Carbon clinchers a good idea?

Bmf21uk

After some new wheels to replace my fulcrum 5's, and have been looking at wheelsmith a c50's or race 24's

Don't go out when it's horrible, so have been favouring the carbon as there is no real weight penalty over the 24's plus they look cool! (Waits for abuse )

Surrey hills is my patch and I weigh 92kg, so am limited on rim choice, such as the alloy brake track carbons which are under my weight.

Any recommendations?

Grill

There are hills in Surrey? Do tell another... :P

They won't stop as well in the wet, but if you really want a set then I can't see an issue as long as they aren't under-built.

Bmf21uk

I did call them hills and not mountains! Using the colloquial term for leafy surrey ja ja!

28spoke rear 20 or 24 front, Derek has had people over 100kg on them so should be ok.

cgrenn

I got a cheap pair of ebay about 6 months ago. Cost me only £300, and Im 80 kg and live in surrey! Decended in the wet with them and in the blazing heat and they reacted absolutely fine, and hit a few pot holes too.

And worst case to replace there as cheap as!

ugo.santalucia

Not a good idea.

Also, they were cool 5 years ago... now every other bike I see lapping in Richmond Park has carbon rims of some sort, they are mainstream and they look frankly boring, especially those full black ones. Only the labels break the monotony of these black surfaces... HED, ENVE and Cosmic have the coolest logos in my view and it's all down to the logos, there is no other reason for a pair of carbon clinchers.

Grill

I just de-stickered my Reynolds Attacks. Not because it looks better (it does) but to save 8 grams. :P

ugo.santalucia

Grill wrote:

I just de-stickered my Reynolds Attacks. Not because it looks better (it does) but to save 8 grams. :P

8 grams of stickers? That heavy?

Bmf21uk

Ok so they are common but can anyone give a good reason why not?

ugo.santalucia

Bmf21uk wrote:

Ok so they are common but can anyone give a good reason why not?

Of course... because you spend a lot of money to have a bag of drawbacks, like less reliable braking, the need for special pads, which you then have to change when you reverse to your other wheels... that leaves the aerodynamics, which is a minefield of yay and nayers and realistically won't make you fast if you are not and the look, which is cack as discussed above.
I have a set of 50 mm black carbon wheels looking at me right now, they look dreadful.

Have a look at the HED JET series, it seems to me they have the fewer drawbacks and they look decent and not too mainstream. The price is also reasonable

http://www.hedwheels.com/proddetail.asp?prod=JET57HOPE

Some pretty fast people use them, so you've got something to talk about

robbo2011

The HEDs look cack in my opinion too...

Baracus

Carbon clinchers still look really cool to me, especially the all black ones , but then I only started cycling a few weeks ago
I agree those HEDs look cack!

desweller

Deep carbon rims are the bicycle equivalent of a fat exhaust and big alloy wheels on a Fiesta IMO. If the engine / athlete ain't up to it...

cycleclinic

Good idea yes and no. I do not think they make a great all weather wheelset. Deep ones do give some aero advantage and the longer you hold speed for the bigger that advantage gets. So they are rims for racing really. Braking in the wet is a bit comprimised but it is still acceptable (I have tried on a very wet day). If you go for these then keep another wheelset (alloy) as back up for wet days. Carbon rims are pricey do you really want to wear them out by riding them in filth.

I quite like the look of deep carbon rims yes they are everywhere becuase alot of people like them. bike are everywhere because alot of people like them that does not stop us from riding does it.

caadybrompton

DesWeller wrote:

Deep carbon rims are the bicycle equivalent of a fat exhaust and big alloy wheels on a Fiesta IMO. If the engine / athlete ain't up to it...

DKay

So now that carbon wheels are getting more common, the inevitable backlash starts.... :roll:

DKay

DesWeller wrote:

Deep carbon rims are the bicycle equivalent of a fat exhaust and big alloy wheels on a Fiesta IMO. If the engine / athlete ain't up to it...

So you're saying that people should only have deep carbon rims on their bikes if they can climb like a Froome, sprint like Cav or TT like Tony Martin?

What next, you can't ride a Dogma unless you put out an average of over 300W? You can't buy a Ferrari unless you have the skills of Fernando Alonso?

NeXXus

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Not a good idea.

Also, they were cool 5 years ago... now every other bike I see lapping in Richmond Park has carbon rims of some sort, they are mainstream and they look frankly boring, especially those full black ones. Only the labels break the monotony of these black surfaces... HED, ENVE and Cosmic have the coolest logos in my view and it's all down to the logos, there is no other reason for a pair of carbon clinchers.

But if you want a set of wheels built, you know a bloke?

robbo2011

I've hardly seen any around here, alloy wheels rule the roost. And for good reason.

desweller

DKay wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

Deep carbon rims are the bicycle equivalent of a fat exhaust and big alloy wheels on a Fiesta IMO. If the engine / athlete ain't up to it...

So you're saying that people should only have deep carbon rims on their bikes if they can climb like a Froome, sprint like Cav or TT like Tony Martin?

What next, you can't ride a Dogma unless you put out an average of over 300W? You can't buy a Ferrari unless you have the skills of Fernando Alonso?

