Wheels puzzle. Perhaps more of a conundrum.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I have a wheels puzzle, of the "should I buy something and if so what?" variety.

I have (a) Bike 1 (b) a P3 - to become Bike 3 (c) a pair of Reynolds Assaults with an aerojacket for the rear.

Two frames, one wheelset. There's the beginnings of a problem.

Do I choose answer 1, 2 or 3?

Answer 1: take the aerojacket off the Assault rear, and put the Assaults on Bike 1. Buy a Flo 60 and Flo disc for the P3. Ignore Flo supply issues for now.

Answer 2: put the Assaults plus aerojacket on the P3 and buy some cheap Chinese deep section clinchers for Bike 1

Answer 3: stick with what I have and make do.


I don't care either way that Flos have a fairing over a rim, and aren't "true" carbon clinchers (what ever that means, or is worth). Nor do I care about riding unbranded Chinese wheels. There is a ton of good feedback on weight weenies about them. The slight drawback with Answer 3 is changing cassettes (10s to 11s) and fitting/removing the aerojacket when I switch wheels between frames.

If I keep the Assaults on Bike 1, they stay 10s which means I can swap them onto Bike 2. As I like the Assaults, this means they might get the amount of use that they deserve.

Aero-wise, I'd guess the Flo front will edge the Assault at the front, but the difference at the rear may be sufficiently marginal not to fret over.

Using a proper disc will be slightly inconvenient as my bike box has an anti crush pole which means if I carry a disc I can't use the pole.

Answers to this First World problem on a postcard. I reserve the right to ask you to show your workings.

TIA

owenlars

I may be thick but I don't have a clue what you are asking here. As I understand it you have two frames and one set of wheels. If you want two bikes buy a new set of wheels as you say. If you can't afford a second set of wheels then switch wheels between the two frames. If you want three bikes, buy a third bike.

Or have I missed something?

greg66_tri_v2.0

owenlars wrote:

buy a new set of wheels as you say.

Which ones, if any?

itboffin

Planet-x deep carbon would surely be the best first step in the direction of evil

greg66_tri_v2.0

itboffin wrote:

Planet-x deep carbon would surely be the best first step in the direction of evil

PX don't do full deep section carbon clinchers, though, do they? They use an Alu brake track. ETA: so do the Flos, but they've had it black so it doesn't make the wheels look gimpy.

CBA with tubs, because I CBA to carry a spare tub.

I'm impressed that you didn't go with "Buy them all. Every last one of them".

rolf_f

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

itboffin wrote:

Planet-x deep carbon would surely be the best first step in the direction of evil

PX don't do full deep section carbon clinchers, though, do they? They use an Alu brake track. ETA: so do the Flos, but they've had it black so it doesn't make the wheels look gimpy.

CBA with tubs, because I CBA to carry a spare tub.

Yeah, but nothing says "I'm a nitwit" more than a set of carbon clinchers. If I was riding against the clock, it would be tubs all the time. One day I'll try them even though I don't race.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rolf F wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

itboffin wrote:

Planet-x deep carbon would surely be the best first step in the direction of evil

PX don't do full deep section carbon clinchers, though, do they? They use an Alu brake track. ETA: so do the Flos, but they've had it black so it doesn't make the wheels look gimpy.

CBA with tubs, because I CBA to carry a spare tub.

Yeah, but nothing says "I'm a nitwit" more than a set of carbon clinchers. If I was riding against the clock, it would be tubs all the time. One day I'll try them even though I don't race.

Hmm. I've never really seen the benefit of tubs in an unsupported race against the clock. Seeing a spare tub taped to a frame always makes me think "yeah, so that's a great weight saving wheelset you've got there".

Besides, I had a paid of Lightweight Standard tubs a few years ago. Maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but the improved ride was lost on me. Whereas the spare tub and can of snot that I carried round with me weren't...

Horses for courses, but without a support vehicle, I'll pass on tubs.

