Mavic R-SYS SLR vs ZIPP 101

2»

Comments

  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    Imposter wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    Indeed Rolf :) And since when did anyone on here let science get in the way of the "facts" :D

    probably since yesterday, when you claimed 'science' to support something which turned out to be wrong....

    Oh I see :mrgreen:
    So just for clarity and so I don't make the same mistake again. A heavy wheel will lose momentum at the same speed as a light wheel if everything else is equal?
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • Bar Shaker
    Bar Shaker Posts: 2,313
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    SloppySchleckonds wrote:
    FatTed wrote:
    I used to have R-SYS but had no confidence in the carbon spokes so swapped fro racing zeros and HED C2

    Do you have a carbon frame, forks and bars etc etc etc?

    I don't think the technology is mature

    Funniest thing ever :D

    You should have a job with an F1 team, or at Boeing.
    Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
    Boardman FS Pro
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,337
    Bar Shaker wrote:
    You should have a job with an F1 team, or at Boeing.

    Don't take a quote out of its context to make yourself look pretty... if you want to argue, then argue with facts...

    I was talking about carbon spoke technology, which is not mature. Neither MacLaren nor Boeing use carbon spokes
    left the forum March 2023
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    Indeed Rolf :) And since when did anyone on here let science get in the way of the "facts" :D

    probably since yesterday, when you claimed 'science' to support something which turned out to be wrong....

    Oh I see :mrgreen:
    So just for clarity and so I don't make the same mistake again. A heavy wheel will lose momentum at the same speed as a light wheel if everything else is equal?

    You are giving me a headache now - I wonder what the speed of momentum actually is!

    Anyway, for a given speed and velocity, a lighter object will have less momentum than a heavy object. So it will accelerate and decelerate more easily. It will be more susceptible to the influence of other forces eg wind resistance but where that weight actually is on the bike isn't important once a stable velocity has been reached. And, as I pointed out earlier, better aerodynamics can beat a heavier weight advantage so to say that more weight is always quicker downhill is patently wrong.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • davidwilcock
    davidwilcock Posts: 123
    My favourite thread ever on the forum should be able to solve this

    viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011
  • Bar Shaker
    Bar Shaker Posts: 2,313
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Bar Shaker wrote:
    You should have a job with an F1 team, or at Boeing.

    Don't take a quote out of its context to make yourself look pretty... if you want to argue, then argue with facts...

    I was talking about carbon spoke technology, which is not mature. Neither MacLaren nor Boeing use carbon spokes

    The wheels on an F1 car are stock forged magnesium units and are not allowed to be carbon fibre. The suspension components, which are subject to huge shock loadings, are team design and are carbon fibre, as is almost every other part of the car, except the engine and gearbox.

    The wings on a new Boeing, as on most modern fighter jets, are carbon fibre.

    There is nothing immature about carbon fibre.

    Because some wheels break steel or aluminium spokes, do you consider the technology of using metals to be mature?
    Boardman Elite SLR 9.2S
    Boardman FS Pro
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    Rolf F wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    Indeed Rolf :) And since when did anyone on here let science get in the way of the "facts" :D

    probably since yesterday, when you claimed 'science' to support something which turned out to be wrong....

    Oh I see :mrgreen:
    So just for clarity and so I don't make the same mistake again. A heavy wheel will lose momentum at the same speed as a light wheel if everything else is equal?

    You are giving me a headache now - I wonder what the speed of momentum actually is!

    Anyway, for a given speed and velocity, a lighter object will have less momentum than a heavy object. So it will accelerate and decelerate more easily. It will be more susceptible to the influence of other forces eg wind resistance but where that weight actually is on the bike isn't important once a stable velocity has been reached. And, as I pointed out earlier, better aerodynamics can beat a heavier weight advantage so to say that more weight is always quicker downhill is patently wrong.

    Sorry about the headache Rolf :shock:
    So if the two bikes are rolling downhill at say 30 mph and they start to slow down will they both decelerate at the same rate?
    What I am saying is the rider with the lighter wheels will have to pedal first to hold the same momentum as the heavy wheeled bike. The effects of rotational rather than static mass.
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    davidwilcock wrote:
    My favourite thread ever on the forum should be able to solve this

    viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011

    7 pages long :shock:

    I have neither the time or inclination to read it all.
    Especially as I am happy enough with my SLR's 8)
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    Sorry about the headache Rolf :shock:
    So if the two bikes are rolling downhill at say 30 mph and they start to slow down will they both decelerate at the same rate?

    If the all-up weight of the riders/bikes is the same, then yes. Wheel weight is not relevant.
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    What I am saying is the rider with the lighter wheels will have to pedal first to hold the same momentum as the heavy wheeled bike. The effects of rotational rather than static mass.

