Posh Wheelset?

sungod

from those i'd go enve rather than zipp, the latter have great marketing, but many find the hubs/spokes not so good

different wheels feel different, there's no simple way to know how they'll feel until you compare two

it won't be a 10x improvement though, in absolute terms the two main opportunities are...

weight - whatever % of total weight (you+bike) you reduce by, basic physics says that's the % energy you'll save on a given ascent, light rims also accelerate faster on sprints etc.

aero - once you're going >35-40kph an aero wheelset gets very noticeable, lower drag allows you to go faster for a given power, but if you're not racing/tt-ing this isn't really a huge factor, even then better position, aero clothing and helmet might save you more at lower cost, but unless you're really really trim, deep wheels will look much nicer

if i could have only two of: stiff, light, aero; i'd go for stiff+light

tubs of course :-)

smidsy

djhermer wrote:

Smidsy....NICE/ Do you mind me asking what these set you back?

Well I got them v.slightly used off the classifieds on here for less than the price of the components new.

I paid £250.

Camcycle1974

Stevo210 wrote:

Heard a few grumbles about Planet X wheels despite their great mag and online reviews. But they are a third of the price of the Zipps.

I still love the look of the Zipps and I cant help being swayed by looks, seems to go with my roadie logic. As an average keen rider though the difference between what I'm currently running (Giant PSL-1's) would be day and night surely with the Zipps?? Just trying to convince myself that my riding experience will be enhanced x10 fold whether I go Zipp, Enve, Handbuilt or whatever! Or am I deluding myself?! haha.

The tubs are new so can't be many user reviews out there. Personally think Zipps are way over rated and look pretty tacky. I would much prefer to have a black, no logo set of wheels on my bike. PX do them with no logo which is nice. The blub says they are built by their own (well respected) wheel builder so doubt the reliability should be an issue. I am talking myself into getting a set next year for a significant birthday

ugo.santalucia

Camcycle1974 wrote:

PX do them with no logo which is nice. The blub says they are built by their own (well respected) wheel builder so doubt the reliability should be an issue.

So well respected that they don't want to name him, or he doesn't want to be named... either way it doesn't sound like there is much pride in the product there...

Over the years we have learned a lot from Planet X: that Paul Curran is a legend (not just good but legendary) in wheel building and not just a lackluster road cyclist of the past hardly mentioned on Wikipedia... not to speak about their new testimonial... the king of the "free doping for all" Granfondo circuit... I know another King of the Granfondo circuit... under the name of Raimondas Rumsas... Wikipedia can be very informative there too...

here is is covering himself with glory yet again... look at the excitement among the crowds...

thegreatdivide

Camcycle1974 wrote:

Stevo210 wrote:

Heard a few grumbles about Planet X wheels despite their great mag and online reviews. But they are a third of the price of the Zipps.

I still love the look of the Zipps and I cant help being swayed by looks, seems to go with my roadie logic. As an average keen rider though the difference between what I'm currently running (Giant PSL-1's) would be day and night surely with the Zipps?? Just trying to convince myself that my riding experience will be enhanced x10 fold whether I go Zipp, Enve, Handbuilt or whatever! Or am I deluding myself?! haha.

The tubs are new so can't be many user reviews out there. Personally think Zipps are way over rated and look pretty tacky. I would much prefer to have a black, no logo set of wheels on my bike. PX do them with no logo which is nice. The blub says they are built by their own (well respected) wheel builder so doubt the reliability should be an issue. I am talking myself into getting a set next year for a significant birthday

Zipp decals come off, plus they now do an all black matte logo (or an all white) which looks boss.

thegreatdivide

Another week another round of my wheels are better than your wheels with informative input from folk who’ve ‘heard’ things but never actually ridden them…or the resident wheel expert who reckons good bike design stopped in 1990 (I’m being a bit conservative there tbh). You’ve got to love this forum

dennisn

thegreatdivide wrote:

Zipp decals come off, plus they now do an all black matte logo (or an all white) which looks boss.