Next up: Campag or Shimano - which is best?

itboffin

If you put Shimano on bike 3 i will personally kick you in your man-gina

I may have Shimano on the Scott & Trek but never on the Cervelo its just wrong.

greg66_tri_v2.0

That was a little joke, seeing as we had raised and despatched the clinchers vs tubs question in record time.

rolf_f

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Hmm. I've never really seen the benefit of tubs in an unsupported race against the clock. Seeing a spare tub taped to a frame always makes me think "yeah, so that's a great weight saving wheelset you've got there".

But the wheel is much lighter, and you don't have the weight of the three inner tubes you'd need to match the weight of the third tub. Plus rotational weight blah di blah.

Not sure how it balances out but I bet tubular wheelset plus three tubs is lighter than carbon clincher wheelset plus two tyres and three inner tubes.

ITB - you'll have to explain this! Cervelo = Canadian and not allowed Shimano? Scott = Swiss but allowed Shimano? Trek = US but allowed Shimano? I could understand the Shimano ban for Cervelo if it was European but it's a Canadian company that markets Far Eastern made bikes; Shimano is entirely appropriate!

I'd have said if you are going to be pernickety about this that you'd put Campag on the Scott, SRAM on the Trek and Shimano on the Cervelo! :twisted:

bigmat

Campag 10 on bike 3 surely makes sense? You don't need 11 speed and it'll save the faff of switching cassettes if you decide against new wheels.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BigMat wrote:

Campag 10 on bike 3 surely makes sense? You don't need 11 speed and it'll save the faff of switching cassettes if you decide against new wheels.

This is true.

However, I have Campy 10s x2 with ergos and Campy 11 x1 with bar end shifters. It is what it is.

Bar end shifters are bloody clunky, btw.

itboffin

it's nothing to do with where the bike manufacturers are based and besides all three frameset were made in the far east, as the huge made in China label on my Cervelo box confirmed, the Scott is i think made in one if not the same factory and the Trek in Taiwan, although that Ten Tech corp make all three as well as Giant and a host of others, so really country has nothing to do with it.

For me it's about cheap and functional Shimano 105-Ultegra = cheap-medium bikes eg Scott / Trek, and expensive bling such as Cervelo has to be carbon Campagnolo, beautifully engineered and a dream to use, not to mentioned look at, like a masterpiece.

SRAM i have because I wanted to try it and frankly its underwhelming apart from the cranks, the front mech looks like its made from tin foil and the rear mech wouldn't look out of place on a MTB.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rolf F wrote:

[
Not sure how it balances out but I bet tubular wheelset plus three tubs is lighter than carbon clincher wheelset plus two tyres and three inner tubes.

Quick glance at WW reveals:

Conti Comp 22s are 280g each. X3 = 840g

Pro3 Race x2 = 422g
Conti Race Supersonics c55g x3 = 165g
Total 587g

Delta of 253g

Zipp 404 FC tubs = 1380g
Zipp 404 FC clinchers = 1535g

Delta of 155g

Tubs= boat anchors.

spasypaddy

do not buy those flo wheels. they are heavy with a capital HEAVY. 2kg wheelset for the disc and flo 60.

my recommendation. Keep the reynolds assaults and aerojacket for the P3.

Get a pair of shallow clinchers with a dark brake track for bike 1. If you can afford them get the mavic rsys slrs in a campag freehub.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Must admit, since finding out post OP that the Flos have an alu brake track with a black ano covering that wears off after a couple of hundred miles, I've gone off them.

So the choice is between Answers 2 and 3.

Though variant A to Answer A is to sub in Reynolds (to keep it in the family) Strikes for the Chinese wheel. Then I could ride a 46/66 combo in Bike 1 and a 66/disc cover on the P3, with the option to run 46/disc cover on the P3 in tricky conditions.

Why shallow rims for Bike 1? The wider tubing seems to go better aesthetically with a deeper rim.

spasypaddy

cos you're not racing with it.

ive realised since riding my Look with shallower rims that its just not necessary to have them on there.

and thats why i recommended the rsys slrs because with the black brake track also makes the wheel look deeper than it is.

veronese68

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Though variant A to Answer A is to sub in Reynolds (to keep it in the family) Strikes for the Chinese wheel. Then I could ride a 46/66 combo in Bike 1 and a 66/disc cover on the P3, with the option to run 46/disc cover on the P3 in tricky conditions.

