Best lightweight climbing clinchers?

redvision

I know there are a million which wheel threads, but i was wondering which clinchers are the very best for climbing?
Is there really that much of a difference between the likes of Enve etc from the mid range, such as Fulcrum Zeros, Mavic Ksyrium SLR's?

bernithebiker

Lightweights.

redvision

bernithebiker wrote:

Lightweights.

Thanks mate. I had figured that out myself though.

And what about the second question?
Is there really a big difference between the mid range wheels and the more expensive sets?

ugo.santalucia

Assuming weight is the only discriminant for a set of climbing wheels (that is assuming they are all eqaully stiff or stiff enough for you), then the differences between them are negligible. You are talking about plus or minus a pound between the lightest carbon tubulars that weighs 900 g and something that weighs 1.4 Kg.

For a pair of climbing wheels, I would be more interested in which ones are going to be better at descending. That would put aluminium wheels on top, while carbon ones will have good days and bad days.

Moral: if you are after a set of climbing wheels, get aluminium ones... you never know what kind of weather you will find up the mountains

bernithebiker

redvision wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Lightweights.

Thanks mate. I had figured that out myself though.

And what about the second question?
Is there really a big difference between the mid range wheels and the more expensive sets?

You asked;

but i was wondering which clinchers are the very best for climbing?

You didn't mention price.

redvision

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Assuming weight is the only discriminant for a set of climbing wheels (that is assuming they are all eqaully stiff or stiff enough for you), then the differences between them are negligible. You are talking about plus or minus a pound between the lightest carbon tubulars that weighs 900 g and something that weighs 1.4 Kg.

For a pair of climbing wheels, I would be more interested in which ones are going to be better at descending. That would put aluminium wheels on top, while carbon ones will have good days and bad days.

Moral: if you are after a set of climbing wheels, get aluminium ones... you never know what kind of weather you will find up the mountains

Thanks Ugo, good advice as usual. Just the info I was looking for.

bernithebiker wrote:

redvision wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Lightweights.

Thanks mate. I had figured that out myself though.

And what about the second question?
Is there really a big difference between the mid range wheels and the more expensive sets?

You asked;

but i was wondering which clinchers are the very best for climbing?

You didn't mention price.

Yeah, I realised that after replying to you.

Tbh I would probably never allow myself to spend more than about £1500 on a pair, unless there was some absolutely massive gain.

diamonddog

I have Ksirium SLS (circa £700) on one bike and PX AL30 (circa £150) on another and find there is little if any difference.

Flâneur

until you won the lottery or had that much excess cash your perspectives change

ugo.santalucia

If you are a light rider (I would say under 75-80 Kg), Campagnolo Neutron are very good climbing wheels. Much more solid than one would expect, great hubs (when they don't crack). Only downside is the silly 22 holes front rim, which might pose a problem in case you damage it. Original replacements can be slow to come by and a botch with another rim virtually impossible

singleton

I've got fulcrum zeros and they've been great.
If you are getting really analytical then you need to break "wheel weight" down a bit more. Hub weight is much less important, rim weight is much more significant since it's at the extent of the wheel and therefore moving the fastest.

cycleclinic

All wheels climb. If you are dropping 300g on a wheelset then while they may feel different there will NOT be any change in you times to go up a hill. Other variables will swamp any change that, that kind of weight change can give.

If your current wheels are 1.7kg with gator skin tyres then spending a bit on 1.2kg wheels, light weight tyres like vittoria Corsa's, latex tubes and light weight rim tape like stans will add up to quite a bit and be measurable on a long climb. the difference may not be significant though.

Wheels like this are not sold though no a performance gain that is dififcult/impossible to quantify on the road. They are sold and recomened on how they feel and it is then assumed that equates to a performance gain.

I ride a 16kg bike at present and for some reason I have been climbing some hills quicker on it recently than I did last year on my race bike. Difference is my fitness. Weight only gets you so far. The engine has to do the rest.

For the last statement about rim weight vs hub weight. there has been a thread on weight weenies about this. Some kind soul did the maths (he did it right too it could have been a girl I don't know) but the maths showed rim weigh loss and hub weight loss add up to the same thing. the change in moment of intertia of the wheel with rim weight loss is just not significant. Sorry to dispell that received wisdom.

ugo.santalucia

thecycleclinic wrote:

For the last statement about rim weight vs hub weight. there has been a thread on weight weenies about this. Some kind soul did the maths (he did it right too it could have been a girl I don't know) but the maths showed rim weigh loss and hub weight loss add up to the same thing. the change in moment of intertia of the wheel with rim weight loss is just not significant. Sorry to dispell that received wisdom.

What would we do without weight weenies, the only peer reviewed forum on the web... ?? :shock:

You should try my Marathon winter sometime... you can feel each and every of those 950 grams per tyre as the road goes up. Average speed on an ondulated course is 2.5 mph lower than with road tyres... yet downhill they are fine, so if it's not rolling resistance (there is a bit, but it's not immense), it must be the weight

79543dean

I've had Fulcrum Racing Zero (Dark Label) for two years now and I'd defo recommend them for a £800 (ish) wheelset. My favourite terrain for riding is the mountains (of which there are many in South Wales) and these have never failed to impress me. I've had DA C24 and much prefer the Racing Zero's.