FWIW I've never seen or heard of someone winning a race or riding well due to their wheels good looks. No one is intimidated because your wheels LOOK "boss". Besides, everyone has deep wheels these days so you having them is quite meaningless. You'll simply look like the rest of the masses. I say be unique if you're into the showoff, bling thing.
Everyone has a carbon bike and carbon this and that. What's unique about that? Besides, what happens when the wheel companies decide that they want to sell a new style wheel(i.e. not deep) and next year all the pro's are riding these "new and improved" wheels and you need to shell out more money for a set so you look like the pros? Could get expensive, but you'll end up with a bunch of wheels that will go in and out of style over the years. That's something. :?

mroli

Ah, but Dennisn - you'll still have the wheels (and there will be very little difference in performance!)

I have no problem with the marketing people of bike companies selling us stuff by telling us it is great - there is some innovation out there making things better and more exciting. Its the same with any "technical" sport.

And this from someone who has just bought a penny farthing :shock:

ugo.santalucia

mroli wrote:

And this from someone who has just bought a penny farthing :shock:

Did you? When are you going to bring it over? When are you going to show me how to ride one? Can I ride it? Can I ride it?

thegreatdivide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

ugo.santalucia

thegreatdivide wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

You might have noticed I have stopped answering your constant remarks quite some time ago. I suggest you give it a cut

thegreatdivide

ugo.santalucia wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)

You might have noticed I have stopped answering your constant remarks quite some time ago. I suggest you give it a cut

That wasn't directed at anyone ugo so don’t go getting paranoid - merely stating that this thread type goes round and round and round. Everyone gives there exact same spiel (myself included) when this topic rears it’s head every single week.

I like Reynolds!
I like Zipp!
I like Shimano!
I like handbuilts!
Carbon sucks!
Aero sucks!
It’s not about looks!
It’s all about looks!
Buy what you want!
You’re wasting your money!
Etc
Etc
Etc

dennisn

mroli wrote:

Ah, but Dennisn - you'll still have the wheels (and there will be very little difference in performance!)

I have no problem with the marketing people of bike companies selling us stuff by telling us it is great - there is some innovation out there making things better and more exciting. Its the same with any "technical" sport.

Sort of begs the question that if you're really interested in performance, as opposed to showoff / bling, why buy new wheels all the time if performance gains are nil.

Not sure I buy into the "technical" sport idea of cycling. Bike frames haven't changed geometry in a hundred years or more. Crankets still are basically the same as they have always been, just with style changes over the years. Front and rear "D",s haven'tchanged much over the years. Wheels that were top of the line way back when(tubulars on narrow, light rims) are still used today with great success.

I will agree that there is some innovation, and that's good, but most of what I see coming from cycling component manufactureres is bling, bling, and more bling with very little actual performance inhancing products. This "technical" bike you talk about is a whole lot older than you or I. It's just gotten shinier. Nothing really new as far as performance is concerned. And maybe that's because, for all their claims, the manufactureres can't build performance. That's up to you.

sungod

mroli wrote:

Ah, but Dennisn - you'll still have the wheels (and there will be very little difference in performance!)

I have no problem with the marketing people of bike companies selling us stuff by telling us it is great - there is some innovation out there making things better and more exciting. Its the same with any "technical" sport.

And this from someone who has just bought a penny farthing :shock:

this morning i saw what i thought was someone riding one around regent's park, was wondering if they'd let me have a go

sadly it was just a unicycle with a big wheel, i was most disappointed

Mike Cotty

Stevo210 wrote:

For an big Anniversary present I'm looking at getting a set of posh wheels from my good lady.
I've looked through most of the Mavics and was settled on some nice looking Ksyrium SLR, or Cosmic SLE's but Ive come across so many negative reviews on the Mavics that its slightly putting me off. Poor hubs, bearing, dated technology, aerodynamic as a brick etc. Mavics are raced by many a team, can they be really that bad.....?
The Zipp 303's keeps coming up as an amazing wheel. I have the chance of picking up a 2013 set for half price and even then that makes me truly wince but its not miles above the Mavics if they are really as good as everyone makes out.....this will have to be a wheelset that will last, ridden a few times a week and not just for sunny days!

