Want to buy new wheels
Comments
-
Just to be clear, the concept of 'marginal gains' is a process of making miniscule performance improvements that together make the vital differences in the competition of athletes in peak condition. If you are fat and unfit, do more cycling and eat fewer pies.
By all means buy some light wheels (depending on how fat you are, obviously)!, but you're buying them because they feel nice to ride, not because they are better for climbing; it'll take some training before your wheels are having a greater effect on your ability to get up the hill than your fitness. I've said it before and it'll be my epitaph at this rate: if you're blaming your equipment, you're likely to succumb to other excuses. I'm pretty sure that Brad Wiggins didn't have any posh kit when he was growing up. I'm also sure that if he'd allowed that to be a problem, we would never have heard of him.0 -
100% agree with losing weight and not trying to 'buy' performance, but surely its a case of doing the two things together (improve fitness and bike) rather than having to be 8 stone before allowed any decent kit.
Whats the stupid link with performance and a nice bike anyway?0 -
Of course, there is another way to look at it. Yes, lighter wheels will give you a marginal gain that for the same effort will get you to the top of the hill 10 seconds sooner and that maybe worth spending £500 for.
However, in practice, probably you won't get there 10 seconds sooner. Probably you'll take the same time to get up and use a little less energy to do it (based on my observation of my own experience that climb time differences between MTB and road bike are often far less that I'd expect - but the difference in effort is more noticeable) - it's that saving of energy that is the potential real gain. For the same bike, I think most people feel that a slight reduction in effort makes a big difference to tiredness at the top of a climb but a much smaller difference in time.
This is just what I perceive - it may be all cobblers. But I think that it is simplistic simply to look at the impact of lighter wheels or other components in terms of time savings for a given effort.Faster than a tent.......0 -
To be perfectly honest, I think you should just buy sensibly within what you can afford - eg unfit beginners buying deeps when they would benefit more from lighter wheels; provided of course that they aren't too heavy for them. A good set of fully spoked handbuilts can be pretty light anyway, and will last years.0
-
*Crossed post with above*
How about just buy and ride a nice bike because you enjoy it?
Why not just completely separate the two issues?
Buy the best bike/kit because you like it, and do the best performance you can with whatever kit you have :-)
If someone was going to buy something for 100% performance reasons, that had negligible performance benefits, then yes, advise that they did not waste cash.
Personally I think the preposed purchase is rarely just for performance, and the gains are often more than negligable because enjoyment is increased.
The OP was advised by some on this thread not to get the wheels. He now has them, so lets see if he thinks it was a good use of £250 rather than debate how much quicker he gets up hills and whether we think it was worth it.0 -
The physics of climbing is a whole different ball game. On a steep section, the bike is being accelerated with every pedal stroke and decelerated by gravity between them. Because you are repeatedly accelerating, the least centripedal mass you can have the better. Think of light wheels as like lightened flywheels, needing less power to spin them up.
Just as important is wheel stiffness. Because you are accelerating, you are putting more power through the wheels than you would to maintain speed on the flat and if you are losing some of that power by flexing the spokes, you will lose efficiency transferring the power that your legs are producing.
The OP's Ksyriums aren't a bad wheel in this respect. Probably the greatest climbing wheel is the R SYS at 1100g with carbon spokes. They are very expensive and a bit uncompromising for recreational riding though.
The Zondas look damn fine. Enjoy.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:Probably the greatest climbing wheel is the R SYS at 1100g with carbon spokes. They are very expensive and a bit uncompromising for recreational riding though.
Hey, I have some good climbing wheels then
No wonder I am enjoying hills so much these days 0 -
Carbonator wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:Probably the greatest climbing wheel is the R SYS at 1100g with carbon spokes. They are very expensive and a bit uncompromising for recreational riding though.
Hey, I have some good climbing wheels then
No wonder I am enjoying hills so much these days
Carby they are the best mate. I'd love to put a set on the SLR but then I'd have to move to the Alps Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
My brain hurts thinking abut new wheels!
Sometimes I think too much about these things and as Carbonator suggests maybe we should all focus on enjoyment and less on lazily looking for a performance improvement that doesnt come from blood, seat and tears. There is a danger that some of us actually spend more time and effort researching that next upgrade than actually riding our bikes.
I bought my Wilier last year. Its great but all the ones in Your Road Bikes look better than mine when they have 50mm tubs/clinchers ergo I want to look as good as that. Cycling is my main hobby, escape and sanity preserver. I have disposable income and I am a wee bit selfish so rather than buy the Mrs more handbags and shoes, the kids Ipads - I will buy some new wheels for my bike. Can't be so hard? Well it is if you are looking for that best value for your money.
Value of course is a relative term. If its a one off purchase to be amortised over a 5 year period and ridden every day then I suspect that handbuilts are definitely the way to go. They are the pragmatic choice. I spend a lot of my life being pragmatic so not sure if I want that for my indulgence. Some brilliant advice on here from the likes of Ugo, thecycleclinic - they know where the market is for the pragmatic solution ie serviceable, durable, moderate investment, weight/aero trade off. Problem is for me, much as I value the advice I still yearn to look like a pro even if I can't ride like one and pragmatic is seldom sexy
So inevitable that turns your attention to all things deep sectioned and the trade offs vs investment levels.
