Clincher Set for £1k
Comments
-
Hi there
Jumping into this thread (apologies) as I have similar interests in that I am potentially looking to upgrade my wheels... Currently riding on Shimano R500 stock wheels...
I 'think' I understand the differences between Carbon Clinchers and Carbon rims (tubular)???
For me, if I went anywhere near the wheels mentioned in this thread it would be purely about aesthetics (with the slightest possibility of helping my with carrying speed as well)...
As with everyone, I do love the deep rim 'look' but fully appreciate that for the distances I plan to get back to, they would have very little effect... I never plan to race or TT... I too also looked at the SwissSide Hadron wheels for around £650 at the moment, but again I am very cautious on potentially just throwing money away...
So can anyone recommend some decent wheels that might do the business for me, as a potential sub 50 mile rider, but looking for a decent upgrade on his bike??? Also hoping to do some summer Alpine riding...????0 -
Ugo, thanks for your welcome and for reading through my review of all-around groupsets. I appreciate and respect your feedback as I have seen many of your valuable comments elsewhere on the Bike Radar Forum threads. On some of the points you mention I agree and on others I may have not communicated well or perhaps I’m not well enough informed.
To further the discussion, I’ll try to address your key points
- True, I don’t weight the groups of criteria I set out – performance, design, quality and price – nor the individual criteria within each group, e.g., performance criteria -versatility, aerodynamics, stiffness, acceleration, compliance, and braking. In the review I state “At the end of the day, evaluating and comparing wheelset performance is very subjective.” I use the criteria groups and individual criteria to make sure I’m looking at what is important and organize my own subjective evaluation and those of others I value to come up with recommendatons.
- I recommend Best Performer, Best Value and Best Alternative wheelsets. The Best Performer is independent of price and based on the performance group criteria mentioned above. The Best Value considers both performance and price (and total cost of ownership) criteria. So price is indeed very important and I regularly update the price of all the wheels I review on my blog. Design – the group criteria being wheel weight and material, rim depth, opening width and profile, hub and spoke selection – shows up in the wheel’s performance so I don’t judge it alone. Two wheels with similar depth, width, weight, etc. may perform similarly or very differently so the design is a means to an end. And quality is kind of a go or no-go criteria group. I won’t recommend anything that doesn’t have an acceptable level of quality as measured by durability, warranties and service/support. Finally, the Best Alternative is my recommendation of the best choice for those who want a carbon-alloy all-around wheel for all the potential reasons discussed in the review.
- I actually don’t use looks or design specs in recommending all-around wheels and recommend that cyclists don’t either, though I know for some these are very important considerations. I try to make this clear early in the review by saying “And while some people put a high premium in making their choice on how the wheels look when they are standing still, it’s how they perform when they are moving at speed (and look like a blur) that really matters. I don’t recommend letting specs or looks sway your opinion.”
- The tubular vs. clincher point you make is an ongoing debate, perhaps a near religious one (though thankfully not as contentious as Campy vs Shimano in the groupset world). You’re absolutely right that most tubular wheels cost less (5%+/-) to buy than clinchers and tubular tires will cost more to buy than clincher ones. Over a few years and a few tire changes on a set of wheels, the total cost is probably not a whole lot different between the two systems. While a higher percentage of readers of this forum will, I still don’t think that most ‘cycling enthusiasts’ as I describe them are going to attach and maintain their own tubulars. And I’m not sure many of those starting the threads on these forums will either, judging from the nature of their questions. So the cost of going to a shop and having a shop glue up and fixing their tubulars is an added cost and effort that I think take tubulars out of the discussion for many cyclists. Again, this is my opinion but I think the growth of the carbon clincher market relative to the tubular one seems to support the demand from cyclists for this solution.
As to my method of coming up with recommendations, I’m really trying to approach this from the perspective of a cycling enthusiast with a fair bit of analytical training rather than a cycling expert as I recognize many on this form possibly are. As I say in the review, I spend hours researching the wheels, talking with product experts and experienced cyclists, pulling from independent reviews, looking at user and expert comments on forums like these, and riding some of the wheels myself and trying to bring all of it together around the organizing criteria. I’m really trying to put myself in the shoes of many people coming into the choice of buying something new without a lot of experience.