Im keen on an aero wheel, but not at the expense of not being able to get up some proper climbs quick, also needs to be clincher.

Hi Stevo,

I've just read your post. Happy to hear that you may be considering a pair of Ksyrium SLR's or Cosmic Carbone SLE's. I work with Mavic as their community manager, trying to help with any questions that riders may have and offering support to anyone that may need it.

You'll generally find that the number of posts online about a brand is directly related to the volume sold - e.g. higher volume = more comments (including potential negative comments). In the case of the SLR's and SLE's, both solid and well established products in Mavic's range, I can assure you that the return rate is extremely low in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of these wheels that are in the market.

Mavic's priority is to provide reliability over weight, whilst they are lightweight (1,410g for Ksyrium SLR's and 1,620g for CC SLE's) you can find lighter wheels on the market but they may not offer the same level of ride performance as the Ksyrium or Cosmic Carbone which have a reputation for their rigidity, strength, durability and predictable braking in the wet with the Exalith rim treatment. Mavic offer a 2 year warranty against manufacturing defects and should a problem arise their UK service centre is in direct contact with retailers to rectify any issue as quickly as possible.

In terms of choosing between an aero or lower profile wheel this is really only a decision you can make, and normally every rider has their own personal preference. Performance, weight, aerodynamics, aesthetics all come into the mix and are an individual thing so ultimately it's your head and heart that has to make the call.

Enjoy the process of choosing your new wheels! It's kid in a sweetshop time :-)

If there's anything else Mavic related that I can help with in the future then please do not hesitate in getting in touch.

Ride safe,

Mike Cotty

sloppyschleckonds

Another thumbs up for the SLR's from me

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Over the years we have learned a lot from Planet X: that Paul Curran is a legend (not just good but legendary) in wheel building and not just a lackluster road cyclist of the past hardly mentioned on Wikipedia...

If you had any knowledge at all of UK cycling in the 80s and 90s, you would know that Paul Curran was anything but lacklustre.

ugo.santalucia

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Over the years we have learned a lot from Planet X: that Paul Curran is a legend (not just good but legendary) in wheel building and not just a lackluster road cyclist of the past hardly mentioned on Wikipedia...

If you had any knowledge at all of UK cycling in the 80s and 90s, you would know that Paul Curran was anything but lacklustre.

He had a career on the track, then moved to the road without significant success. In Italian terms, he could be compared to Silvio Martinello, whose road cycling career I would define as lackluster... Anyway, that was not the point I was trying to make

slowandsteady

I recently bought a set of handbuilt tubs off a guy who knows his onions. He sold me a product suited best for me and not what i thought would be best because it looked more bling.

anyway, they came with the tubs fitted but i thought i better see what all the fuss was about so i had a go at removal and refitting.

id guess 1 minute to remove it, maybe 2/3 at most to centre and inflate it.

non issue i think.

Ps new crankset has arrived and I'm back on the road.

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Over the years we have learned a lot from Planet X: that Paul Curran is a legend (not just good but legendary) in wheel building and not just a lackluster road cyclist of the past hardly mentioned on Wikipedia...

If you had any knowledge at all of UK cycling in the 80s and 90s, you would know that Paul Curran was anything but lacklustre.

He had a career on the track, then moved to the road without significant success. In Italian terms, he could be compared to Silvio Martinello, whose road cycling career I would define as lackluster... Anyway, that was not the point I was trying to make

My problem with this is that you often pull up others for posting misleading information (rightly so), but you are clearly quite happy to post unsubstantiated nonsense yourself. Have you ever actually raced a bicycle?

http://www.paulcurran.ndo.co.uk/

blinddrew

dennisn wrote:

mroli wrote:

Not sure I buy into the "technical" sport idea of cycling. Bike frames haven't changed geometry in a hundred years or more. Crankets still are basically the same as they have always been, just with style changes over the years. Front and rear "D",s haven'tchanged much over the years. Wheels that were top of the line way back when(tubulars on narrow, light rims) are still used today with great success.

