Road bike with aero wheels vs aero bike with normal wheels
Comments
-
Ridden the Gen 3. They were poor when compared to my RZR46 Teams (which are of similar yet more intricate construction), especially when it came to windy conditions. They didn't feel that robust either as I tank through most everything, but I reckon the regular RZR 46 would have been similar on this front.
In terms of actual aero credentials of Lightweights, there are none. They're at best an okay wheel regardless of yaw (they perform best at low yaw, but other narrow wheels like the H3 and non-FC 404/808 take them to town). Disc is good though, very good (but still not better than options at half the price).
The only advantages Lightweights have over the RZR 46 is servicing (you need to send RZR's back to Colorado) and you can change the freehub. But lets be honest here, no one buys Lightweights because they're looking for the fastest wheel. It's because you want something lightweight and blingy.
<places tongue in cheek>
Comparing aero wheels in anything other than the strictest of controlled conditions is stupid and a lottery.
<removes tongue from cheek>
Sorry everyone, couldn't resist!0 -
Indeed. Possibly a tad too subtle for "the primary intended recipient" though.0
-
Aren't the RZR's quite a bit MORE expensive than Meilensteins? They say the spokes are just glued into place with no tension, which I find a bit odd.
I'll have to take your word for it that on the basis of (1?) ride, the LW's were 'poor' in windy conditions. Given that the rim height is more or less the same, I'd be surprised if a very slight difference in profile makes a world of difference.
'No' aero credentials? What as bad as a 20mm box alu rim? Over stating it slightly?
This review is dated now; http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-4934445.html but shows that all wheels tested (excluding Zipp 808 as it's much deeper) are within 2 to 4 watts of each other (and this at a high 50km/h), so at a more normal 35km/h say, (I dont' do TT's) there's hardly anything in it.
Where there IS a big difference is in the LW's stiffness which is top of the pack. If you then combine that with the inertia (basically weight, and where that weight is) you get the stiffness / inertia ratio which again puts LW at the top. (LW's are now stiffer than when this test was done).
So to my mind, usefully aero (I don't really mind being 1W off a Zipp 404), very light and very stiff, with a lovely ride quality (in tubs - I've never ridden the clincher version). Just about every review rates them as 'the best wheels they've ever ridden....', maybe they're being paid off?!
I think RZR's RRP for more than LW's, but they're easy to find at knockdown prices, which you won't get with LW. In regards to how aero they are, LW hasn't updated their shape in donkey's years, whereas the rest of the wheels on that list are pretty much defunct. It's also worth noting that the trend has been to wheel that perform well over a wide range of yaw angles which have never favoured a narrow V construction. The predecessor of the RZR was the Lew VT-1 which you'll see is one of the fastest on the test. Paul Lew went to Reynolds and it's been a pet project of his ever since (also keep in kind that unlike the VT-1, the RZR 46 has a SLG which trips turbulant air allowing for better performance over a variety of yaw angles). I also know a few people who have tested them. They've never stuck with them.
In regards to stiffness, you didn't dig deep enough. The RZR 46 Team (which is what I had and isn't the standard version) is the stiffest wheel they've tested (I never noticed the effect of drop off with high torque on the rear, but those are levels us mere mortals can't achieve). http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-53429649.html
It's natural for people to review their kit (especially those pieces that have cost an arm and a leg and have a lot of marketing behind them) as the best. You only need to read a couple threads on any forum to see that most people have this paradigm. Anyway, all of the above are just small facets of why I didn't buy LW's. The biggest thing is that I don't like factory wheels on my road bikes. I's rather have something handbuilt that can be easily serviced/replaced (which is why I went with Enve 4.5 on Mig/Mags). I would have gone with Reynolds Aeros, but just sourcing the rims is near impossible so defeats the purpose.<places tongue in cheek>
Comparing aero wheels in anything other than the strictest of controlled conditions is stupid and a lottery.
<removes tongue from cheek>
Sorry everyone, couldn't resist!
Quite unsurprisingly, you've managed to miss the point. Everything that goes on my TT bike is tested, road is not. That said, I have a massive amount of test data (my own and that of others) that encompasses everything I've spoken about. Road riding for enjoyment is about the intangibles. I love the way Aero 72's handle, whereas Berni loves his LW's. Both are correct as they relate only to us and our riding (again, racing is a different kettle of fish). Things like handling in crosswinds are quite individual (although there are a few Reynolds white papers bout it) as some love how a HED 3 or 808FC handles in the wind, and others find them to be death traps (my RZR92 tests marginally slower than a similar wheel, but I haven't changed based on what I'll save by not riding into a hedge).
It's interesting that you and your lackey seem so intent on protecting the sanctity of the Strava leaderboard. My whole point has been to ride what makes you happy. A bit too existential for you perhaps?English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
I don't win but I punch well above my weight. Plus the idea that talking part/competing is only worthwhile if you win is childish. I genuinely love the sport, so I do everything in my power to improve (and no, Strava leaderboarding isn't a sport) . As I said in my first post aero kit is beneficial to certain riders, testers being the obvious. The fact that I am ridiculously aero on my TT bike (I go for regular testing and adjust position and kit accordingly) is what allows me to compete with those that have access to 100w more, but this is discipline specific. Short of TT's and the track, there isn't any consideration for aeroness on any of my other bikes or with general riding (training TT bike is for positional work, not to post a result anywhere).
So you go for regular testing, spend plenty on kit, to get yourself up a leaderboard on which you 'don't win but punch well above your weight'. Well, they say it's not the winning but the taking part that counts, as long as you enjoy it that's the main thing. You still seem to counter some of your own logic I'm afraid.
Note, I don't think it's worth having aero bikes and wheels either for recreation, it's pretty daft. Of course, if someone enjoys them, fine.0 -
Well I have managed a podium place and cash, but that's not why I do it.
When Strava leaderboards become a recognised sport I'll rescind my comments, but at this rate it won't be long until people start buying aero bikes for Zwift. English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0 -
Well I have managed a podium place and cash, but that's not why I do it. When Strava leaderboards become a recognised sport I'll rescind my comments, but at this rate it won't be long until people start buying aero bikes for Zwift.
0 -
Well I have managed a podium place and cash, but that's not why I do it. When Strava leaderboards become a recognised sport I'll rescind my comments, but at this rate it won't be long until people start buying aero bikes for Zwift.
You're right there, it is getting stupid. People are buying into the aero thing, often going from far inferior non-aero kit so of course it's often going to feel better, then they exaggerate the gains they get when talking about it and put it down to aero differences.
Of course, if you're recreationally cycling and have deep sections it's pointless, it's arguably pretty pointless to have them even in many race situations.
It's now reached a point where the vast majority of the deep sections sold are to people who are getting nothing from them apart from buying into the look of them. Which, is fine, but that's all it is.0 -
And the nice sound they make.0
-
It's all about looking good.
Aero bikes with standard wheels look naff, Normal bikes with aero wheels look great.0