Fortunately or unfortunately, there are too many sources of information for most people now and many really respected and qualified sources come out with very different views on what is already a very subjective topic. We need only look at the seemingly scientific and objective wind tunnel tests to see how different the conclusions are you can reach from different credible sources. I’m trying to survey all of that and sort through it in a way that is hopefully useful for other cycling enthusiasts.
Sorry to go on. I hope that addresses some of your points. I welcome further suggestions as you see fit.
Thanks,
Steve0 -
As for rim width wider will be more aero not the reverse as there is less of a transition between tyre and rim. Wider tyres as test by several companies now have been found to be no worse in the real world than there narrower counterparts for example 25mm vs 23mm but that is something to be expected.
the problem I find with reviews no offence they are someones opinion but I have to agree with ugo (hvaing looked at your site) in that your reviews make claims about the best all round without specifying the criteria you use to get to your conclusion. Also it felt like at times you were reviewing other reviews or other users experience. I think reviewing is quite expensive and means buying the kit or persuading manufacturers to give to you to test. If you are going to run a price comparison website there maybe some merit in that, however it would be a huge undertaking and would be endanger of being out date the day after it is published.
I am interested how you have assesed durability of a wheelset as the testing conditions which I can't find are all important there.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
For what it's worth, here is a pretty good view, IMO,on the Swiss Side Hadron wheels...
http://www.bicycles.net.au/2014/06/bicy ... ns-review/0 -
FFWD are doing a new aluminium rimmed, deep section, all-rounder carbon clincher at about a tonne. I have absolutely no idea if they're any good, but the early reviews are positive.0
-
Thanks for the heads up, looks perfect for a 66kg Mamil wanting some help on the hillsmilleman wrote:Friend of mine has been very impressed with these;
http://www.cycledivision.co.uk/product- ... id133.htmlI want to climb hills so badly;
and I climb hills so badly0 -
intheknowcycling.com wrote:Ugo, thanks for your welcome and for reading through my review of all-around groupsets. I appreciate and respect your feedback as I have seen many of your valuable comments elsewhere on the Bike Radar Forum threads. On some of the points you mention I agree and on others I may have not communicated well or perhaps I’m not well enough informed.
To further the discussion, I’ll try to address your key points
- True, I don’t weight the groups of criteria I set out – performance, design, quality and price – nor the individual criteria within each group, e.g., performance criteria -versatility, aerodynamics, stiffness, acceleration, compliance, and braking. In the review I state “At the end of the day, evaluating and comparing wheelset performance is very subjective.” I use the criteria groups and individual criteria to make sure I’m looking at what is important and organize my own subjective evaluation and those of others I value to come up with recommendatons.
- I recommend Best Performer, Best Value and Best Alternative wheelsets. The Best Performer is independent of price and based on the performance group criteria mentioned above. The Best Value considers both performance and price (and total cost of ownership) criteria. So price is indeed very important and I regularly update the price of all the wheels I review on my blog. Design – the group criteria being wheel weight and material, rim depth, opening width and profile, hub and spoke selection – shows up in the wheel’s performance so I don’t judge it alone. Two wheels with similar depth, width, weight, etc. may perform similarly or very differently so the design is a means to an end. And quality is kind of a go or no-go criteria group. I won’t recommend anything that doesn’t have an acceptable level of quality as measured by durability, warranties and service/support. Finally, the Best Alternative is my recommendation of the best choice for those who want a carbon-alloy all-around wheel for all the potential reasons discussed in the review.
- I actually don’t use looks or design specs in recommending all-around wheels and recommend that cyclists don’t either, though I know for some these are very important considerations. I try to make this clear early in the review by saying “And while some people put a high premium in making their choice on how the wheels look when they are standing still, it’s how they perform when they are moving at speed (and look like a blur) that really matters. I don’t recommend letting specs or looks sway your opinion.”