I will agree that there is some innovation, and that's good, but most of what I see coming from cycling component manufactureres is bling, bling, and more bling with very little actual performance inhancing products. This "technical" bike you talk about is a whole lot older than you or I. It's just gotten shinier. Nothing really new as far as performance is concerned. And maybe that's because, for all their claims, the manufactureres can't build performance. That's up to you.

Without disagreeing with you, because I agree with a lot of what you say, part of the reason* for this lack of technical progress is the UCI and their unwillingness to consider new ideas. Lots of people, particularly kids and those getting into the sport, want to ride the kit their favourite pros do, so that's what the manufacturers have to sell. The UCI's somewhat, shall we say un-innovative (counter-innovative?) approach means that a lot of the practical improvements that we could be riding around now never make it past the prototype.
This means we see this ever-decreasing marginal gains stuff.
It's similar, in a way, to formula 1. A huge number of massively innovative developments there were introduced then banned meaning there was never a trickle down to production cars.
Another aspect of it is that road cyclists in particular are still a very reactionary bunch. Compare the changes that happen in the short time that mountain biking has been around and how quickly things move there (sometimes just to come back, but that's what happens when you experiment).
Anyway, mostly I blame the UCI!

* Part of the reason is because a diamond-framed, chain-powered bicycle is actually an incredibly simple and efficient device to start with of course.

Grill

Errr... the car hasn't changed much either...

mroli

I also kind of disagree that there hasn't been much development in bicycles. In the space of 100 years, which is a pretty short period of time, we've gone from boneshakers, propelled by the feet on the ground with wooden wheels and no tyres. Bikes haven't just got shinier (especially in the case of matt black stealth bikes), but they have got "better" imho.

In that time, we've "perfected" the derailleur system, moved it electronic for "perfect" shifting, come up with substantially lighter frames (and can also make them tougher AND lighter), got tyres, moved tyres substantially so they are smooth rolling and resistant to punctures - MTBs have got amazing suspension systems these days, electric bikes have got more powerful motors using less power from smaller engines and batteries which are cheaper and easier to maintain and charge. Then you have the spill over development into bikes like recumbents, which are obviously an abomination, but (I hear) can be faster and more comfortable than road bikes.

I do agree that some "innovations" are tinkering around the edges, but that is the same with any technology - it is very difficult to keep making quantum leaps in development - you get yourself up the curve and improvements are minimal, which is why when my mates say they want to buy a road bike and think about spending vast sums of money on their first bike, I try to encourage them to spend sensibly to see if they like riding first!

You could make exactly the same criticisms of car manufacture that you do of bike manufacture - and there is more to tinker with on a car!

mroli

sungod wrote:

this morning i saw what i thought was someone riding one around regent's park, was wondering if they'd let me have a go

http://www.rexbike.com

More then welcome to have a go once I've built it....

ugo.santalucia

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Over the years we have learned a lot from Planet X: that Paul Curran is a legend (not just good but legendary) in wheel building and not just a lackluster road cyclist of the past hardly mentioned on Wikipedia...

If you had any knowledge at all of UK cycling in the 80s and 90s, you would know that Paul Curran was anything but lacklustre.

He had a career on the track, then moved to the road without significant success. In Italian terms, he could be compared to Silvio Martinello, whose road cycling career I would define as lackluster... Anyway, that was not the point I was trying to make

My problem with this is that you often pull up others for posting misleading information (rightly so), but you are clearly quite happy to post unsubstantiated nonsense yourself. Have you ever actually raced a bicycle?

http://www.paulcurran.ndo.co.uk/

Imposter, this is a pedantic digression... I have not raced a bicycle, but I have watched races on the TV since before you even thought races were broadcasted on TV. I remember Moser winning the Giro and Fignon losing the Tour... I have not heard of any of the races that Paul Curran has won, maybe the Tour of Normandy, I suppose it compares unfavourably with the Agostoni cup, which I consider little more than a fly's dropping these days. I've heard of the Milk Race, which was a British affair