Clincher vs tubular - has to clinchers for the recreational rider on UK roads I think.
Carbon vs alloy - hmmm carbon better, not sure but don't want exploding rim or no stopping in the rain. Maybe a hybrid then. yes, those Cosmic Carbones look the part but hold on a minute they are alloy wheels with a bit of carbon faring glued on. People with think I am a dentist on a Wilier and not a Pinarello. Ah but the CCs are a bit heavy not much lighter than my fulcrum 5s so I wont go faster and the whoosh sound is only if you go over 23mph so thats only downhill for me! Campagnolo Bullet 50mm then, cheap in the ribble sale, same conundrum, will they climb aswell as my Fulcrums?
so maybe best to put looks to one side and go light. Soul S2.0s look decent. £350 for 1400g, surely I will be roaring up hills in those and wont risk being blown off in a gust of wind.
Anyway as I said my brain hurts with all this stuff so for now I am just going to ride my bike and my trusty Fulcrums, probably until someone markets a 46mm carbon clincher with alloy brake track, 1500g and £500.
Good luck with your Zondas I am sure they will be great.0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:The physics of climbing is a whole different ball game. On a steep section, the bike is being accelerated with every pedal stroke and decelerated by gravity between them. Because you are repeatedly accelerating, the least centripedal mass you can have the better. Think of light wheels as like lightened flywheels, needing less power to spin them up.
A lighter wheel accelerates quicker/decelerates quicker, while a heavier wheel accelerates slower/decelerates slower, so the difference - and therefore the benefit - of using lighter wheels in that respect is negligible. Overall weight saving when climbing is obviously a good thing, but that's a different argument.0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:Carbonator wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:Probably the greatest climbing wheel is the R SYS at 1100g with carbon spokes. They are very expensive and a bit uncompromising for recreational riding though.
Hey, I have some good climbing wheels then
No wonder I am enjoying hills so much these days
Carby they are the best mate. I'd love to put a set on the SLR but then I'd have to move to the Alps
Mine are just standard R-SYS, not the R-SYS SL (think discontinued?) or SLR.
I need all the help I can get up hills........however marginal 0 -
Calpol wrote:My brain hurts thinking abut new wheels!
Sometimes I think too much about these things and as Carbonator suggests maybe we should all focus on enjoyment and less on lazily looking for a performance improvement that doesnt come from blood, seat and tears.
I said do both though Calpol
Having a great looking bike that you want to go out and enjoy riding on, and then smashing it is the perfect combo 0 -
Imposter wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:The physics of climbing is a whole different ball game. On a steep section, the bike is being accelerated with every pedal stroke and decelerated by gravity between them. Because you are repeatedly accelerating, the least centripedal mass you can have the better. Think of light wheels as like lightened flywheels, needing less power to spin them up.
A lighter wheel accelerates quicker/decelerates quicker, while a heavier wheel accelerates slower/decelerates slower, so the difference - and therefore the benefit - of using lighter wheels in that respect is negligible. Overall weight saving when climbing is obviously a good thing, but that's a different argument.
That's like saying a heavier rider will decelerate more slowly between pedal strokes because he has more momentum. For climbing, you need stiff wheels with light rims.
How many riders do you see tacking Alpine stages with deep section carbon rims?Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Cheers, Stu0
-
Bar Shaker wrote:That's like saying a heavier rider will decelerate more slowly between pedal strokes because he has more momentum. For climbing, you need stiff wheels with light rims.
For climbing, you need a light 'system' - it doesn't matter how the weight is distributed on the bike, as the energy required to move it up the slope is the same regardless.Bar Shaker wrote:How many riders do you see tacking Alpine stages with deep section carbon rims?
Quite a few actually. There a pic in this link here, near the bottom of the page: viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011&start=80
In fact, that whole thread is worth a read, as it might help to remove any misconceptions you may have about wheel weight.0 -
imposter wrote:
Quite a few actually. There a pic in this link here, near the bottom of the page: viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011&start=80Bar Shaker wrote:How many riders do you see tacking Alpine stages with deep section carbon rims?
In fact, that whole thread is worth a read, as it might help to remove any misconceptions you may have about wheel weight.
So this idiot has got it all wrong then?
Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
I think the main problem is that people rate weight over stiffness when it should be the other way around and that you cant get your heads around it. You cant 'see' where the energy disappears to and how much. Weight is much easier for guys to use and understand. Lighter, shallower rims are more difficult generally to make in to stiffer wheel sets, not impossible but expensive usually. Ive had bontrager xxx clinchers with 300g carbon rims, those soul 2.0s as well that someone coincidentally mentioned and tested loads more yet none climb better than a set i have at 1.7kg.0
-
Agreed Crimmey... and what I said a page ago.
For climbing, give me a set of R SYS over 404s every day of the week.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:
So this idiot has got it all wrong then?