    Nope.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    7 pages long :shock:

    I have neither the time or inclination to read it all.

    Probably says it all.
  • davidwilcock
    davidwilcock Posts: 123
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    davidwilcock wrote:
    My favourite thread ever on the forum should be able to solve this

    viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011

    7 pages long :shock:

    I have neither the time or inclination to read it all.
    Especially as I am happy enough with my SLR's 8)

    Well just read P_Tuckers posts then. Rotating mass does not matter.
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    Imposter wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:

    7 pages long :shock:

    I have neither the time or inclination to read it all.

    Probably says it all.

    You seem like a happy go lucky chap Imposter ?
    If that is your real name :D
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    davidwilcock wrote:
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    davidwilcock wrote:
    My favourite thread ever on the forum should be able to solve this

    viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12870011

    7 pages long :shock:

    I have neither the time or inclination to read it all.
    Especially as I am happy enough with my SLR's 8)

    Well just read P_Tuckers posts then. Rotating mass does not matter.

    Cheers David I'm making the effort. Entertaining so far :D
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • davidwilcock
    davidwilcock Posts: 123
    If there's one thing that thread is, its a good laugh.

    I was in the rotational mass camp before I read it. But I changed my mind after. His delivery is hilarious, rude, but I have to admit, it did make me laugh a lot. Some great quotes in there
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Charlie Potatoes wrote:
    You seem like a happy go lucky chap Imposter ?
    If that is your real name :D

    Yes it is. Presumably your real name is 'Potatoes'..?
  • FatTed
    FatTed Posts: 1,205
    SloppySchleckonds wrote:
    FatTed wrote:
    I used to have R-SYS but had no confidence in the carbon spokes so swapped fro racing zeros and HED C2

    Do you have a carbon frame, forks and bars etc etc etc?

    Not that it matters I have a lugged steel bike, aluminium handlebars, and for some reason a carbon seatpost
    I always think of this blog when people talk about R-SYS wheels

    http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.nz/2009/ ... ps-on.html
  • junglist_matty
    junglist_matty Posts: 1,731
    I'm 95kg and have Kysrium Equipes (yes, the bottom line ones).... I descend fast, I climb slow and I ride flats at reasonable pace.... Go figure!

    My wheels weigh in a fair bit heavier than R-SYS, (and probably about as aero) I could probably shave a few seconds off every 100 feet of elevation at 6%, but then have to pay about £1500 (that is more than my entire bike) just for the pleasure ;) ....I think I'll stick with the heavies.

    My point? It's all down to personal preference, buy what you like and what you can afford; realistically it's probably not going to make a whole world of difference to your overall performance on the bike.
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    It's not the same thing... the amount and type of stress is not the same for a seatpost, a stem or a spoke. While frames and other components have now reached a state where there is very little difference in the rate of failure for carbon compared to steel or titanium (when carbon is properly built), the same cannot be said about spokes... there are not many carbon spokes on the market and their performance is far from convincing. R-SYS spoke breakages are routine... in fact among those I know who own a set (four), all of them had spokes snapping, so Fat Ted is correct to have little confidence in them. I don't think the technology is mature

    3 years on this year and never had an ounce of trouble. I've whacked them a few times as well, hard, and never had a carbon spoke go. Cannot rate them highly enough.

    Oh the stories of drag going down hill? Plenty of runs I've kept pace and gone past others freewheeling.

    Very very odd you know 4 people who have had spokes given out I know of a dozen people with them all without issue.
  • robbo2011
    robbo2011 Posts: 1,017
    Hold the front page! Bespoke wheelbuilder in slagging off factory wheels shocker!
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    Oh the stories of drag going down hill? Plenty of runs I've kept pace and gone past others freewheeling.

    Unless you've actually made sure all else was equal, you don't know what part the wheels had to play.

    In my case, I knew the weight of me and my bike, I knew the weight of the other rider and his bike. We are similar in general build (me taller and thinner but not hugely so). I was far enough away from him to not have any draft benefit and we were both in the same position on the bikes and not pedalling. There was no doubt that I was rolling faster despite being lighter. That's a fact - I should have been slower but I wasn't. There may have been other factors than the wheels but I don't know what they would have been - most of the main variables I think I covered.

    Given that the benefit of deep rim wheels (as I understand it) is down to the shorter spoke length rather than the shape of the rim, I would think it fairly logical to expect that if two similar wheels differ only in one having much fatter spokes, then the thin spoked wheel will have an aero advantage. Or do you think that a furniture lorry is as aerodynamic as a Ferrari? :wink:
    Faster than a tent.......

Categories