ANYWAY, my point was not about the cycling career of Paul Curran, but about Planet X habit of hyping everything as legendary... they recently took hold of a large stock of italian frames from a Legendary manufacturer, which in 27 years of living in the Country I have never heard of or seen any on the road.
That not to speak about the website, which is a minefield of inaccuracies and lies: Ambrosio Nemesis rims amazing offer at 79.99, with a RRP of 93 pounds... the RRP is not 93 pounds!
Chris King 45 hubs, image of a rear hub, starting price 139 pounds... then you find out that's the price of the front hub, in line with the rest of the market
Posh tyres from 9.99, then you realise there isn't any at 9.99, but there is one in size 19 yellow at 14.99, all the others are 39.99.
I wished they cut the crap... stop making everything into epic and legendary and unique... they do have a nice business, they do sell some cheap and quality stuff... leave it there, there is no reason to hype the crap

blinddrew

Grill wrote:

Errr... the car hasn't changed much either...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic there but if not, hence my comment of "A huge number of massively innovative developments there were introduced then banned meaning there was never a trickle down to production cars".
Similar marketing pressure applies here too. In some ways more so, [massive generalisation coming] people tend to get more conservative as they age and new cars, being pretty expensive, tend to be bought by people who are getting a bit more conservative - alternatively they're bought by company fleets who want something "professional" - i.e. conservative...

Under the skin things have changed quite a bit, 16v engines, catalytic converters, hybrid engines, the shift from chassis+infrastructure to an integrated structure, crumple zones & other safety features, electronic engine management systems, and driverless cars are on their way.
There are still a fair number of interesting designs making it to market (nissan cube, fiat multipla etc) but they're mostly just skin changes; a lot of the really innovative stuff (active suspension, skirts and extraction fans, multiple steering wheels etc) has never made it past a couple of seasons in F1.

Anyway, I'll shut up now because this is the wrong forum for that discussion!

Apologies for the digression.

ugo.santalucia

mroli wrote:

sungod wrote:

this morning i saw what i thought was someone riding one around regent's park, was wondering if they'd let me have a go

http://www.rexbike.com

More then welcome to have a go once I've built it....

DId you get the one with the green anodised rim?

ugo.santalucia

mroli wrote:

I also kind of disagree that there hasn't been much development in bicycles. In the space of 100 years, which is a pretty short period of time, we've gone from boneshakers, propelled by the feet on the ground with wooden wheels and no tyres. Bikes haven't just got shinier (especially in the case of matt black stealth bikes), but they have got "better" imho.

In that time, we've "perfected" the derailleur system, moved it electronic for "perfect" shifting, come up with substantially lighter frames (and can also make them tougher AND lighter), got tyres, moved tyres substantially so they are smooth rolling and resistant to punctures - MTBs have got amazing suspension systems these days, electric bikes have got more powerful motors using less power from smaller engines and batteries which are cheaper and easier to maintain and charge. Then you have the spill over development into bikes like recumbents, which are obviously an abomination, but (I hear) can be faster and more comfortable than road bikes.

I do agree that some "innovations" are tinkering around the edges, but that is the same with any technology - it is very difficult to keep making quantum leaps in development - you get yourself up the curve and improvements are minimal, which is why when my mates say they want to buy a road bike and think about spending vast sums of money on their first bike, I try to encourage them to spend sensibly to see if they like riding first!

You could make exactly the same criticisms of car manufacture that you do of bike manufacture - and there is more to tinker with on a car!

Unlike the car industry, they haven't thought of safety... bikes are just as unsafe as they were before... if you want to involve more people into cycling you need to make those things safer... in Holland people use them because the road network is designed around them, hence it is safe to ride a bike, here it is not, hence the bike needs to be safer. I don't have a brilliant idea on how to do it, but that's where the R&D money should go... where the R&D money is going now is a waste that does not benefit anyone and just create a vicious circle of consumerism

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I have not raced a bicycle, but I have watched races on the TV since before you even thought races were broadcasted on TV.

There you go again. You've never raced a bicycle, but you've got more experience of watching it on the telly. And you also think Paul Curran is 'lacklustre'. If I told you what I really think, I'd get banned. Nuff said. I'm out.

ivanoile

Wow,from wheelset to who has racing expirience... :shock:

Wheel topics are more like war.

I can only recommend Bora Ultra Two wheels as they are realy beautiful and nicely built.