Not sure what you mean. The point you are missing is that deep section/shallow section/wheel weight is largely irrelevant - in as much they will all get you to the top in about the same amount of time. On that basis, it doesn't matter is Bradders is on 50mm, 24mm, or indeed any other size you can think of. The principal consideration when going up hill is overall bike/rider weight. Gotta love physics, eh 0 -
The consideration is Watts per Kilo....0
-
Watts/kilo is totally deviating off the subject. Unfortunately not had the pleasure of the r-sys. I wouldn't recommend the soul s2.0,no way. So much better out there for the money. One thing i will add is that a lighter wheelset could actually slow u down over climbs due to lack of stiffness/energy loss which is difficult to measure in real world therefore not very believable (not arbitrary wheel stiffness figures) . They might feel nicer to ride on though. The other thread is a good laugh. Everyone barking up up wrong tree.0
-
Imposter wrote:Bar Shaker wrote:
So this idiot has got it all wrong then?
Not sure what you mean. The point you are missing is that deep section/shallow section/wheel weight is largely irrelevant - in as much they will all get you to the top in about the same amount of time. On that basis, it doesn't matter is Bradders is on 50mm, 24mm, or indeed any other size you can think of. The principal consideration when going up hill is overall bike/rider weight. Gotta love physics, eh
If it is largely irrelevant, why would the yellow jersey wearer not be running 50mm rims? At this level, with this budget, everything is relevant.
You have got to love physics and it will tell you that that the repeated acceleration during climbing will favour the wheels with the least mass at the rims, if stiffness is the same.Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
Boardman FS Pro0 -
Bar Shaker wrote:If it is largely irrelevant, why would the yellow jersey wearer not be running 50mm rims? At this level, with this budget, everything is relevant.
"blah blah, pro riders," etc. Let's not start comparing pro riders pls. As has already been pointed out, there are pics of pros riding up hills using all kinds of kit. Doesn't prove anything.Bar Shaker wrote:You have got to love physics and it will tell you that that the repeated acceleration during climbing will favour the wheels with the least mass at the rims, if stiffness is the same.
Except it won't tell you anything of the sort. If you bothered to read the other thread, you would have seen that. Here's a useful para for you...Advantages of light wheels
The advantage of light bikes, and particularly light wheels, from a KE standpoint is that KE only comes into play when speed changes, and there are certainly two cases where lighter wheels should have an advantage: sprints, and corner jumps in a criterium.[15]
In a 250 m sprint from 36 to 47 km/h to (22 to 29 mph), a 90 kg bike/rider with 1.75 kg of rims/tires/spokes increases KE by 6,360 joules (6.4 kilocalories burned). Shaving 500 g from the rims/tires/spokes reduces this KE by 35 joules (1 kilocalorie = 1.163 watt-hour). The impact of this weight saving on speed or distance is rather difficult to calculate, and requires assumptions about rider power output and sprint distance. The Analytic Cycling web site allows this calculation, and gives a time/distance advantage of 0.16 s/188 cm for a sprinter who shaves 500 g off their wheels. If that weight went to make an aero wheel that was worth 0.03 mph (0.05 km/h) at 25 mph (40 km/h), the weight savings would be canceled by the aerodynamic advantage. For reference, the best aero bicycle wheels are worth about 0.4 mph (0.6 km/h) at 25, and so in this sprint would handily beat a set of wheels weighing 500 g less.
In a criterium race, a rider is often jumping out of every corner. If the rider has to brake entering each corner (no coasting to slow down), then the KE that is added in each jump is wasted as heat in braking. For a flat crit at 40 km/h, 1 km circuit, 4 corners per lap, 10 km/h speed loss at each corner, one hour duration, 80 kg rider/6.5 kg bike/1.75 kg rims/tires/spokes, there would be 160 corner jumps. This effort adds 387 kilocalories to the 1100 kilocalories required for the same ride at steady speed. Removing 500 g from the wheels, reduces the total body energy requirement by 4.4 kilocalories. If the extra 500 g in the wheels had resulted in a 0.3% reduction in aerodynamic drag factor (worth a 0.02 mph (0.03 km/h) speed increase at 25 mph), the caloric cost of the added weight effect would be canceled by the reduced work to overcome the wind.
Another place where light wheels are claimed to have great advantage is in climbing. Though one may hear expressions such as "these wheels were worth 1–2 mph", etc. The formula for power suggests that 1 lb saved is worth 0.06 mph (0.1 km/h) on a 7% grade, and even a 4 lb saving is worth only 0.25 mph (0.4 km/h) for a light rider. So, where is the big savings in wheel weight reduction coming from? One argument is that there is no such improvement; that it is "placebo effect". But it has been proposed that the speed variation with each pedal stroke when riding up a hill explains such an advantage. However the energy of speed variation is conserved; during the power phase of pedaling the bike speeds up slightly, which stores KE, and in the "dead spot" at the top of the pedal stroke the bike slows down, which recovers that KE. Thus increased rotating mass may slightly reduce speed variations, but it does not add energy requirement beyond that of the same non-rotating mass.
Lighter bikes are easier to get up hills, but the cost of "rotating mass" is only an issue during a rapid acceleration, and it is small even then.0