Why shallow rims for Bike 1? The wider tubing seems to go better aesthetically with a deeper rim.

Seems like that's what you want to do so you should go for it.

rjsterry

So remind me what Bike 1 is for? Bike 3 will presumablu surplant Bike 1 for nefarious pointyhat purposes, and so weight is less of an issue for B3's wheels, and Bike 2 is the commuter (IIRC), so is B1 just for pleasure?

rolf_f

You folk need to stop frequenting cafes where the coffee is made in Rapha branded coffee machines!

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Tubs= boat anchors.

Actually, that is quite interesting. Can you confirm, in the interests of fairness, that you used the lightest tubes, tubes and clinchers you could reasonably choose? The tubs seem to be 32g heavier overall as far as the non wheel related rotational weight goes. Presumably all the weight difference between the wheels is in the rims but once you take the tub weight penalty off you are only left with 123 grams of rotational weight saved by using the tubs.

Of course, the downside with the clinchers is you are riding carbon clinchers which we know are crap! Basically, you are completely compromising rim design solely to have a much less effective (compared to alloy) black braking track. The only reason you do this is that you perceive it looks better. The only reason you perceive it looks better is that alloy rims are the norm. If historically bike rims had been carbon, and alloy had only been introduced in the last few years, everyone would be after shiny metallic brake tracks! You know I tell the truth

Ooooooh! 9999 posts!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rolf F wrote:

Actually, that is quite interesting. Can you confirm, in the interests of fairness, that you used the lightest tubes, tubes and clinchers you could reasonably choose? The tubs seem to be 32g heavier overall as far as the non wheel related rotational weight goes. Presumably all the weight difference between the wheels is in the rims but once you take the tub weight penalty off you are only left with 123 grams of rotational weight saved by using the tubs.

Not really, no. I picked the tubs I had on my LWs and the clinchers and tubes I use every day. That seemed fair enough. I don't doubt that one could root around for lighter tubs and clinchers and tubes, but it was intended to be a real world comparison (albeit slightly tongue in cheek).

Rolf F wrote:

Of course, the downside with the clinchers is you are riding carbon clinchers which we know are crap! Basically, you are completely compromising rim design solely to have a much less effective (compared to alloy) black braking track. The only reason you do this is that you perceive it looks better. The only reason you perceive it looks better is that alloy rims are the norm. If historically bike rims had been carbon, and alloy had only been introduced in the last few years, everyone would be after shiny metallic brake tracks! You know I tell the truth

Ooooooh! 9999 posts!

Have you ridden carbon clinchers, as a matter of interest? I'd be the first to admit that you really don't want to take them out in the wet, and that you have to know how to brake if you're doing mountain descents (and that said I've seen/heard tyres blow off alloy rims through poor braking on descents). But for 99% of the rest of the time they're no different in feel to alloy rims. The upside is that you can get a deeper and more aero rim profile without a huge weight penalty at the rim, which is worth quite a lot.

The aesthetics point is true, but then if manufacturers could make shiny silver tyres and alloy rims, then things might be different...

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

So remind me what Bike 1 is for? Bike 3 will presumablu surplant Bike 1 for nefarious pointyhat purposes, and so weight is less of an issue for B3's wheels, and Bike 2 is the commuter (IIRC), so is B1 just for pleasure?

I really hope you're not planning to drag this conversation down to the tawdry level of "need" are you? I get enough of that at home. Answer 3 wasn't really intended as a serious suggestion, you know.

Bike 1 will resume its previous role as part of a two bike general riding and commuting stable. The Assaults might, I admit, be a litte de trop for commuting, which sort of pushes me towards sharing my alloy rims between Bike 1 and Bike 2, and putting the Assaults on Bike 3.

Damn you - I said Answer 3 wasn't a serious suggestion! Now look what you've done!

spasypaddy

have you considered a workhorse build for bike 2 and putting the nice alloy clinchers you already have on bike one?

greg66_tri_v2.0

spasypaddy wrote:

have you considered a workhorse build for bike 2 and putting the nice alloy clinchers you already have on bike one?