Barbarossa

What goes up must come down. If you are doing long climbs, choose the wheels with the most confidence-inspiring braking for the descents. In the mountains, you will gain more time in the descents if you have confidence in your brakes than you would with a couple of hundred grams weight saving on the climbs.

So. Stay away from carbon rims. Mavic Exalith brake tracks are very good.

redvision

Thanks for all the replies.

I had previously owned a set of Fulcrum Zero nites and loved them to bits. Just wondered if it was worth paying more next time but from the sounds of it it wouldn't be, so i will probably stick with Fulcrums.

The new canyon i have on order comes with MAVIC KSYRIUM PRO EXALITH but i have not had great experiences with Mavic wheels in the past so may not keep them.

bernithebiker

thecycleclinic wrote:

there has been a thread on weight weenies about this. Some kind soul did the maths (he did it right too it could have been a girl I don't know) but the maths showed rim weigh loss and hub weight loss add up to the same thing. the change in moment of intertia of the wheel with rim weight loss is just not significant. Sorry to dispell that received wisdom.

You have a link for that? Would be interested to read it and have a look at the maths.

Maybe it's correct, but I have to agree with Ugo that I can sure feel a difference when riding a set of heavy rimmed / tyred wheels compared to light ones.

pblakeney

bernithebiker wrote:

You have a link for that? Would be interested to read it and have a look at the maths.

Maybe it's correct, but I have to agree with Ugo that I can sure feel a difference when riding a set of heavy rimmed / tyred wheels compared to light ones.

Didn't maths once tell a bee that it couldn't fly?

llu02

Got a pair of MAVIC KSYRIUM SLR. Not the lightest, but love them:)

cycleclinic

If you read what I say though, 300g weight difference makes little difference in times but can be felt. 950g tyres well that is 650g over what I have on my bike currently and when that is doubled I would expect 1.3kg of extra weight to slow you down. I have a 9kg bike festonned with stuff making it 16.5kg. I can assure you ugo I feel every kg of extra weight and it does slow me down or I have to put out more power to maintain normal speeds.

What I wrote was is weight loss at the hub or the rim amounts to the same thing =weight loss. Loosing weight at the rim does not make more of difference than loosing weight at the hub when a climb is timed! If you want to make your self quicker up hills stop thinking saving 300g on wheels and starting think dropping 1kg or more that means wheels, tyres, tubes e.t.c That will make a real difference but will be more than felt it will be actual real time.

Subsequent comments seem to be based on me writing something completley different. so why do I bother posting at all.

I make a post I try to make it accurate so why is it misread? I actually give up.

Ugo if you take the time to read some of the posts on weight weenies some of the folk on there have a more in depth technical knowledge of bikes and science behind it all than anyone I have seen on here does (that includes you or me). Also if maths (PB....) showed a bee can't fly it was not a proper model of a bee. If it was you would find it can fly. Flight is process that can be modeled and physics/maths is used to do that. Otherwise how would humans design the typhoon jet and make it work? In a similar way models of a cyclist on a bike can be made (it is a lot simpler too) and these marry up with reality unless you think people like Damon Rinhard are talking out of there arse all the time (he has published simple models of a cyclist on a bike and tested them and found they work).

pblakeney

thecycleclinic wrote:

Also if maths (PB....) showed a bee can't fly it was not a proper model of a bee.

Which was exactly my point. Scientists couldn't figure it out, and bees didn't care.
Astoundingly, the correct model wasn't figured out until 2006.
http://www.livescience.com/528-scientis ... s-fly.html

ugo.santalucia

Accelerating the outer part of a wheel takes more effort than accelerating the hub... I think we all agree on that... whether that applies to climbing it depends. Models make a lot of assumptions, like constant speed, constant cadence, constant gradient etc... while in reality we all know that climbing has more to do with a battle than it has with textbook physics. One changes position several times, puts more or less effort, tries to accelerate out of corners etc.
A model that assumes the slope is 6% constant and you pedal at 80 RPM producing 250 Watt is quite far from the reality. It's an approximation that doesn't reflect reality. Then of course there will be the odd hill that resembles textbook physics, but most don't. Applying basic dynamic laws to the real world gives you some useful numbers, but they might not be the numbers you are looking for.

Once everything is averaged in a 100 Km ride, the net result is probably the same, but the fact that you struggled like a donkey to go up the first steep climb means you are knackered for the remaining 90 Km, which is something physics don't account for. Physics will tell you that climbing 3000 mt at a 5% gradient is the same thing as climbing 3000 mt going up and down the all day at plus or minus 15%, but we all know it isn't

ugo.santalucia

thecycleclinic wrote:

If you read what I say though, 300g weight difference makes little difference in times but can be felt. 950g tyres well that is 650g over what I have on my bike currently and when that is doubled I would expect 1.3kg of extra weight to slow you down. I have a 9kg bike festonned with stuff making it 16.5kg. I can assure you ugo I feel every kg of extra weight and it does slow me down or I have to put out more power to maintain normal speeds.