- The tubular vs. clincher point you make is an ongoing debate, perhaps a near religious one (though thankfully not as contentious as Campy vs Shimano in the groupset world). You’re absolutely right that most tubular wheels cost less (5%+/-) to buy than clinchers and tubular tires will cost more to buy than clincher ones. Over a few years and a few tire changes on a set of wheels, the total cost is probably not a whole lot different between the two systems. While a higher percentage of readers of this forum will, I still don’t think that most ‘cycling enthusiasts’ as I describe them are going to attach and maintain their own tubulars. And I’m not sure many of those starting the threads on these forums will either, judging from the nature of their questions. So the cost of going to a shop and having a shop glue up and fixing their tubulars is an added cost and effort that I think take tubulars out of the discussion for many cyclists. Again, this is my opinion but I think the growth of the carbon clincher market relative to the tubular one seems to support the demand from cyclists for this solution.
As to my method of coming up with recommendations, I’m really trying to approach this from the perspective of a cycling enthusiast with a fair bit of analytical training rather than a cycling expert as I recognize many on this form possibly are. As I say in the review, I spend hours researching the wheels, talking with product experts and experienced cyclists, pulling from independent reviews, looking at user and expert comments on forums like these, and riding some of the wheels myself and trying to bring all of it together around the organizing criteria. I’m really trying to put myself in the shoes of many people coming into the choice of buying something new without a lot of experience.
Fortunately or unfortunately, there are too many sources of information for most people now and many really respected and qualified sources come out with very different views on what is already a very subjective topic. We need only look at the seemingly scientific and objective wind tunnel tests to see how different the conclusions are you can reach from different credible sources. I’m trying to survey all of that and sort through it in a way that is hopefully useful for other cycling enthusiasts.
Sorry to go on. I hope that addresses some of your points. I welcome further suggestions as you see fit.
Thanks,
Steve
One of your criteria is quality... is this quality?
viewtopic.php?f=40013&t=12930058
I would seriously consider removing the Zipp 303 from the top spot... it is completely undeserved accrding to your criteria and for the most they are a gargantuan waste of moneyleft the forum March 20230 -
You're going a bit OT here Gents, maybe another thread?0
-
Ugo, thanks for the link to the topic forum on Zipp hubs. I have reviewed your comments and those of others there. I've also read your blog about the your rebuild (http://paolocoppo.drupalgardens.com/con ... w-finished) and your views on the rear hub built into the new 303.
While you are very positive about the 2014 version of the wheel and hub that addresses the design and failure concerns on the older model, I take your point and those of others around the service and lack of recall for the older model. I do make note in my recommendation of the current model that Zipp's "warranty and service responsiveness is middle of the pack" based on what I had found in my research of all the wheel makers prior to posting my review. Rather than hijacking this thread, I'd welcome yours and others comments about your service experience with Zipp and other wheel makers on another one or in the comment section of my review.
I will research this issue further. I plan to update my all-around wheel review periodically as experience with existing and new models comes in. Thank you. Steve0 -
I have narrowed down a couple of choices, and it comes back to the usual debate of do I want deep section aero more or lightness more? It seems lightness comes as the sacrifice of a deep section rim.
So how do you think I would find the difference between the following:
An 80mm deep section wheelset weighing in at 1770g : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/campagnolo-bull ... -wheelset/
A shallow section but much lighter rim : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/fulcrum-racing- ... lset-2014/
My main requirement is a more aero wheel to allow easier cruising at speed but I would also very much welcome any weight savings to assist on hills. My current quattro's weigh in at around 1725g.0 -
intheknowcycling.com wrote:Sorry to go on.
Ta0 -
Dizeee wrote:I have narrowed down a couple of choices, and it comes back to the usual debate of do I want deep section aero more or lightness more? It seems lightness comes as the sacrifice of a deep section rim.
So how do you think I would find the difference between the following:
An 80mm deep section wheelset weighing in at 1770g : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/campagnolo-bull ... -wheelset/
A shallow section but much lighter rim : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/fulcrum-racing- ... lset-2014/
My main requirement is a more aero wheel to allow easier cruising at speed but I would also very much welcome any weight savings to assist on hills. My current quattro's weigh in at around 1725g.
You're contradicting yourself bringing Fulcrum 1's into the mix. You are clearly ending with "My main requirement is a more aero wheel to allow easier cruising at speed", so for £1000 you need to just find a more aero wheel than a Fulcrum Quattro that is also lighter (to help with your other hankering).
I think you're confused as to what you even want, but, if you like deep sections, then getting a better wheel than the Quattros for a grand is not that difficult.