I didn't say you couldn't do anything. You can do what you want. Even if it looks naff.

sloppyschleckonds

DKay wrote:

So now that carbon wheels are getting more common, the inevitable backlash starts.... :roll:

What backlash? Just because loads of people own them doesn't make them any good.

northpole

It certainly doesn't make them bad either.

Not sure what all the fuss is about - I reckon if people like alloy rims, that's fine; if others like carbon rims, that's equally fine. They don't have to make you go any faster - the main thing is what ever makes people tick and encourages them to get outdoors and enjoy a bit of exercise.

Peter

ugo.santalucia

northpole wrote:

the main thing is what ever makes people tick and encourages them to get outdoors and enjoy a bit of exercise.
Peter

That can be said about a nice fitting winter jacket, a stiffer frame or a nice set of tyres... none of which will compromise the braking or risk overheating and exploding...
My point is the risks associated with these outweigh the benefits by a long mile and in the end, digging, people only buy them because they think they look good. So, nothing wrong in buying them, but if you ask for advice whether to buy them or not, my advice is not... is that a problem?

Bmf21uk

Ugo tbh I don't care what other people think is cool or not, the question I had is, for the same ish weight is a set of 50mm carbons a better set of wheels for use in dryish conditions if I keep the fulcrums as winter wheels?

ugo.santalucia

Bmf21uk wrote:

for the same ish weight is a set of 50mm carbons a better set of wheels for use in dryish conditions if I keep the fulcrums as winter wheels?

Since when summers are dry in the UK?

Let's say that it's your lucky day and your 50 mm clinchers give you an aerodynamic advantage worth 5-10 Watts on top of the 300 or so your legs are pumping whilst pushing at 23 mph on a flat road with no wind (random numbers, no need to check with maths please)... you might end up going at nearly 24 mph!
But here is the thing... the same money could be invested in a serious coaching program... and a good coach should be able to squeeze half a watt per Kg of body weight out of you, unless you are already at your top. So that's 35-50 Watts, which interestingly will come in handy also uphill, not just on the flat.
That leaves aero wheels as a cosmetic upgrade. Personally I find upgrading myself more rewarding than upgrading the bike.
But if you want those 5-10 Watts at all costs, why not getting an alloy rim with carbon fairings like the HED I mentioned earlier? No drawbacks there

desweller

If you take a piece of technology that involves a number of compromises in several areas for a small performance advantage in one particular area, and then fit it to your bike because 'ooh, it looks pretty', then really all you're doing is demonstrating that you're an airhead.

LegendLust

DesWeller wrote:

If you take a piece of technology that involves a number of compromises in several areas for a small performance advantage in one particular area, and then fit it to your bike because 'ooh, it looks pretty', then really all you're doing is demonstrating that you're an airhead.

I take it you didn't choose your bike on looks alone then?

desweller

LegendLust wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

If you take a piece of technology that involves a number of compromises in several areas for a small performance advantage in one particular area, and then fit it to your bike because 'ooh, it looks pretty', then really all you're doing is demonstrating that you're an airhead.

I take it you didn't choose your bike on looks alone then?

Mine are all self builds apart from the MTB (which was just muy barro at the time for a bike with hydraulic discs).

northpole

ugo.santalucia wrote:

northpole wrote:

the main thing is what ever makes people tick and encourages them to get outdoors and enjoy a bit of exercise.
Peter

That can be said about a nice fitting winter jacket, a stiffer frame or a nice set of tyres... none of which will compromise the braking or risk overheating and exploding...
My point is the risks associated with these outweigh the benefits by a long mile and in the end, digging, people only buy them because they think they look good. So, nothing wrong in buying them, but if you ask for advice whether to buy them or not, my advice is not... is that a problem?

Ugo

My comments were primarily in response to the comment immediately preceding mine.

Your advice is not a problem to me, nor did I comment on it.

I have a set of R-Sys wheels, the carbon spokes on those haven't yet exploded, but I suppose there is a risk they may do so. I have a set of C40s whose carbon braking surface Mavic claim provides good braking and others appear to agree (albeit there are plenty other negative things said of them!). I also have a pair of wheels with 32 spoked Archtype rims - lightweight/ aero they ain't! They are all different. I have a curiosity for different designs. I didn't buy them to go faster up or down a hill. I'm only in it for the exercise, not racing the clock. I'm not alone.

Apologies to the OP if this distraction tugging discussion off topic.

Peter

ugo.santalucia

northpole wrote:

I have a set of R-Sys wheels, the carbon spokes on those haven't yet exploded, but I suppose there is a risk they may do so.

I was referring to the tyres exploding, which is fairly common if carbon clincher rims are used inappropriately. Your spokes won't explode.... they might pop, but they won't explode...

northpole

I have to come clean on this one and admit that I read the stories of the version 1 spokes causing accidents AFTER I bought mine and sadly I always wonder when I hit the anchors approaching a tight bend on a descent :shock:

Peter

ugo.santalucia

northpole wrote:

I have to come clean on this one and admit that I read the stories of the version 1 spokes causing accidents AFTER I bought mine and sadly I always wonder when I hit the anchors approaching a tight bend on a descent :shock:

Peter

that story is a bit dodgy to be honest... wheels don't just collapse unless the hub cracks suddenly (Zipp style)