Not really, because I have a slightly irrational soft spot for Bike 2. It's not the sort of bike I'd want to send to the glue factory.

spasypaddy

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

spasypaddy wrote:

have you considered a workhorse build for bike 2 and putting the nice alloy clinchers you already have on bike one?

Not really, because I have a slightly irrational soft spot for Bike 2. It's not the sort of bike I'd want to send to the glue factory.

by a workhorse build i mean a nice pair of rims on some record hubs

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

So remind me what Bike 1 is for? Bike 3 will presumablu surplant Bike 1 for nefarious pointyhat purposes, and so weight is less of an issue for B3's wheels, and Bike 2 is the commuter (IIRC), so is B1 just for pleasure?

I really hope you're not planning to drag this conversation down to the tawdry level of "need" are you? I get enough of that at home. Answer 3 wasn't really intended as a serious suggestion, you know.

Bike 1 will resume its previous role as part of a two bike general riding and commuting stable. The Assaults might, I admit, be a litte de trop for commuting, which sort of pushes me towards sharing my alloy rims between Bike 1 and Bike 2, and putting the Assaults on Bike 3.

Damn you - I said Answer 3 wasn't a serious suggestion! Now look what you've done!

Need? Goodness, no. I was more thinking that the brief was a little vaguely defined. If Bike 1 is going to be assigned to Marmotte-type duties then perhaps a set of lightweight wheels might be in order, but if as you say it is partnering Bike 2 on general purpose riding, then do you want to be that much of a target on the Embankment? I like Spasypaddy's suggestion: nothing too vulgar, but just a real pleasure to ride.

UndercoverElephant

What the hell is going on in this place. Greg came on here with the specific intention of asking us to justify some serious expenditure for him, and you lot start speaking logically at ways he could not?

You should all take a long, hard look in the mirror and frankly be ashamed.

Greg: Yes, you should buy the really expensive, shiny wheels. You need them more than oxygen, remember?

ETA: Have you considered some nice Zipp disc wheels, according to this site:

http://www.wing-light.de/downloads/whee ... 090430.pdf

They have negative drag. Negative. How cool is that?

spasypaddy

im looking at very expensive wheels for him, just not deep section carbon wheels from planet x.

my first suggestion was a pair of £1600 wheels

itboffin

i'd say just give your bikes to me and buy some new ones but mine are better so, dont worry about it just stick with the Iron-man stuff, you know when I was at school ironman had a different meaning :roll:

rolf_f

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Not really, no. I picked the tubs I had on my LWs and the clinchers and tubes I use every day. That seemed fair enough. I don't doubt that one could root around for lighter tubs and clinchers and tubes, but it was intended to be a real world comparison (albeit slightly tongue in cheek).

Tongue in cheek maybe but actually legitimately interesting......

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Have you ridden carbon clinchers, as a matter of interest? I'd be the first to admit that you really don't want to take them out in the wet, and that you have to know how to brake if you're doing mountain descents (and that said I've seen/heard tyres blow off alloy rims through poor braking on descents). But for 99% of the rest of the time they're no different in feel to alloy rims. The upside is that you can get a deeper and more aero rim profile without a huge weight penalty at the rim, which is worth quite a lot.

The aesthetics point is true, but then if manufacturers could make shiny silver tyres and alloy rims, then things might be different...

No, not tried them. But, I'm not really that sold on the aesthetic (I don't think black plastic looks better than metal!) and people round here would give you funny looks if they caught you on deep carbon rims! In my club, nobody has carbon rims and the only deep rims are a pair of elderly Cosmics. I prefer the look of low profile alloy clinchers so the only way I would go carbon is to try tubulars. I can get 1360g alloy rims for less than £300 so it's hard to see the point in any alternative for my situation - I weigh next to nothing so whilst I can climb, on the flat I'm no use to anyone so a harsh riding deep rim isn't really going to work for me. Would be nice to try something deeper and more carbony for the fun of it though.