigantex makes HED rims.0
-
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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%.
....
Races are won and lost with less than 1.6 sec . Plus most road races here you have to go up the same hill about 8x. I'm no scientist but that's about 12 secs. Difference between 1st and not 1st
0 -
acorn_user wrote:I thought HED and Zipp shared the mouldings for their rims. I do not think Gigantex makes HED rims.
I was told, via a phone call to Hed, that my Hed wheel(carbon 3 spoke) was made in Spain. This was 4 years ago. FWIW. :? :?
Dennis Noward0 -
Pokerface wrote:So how come when I'm climbing with my lightweight wheels it feels so much easier than with my heavier, aero clinchers?
Is it all just in my head? Or do I need to do the same climb over and over - swapping wheels each time to get results to back it up? (Realizing, of course, that simply be DOING the same climb over and over - I will gain fitness and times will gradually improve!)
Here is example of test up Alp D'Huez
http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/
It ended up as non-conclusive. Since I'm thinking about getting some tubs precisely for events where there is a lot of climbing involved would like to get to the bottom of this. So posted a new thread over in Beginners.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
Homer J wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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%.
....
Races are won and lost with less than 1.6 sec . Plus most road races here you have to go up the same hill about 8x. I'm no scientist but that's about 12 secs. Difference between 1st and not 1st
Homer J, with all due respect you'd make a better scientist than a cycling coach if you seriously think that what Alex has outlined will make a difference in an average road race - rider capabilities aside; there are a myriad of factors not the least human endeavour and race tactics which make the difference between winning and not winning, and 8 x 1.6 seconds gains would be very low down on the list.
The long grazed legged one0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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....
The data on tubs vs. clinchers for RR does not convincingly make the case one way or another. If you believe it does, you're wrong.
Your example is your example, nothing to do with my comments. Just your rant!
0 -
SBezza wrote: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.
What? Why can you only compare wheels in the same price bracket? Re-read my post and please point out which part of it is factually incorrect. I said nothing about price brackets. My point was that wheel weight - at an extreme - is not an insignificant issue for speed with reference to road racing. It is overrated (as I said) but no-one here is dismissing a very large weight differential as totally insignificant in road racing.0 -
dennisn wrote:acorn_user wrote:I thought HED and Zipp shared the mouldings for their rims. I do not think Gigantex makes HED rims.
I was told, via a phone call to Hed, that my Hed wheel(carbon 3 spoke) was made in Spain. This was 4 years ago. FWIW. :? :?
Dennis Noward
I think that is only true for the trispoke wheels. They came out of the Specialized/DuPont Trispoke programme and the factory was/is in Spain. HED and ZIPP share some patents.
http://archive.roadbikereview.com/04/0EFDBF9A.php0 -
The emu wrote:Homer J wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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%.
....
Races are won and lost with less than 1.6 sec . Plus most road races here you have to go up the same hill about 8x. I'm no scientist but that's about 12 secs. Difference between 1st and not 1st
Homer J, with all due respect you'd make a better scientist than a cycling coach if you seriously think that what Alex has outlined will make a difference in an average road race - rider capabilities aside; there are a myriad of factors not the least human endeavour and race tactics which make the difference between winning and not winning, and 8 x 1.6 seconds gains would be very low down on the list.
For sure but the post is not about tactics it's about, with different wheels, hypothetically the tactics and the other myriad of stuff would be a moot point. 0 -
Homer J wrote:The emu wrote:Homer J wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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%.
....
Races are won and lost with less than 1.6 sec . Plus most road races here you have to go up the same hill about 8x. I'm no scientist but that's about 12 secs. Difference between 1st and not 1st
Homer J, with all due respect you'd make a better scientist than a cycling coach if you seriously think that what Alex has outlined will make a difference in an average road race - rider capabilities aside; there are a myriad of factors not the least human endeavour and race tactics which make the difference between winning and not winning, and 8 x 1.6 seconds gains would be very low down on the list.
For sure but the post is not about tactics it's about, with different wheels, hypothetically the tactics and the other myriad of stuff would be a moot point.
For those who say weight makes such a small difference (for the avoidance of doubt, I agree it makes a small difference) it's not worth bothering about I have a question ... should we pay no attention to bike weight? If the answer is "no, we should pay attention to it" ... by what margin is it ok to be riding a bike heavier than competitors' bikes ... and surely if competitors' bikes keep getting lighter (which they do), then you also need to keep lightening your own bike?0 -
wildmoustache wrote:Homer J wrote:The emu wrote:Homer J wrote:Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:
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%.
....
Races are won and lost with less than 1.6 sec . Plus most road races here you have to go up the same hill about 8x. I'm no scientist but that's about 12 secs. Difference between 1st and not 1st
Homer J, with all due respect you'd make a better scientist than a cycling coach if you seriously think that what Alex has outlined will make a difference in an average road race - rider capabilities aside; there are a myriad of factors not the least human endeavour and race tactics which make the difference between winning and not winning, and 8 x 1.6 seconds gains would be very low down on the list.
For sure but the post is not about tactics it's about, with different wheels, hypothetically the tactics and the other myriad of stuff would be a moot point.
For those who say weight makes such a small difference (for the avoidance of doubt, I agree it makes a small difference) it's not worth bothering about I have a question ... should we pay no attention to bike weight? If the answer is "no, we should pay attention to it" ... by what margin is it ok to be riding a bike heavier than competitors' bikes ... and surely if competitors' bikes keep getting lighter (which they do), then you also need to keep lightening your own bike?
Bikes don't really keep getting lighter and lighter - as there is a minimum weight limit for race bike of about 15 pounds. Of course - this is only really enforced at the top level and you certainly can build a lighter bike than that - but in general, most complete bikes don't dip far below this weight.
But most weight weenies DO strive to get the weight of their bikes as low as possible.
I'm sure bike and component manufacturers could easily build and sell lighter complete bikes - but as they wouldn't be 'legal' they don't bother!0 -
I never said mass wasn't important. All I did was quantify the impacts.
Up to each individual as to whether that outcome is important or not.
Clearly if hillclimbing is the order of the day, then there's no point lugging more mass than you have to. But for the majority, the largest gains will come from optimising themselves, not their bike.0 -
Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:I never said mass wasn't important. All I did was quantify the impacts.
Up to each individual as to whether that outcome is important or not.
Clearly if hillclimbing is the order of the day, then there's no point lugging more mass than you have to. But for the majority, the largest gains will come from optimising themselves, not their bike.
Ditto 0 -
go mavic as they are changeable shimano/campag if you ever change
spares are avalible for wheels over 10 years old and the design changes seldom making parts interchangeability for bearings, axles and what have you easier in the long run
for example i have a pair of 1999 cosmic carbones and have had to replace the rim as crashed it, was told the 16 spoke rear rim for the 2009's is not avalible, damn i thought.
then i realised the 16 hole rear from 1999 is exactly the same as thi years 16 hole front rim on the SSC's and so it was, this years SSCs the rear is now a 24 hole but the same 16 hole front is the same unchanged design of 1999.
the freehub bodys the FTSL are interchangeable and the same on all their road and MTB wheels so getting spares is cheap and easy, even the old FTS hubs will take the newer FTSL freehub bodys.
all i can say is will shimano even have spares for their wheels in even 4 years time after they have changed the specs and lengths and materials every year for 4 years in a row - call me negative but i dont think so, if you want wheels go buy them from a wheel manufacturer, if you want gears buy them from a gear manufacturer - get my drift???Inverse Racing UK / Bikefood
http://www.inverseracing.com0