Personally, with the speeds you're saying, I'd dump the deep sections and go for some Racing Zeros or Shamal Ultras, or get something handbuilt.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:lawrences wrote:Swisside Hadrons look to be a decent carbon clincher. (alloy track with carbon section)
I don't own them so not first hand experience. They are new wheels to the market and the company is making big claims.
If I had the cash I'd probably get a pair.
Don't get fooled, any second year student of mechanical engineering can do those calculations and simulations (CFD ant the likes)... they don't mean anything.
They've even done a survey... WOW...!
Swiss side don't develop technology, they just buy components, assemble them and sticker them. They've probably given a few quid to an undergraduate Engineering student to do his final year project and put some colourful pictures on their site
HAHA isn't that what what you do for a living? They seem to have put in as much work as any other company and are offering a price that is slightly lower so I don't see the drawbacks.
A deep section wheel is probably as Aero as any other deep section but I've heard good things about their customer service so why not take a punt with theirs and save a few hundred.
Btw I'm an undergraduate engineering student.0 -
mfin wrote:Dizeee wrote:I have narrowed down a couple of choices, and it comes back to the usual debate of do I want deep section aero more or lightness more? It seems lightness comes as the sacrifice of a deep section rim.
So how do you think I would find the difference between the following:
An 80mm deep section wheelset weighing in at 1770g : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/campagnolo-bull ... -wheelset/
A shallow section but much lighter rim : http://www.wiggle.co.uk/fulcrum-racing- ... lset-2014/
My main requirement is a more aero wheel to allow easier cruising at speed but I would also very much welcome any weight savings to assist on hills. My current quattro's weigh in at around 1725g.
You're contradicting yourself bringing Fulcrum 1's into the mix. You are clearly ending with "My main requirement is a more aero wheel to allow easier cruising at speed", so for £1000 you need to just find a more aero wheel than a Fulcrum Quattro that is also lighter (to help with your other hankering).
I think you're confused as to what you even want, but, if you like deep sections, then getting a better wheel than the Quattros for a grand is not that difficult.
Personally, with the speeds you're saying, I'd dump the deep sections and go for some Racing Zeros or Shamal Ultras, or get something handbuilt.
Your right in that I don't really know what I want, however I do feel the quattro's are insufficient to let the frame really shine. As a competent rider with a stock wheel I do want some gains even if marginal, and obviously aesthetic. The quattros have never really looked right although I admit they feel fairly good if a tad heavy on some climbs.
The Fulcrum is the easy, obvious swap all be it as you say non aero so a contradiction. Problem is I have no experience of a wheelset over £200 so I don't know whether my riding would be more suited to a deep section or a lighter wheel.
I think I will stick with deep section, 50mm odd, and something around the 1500 - 1600g mark.0 -
I know it gets said a lot, but you could get some 50's built up by wheelsmith with DT240 hubs for about a grand, should be under 1600g or knock another 100g off if you go 38mm. At least you can get spokes and rims relatively easily (as well as spending even less in the first place if you go for lesser hubs).0
-
mfin wrote:At least you can get spokes and rims relatively easily (as well as spending even less in the first place if you go for lesser hubs).
True, but I would be weary of going for the DT 240. It's all nice and good, until the central bearing goes... then you need this to remove the ratchet and get the thing out
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/dt-s ... -prod81211
As a matter of fact, you only need the black tool, so you might get away with only this
http://www.singletrackbikes.co.uk/m8b18 ... wwod4LsAbA
. Or... you can take it to a shop, but most shops won't do it... I was told not even Sigma in Kingston have the tools to do it...
The joy of expensive hubs huh... :roll:left the forum March 20230 -
Just while you're on the subject Ugo, what do you think of the Chris King option (apart from the extortionate cost of them!), do you rate them as hubs and are the bearings really anything special at all?0
-
mfin wrote:Just while you're on the subject Ugo, what do you think of the Chris King option (apart from the extortionate cost of them!), do you rate them as hubs and are the bearings really anything special at all?
They are certainly nice, but in case of things going wrong, spares are hard to get and you might need this
http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/produ ... tAodtmwA2Q
As above, shops don't want to touch them. As a fettler, I would not bother. Hope Mono RS are "tool-less" why would you want anything else?left the forum March 20230