What I wrote was is weight loss at the hub or the rim amounts to the same thing =weight loss.

No...

With 2 Kg of tyres I am 4 km/h slower on a 60 Km ride. When my body mass was 5 Kg more, but using road tyres of ca. 600 grams for the pair I was not significantly slower than I am now.

So in the real world 1.4 Kg extra on the outer wheel is more significant than 5 Kg of body fat.

Fill your tyres with water and let's see how fast you go with your light bike... then put the same water in your water bottles and try again... I'll wait in the pub

jermas

Slightly lighter wheels are probably very slightly faster uphill, but the argument that rotational weight has such a large effect is flawed. It takes slightly more effort to get heavier wheels turning, but in return they will then roll slightly further (energy can't be lost). The energy require to spin a wheel is tiny. Think how easy it is to spin on a turbo trainer without the resistance unit contacting the tyre.
Acceleration will be slightly slower with heavier wheels, so there is an assumption that this will slow you uphill (if climbing is thought of as a series of small accelerations with every pedal stroke). I think this might possibly come into effect on very steep hills or when accelerating on hills.

The water in the tyre experiment has been done http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on-alpe-dhuez/ but is possibly flawed because of extra rolling resistance. Also he rode with higher average power on the 2nd run- so the difference is tiny!

ugo.santalucia

jermas wrote:

Slightly lighter wheels are probably very slightly faster uphill, but the argument that rotational weight has such a large effect is flawed. It takes slightly more effort to get heavier wheels turning, but in return they will then roll slightly further (energy can't be lost). The energy require to spin a wheel is tiny. Think how easy it is to spin on a turbo trainer without the resistance unit contacting the tyre.

That is an old argument too: basically what you are saying is you put more energy accelerating, but in return you should get more momentum on the flat and downhill.
Which by extension means that if you do 100 Km on the flat, it's the same as doing 100 Km up and down as you will gain downhill as much as you have lost uphill. The problem is that it isn't true and neither is true that a heavy wheel gives you back your energy by flywheel effect. If you ride a pair of heavy wheels (and I don't mean 300 grams heavier which is too little to make any difference, but try 3 Kg heavier) you will be slower than strapping a 3Kg metal rod on your frame... any day of the week any course you choose... and it's a fact. If maths and physics say the opposite, it's because the equations you use are inadequate to describe the reality you want to measure.
At 9 pounds a tyre at Planet X, it's worth getting a pair of Marathon Winter just to try for yourself

jermas

I'm not saying anything like. Anyway the reason it's faster doing a flat 100km rather than up 50km and down 50km is that you spend a longer time going slower (uphill) and a short amount of time going fast (downhill) so the average speed will be lower. Also air resistance will impact your faster downhill section, but that's a different argument.
I totally agree that super heavy, super high rolling resistance tyres will slow you down.

The facts speak for themselves in the above link--Rotational weight vs extra bike weight= hardly any difference.
A lightweight bike (and rider) with lightweight wheels obviously will be best. Adding extra weight to wheels or bike makes little difference.

bernithebiker

I agree with Ugo - the maths models use constant slope, power, constant everything, but it just isn't like that in the real world.
For me, it's all about the feel of the bike, the way it rides. Light bikes feel nicer to ride, more snappy, quicker to change
speed and direction. The same goes for wheels; if you can keep weight off the rim, then why not? That can only be a positive, albeit a small one.

ugo.santalucia

jermas wrote:

I totally agree that super heavy, super high rolling resistance tyres will slow you down.

I'm not sure the rolling resistance is that different. I find cyclocross tyres to be nearly as fast as road tyres. To give you an idea
Best commute time with 25 mm road tyres 85 PSI 330 g each 43 minutes
Best commute tyres with 34 mm full mud tyres 55 PSI 340g each 45 minutes
Best commute time with 37 mm spiked tyres 50 PSI 960 g each 54 minutes (49 minutes with front only)

As I said, spiked tyres at speed feel OK and downhill feel reasonably fast. It's the change of pace and the going up which is ridiculously slow.

As for the experiment... hard to comment... a simple calculation suggest that to fill 900 ml in a tyre you need an internal tyre section of ca. 25mm, so external of 27... the photo shows some Pave' old type, that did exist in 27 mm format... whether those are the 24 or the 27 is hard to say... but who would use the 27 mm Pave' to climb the Alpe.. seems an odd choice of tyre for a team... especially given the rider should around 55-60 Kg, by extrapolating power/weight to get that VAM

jermas

This site http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ gives an idea of rolling resistance differences. Not "real world" conditions, but still a good indicator. On our rough roads I think the differences might be smaller?

ugo.santalucia

jermas wrote:

This site http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ gives an idea of rolling resistance differences. Not "real world" conditions, but still a good indicator. On our rough roads I think the differences might be smaller?

They don't have the spiked ones... assuming the worst and they sap an extra 30 Watt over the road tyres (say 13 Vs 43 Watt)... that means 1 mph average (150 Vs 180 Watt average), which is reasonable. Except they sap a lot more than that. Could it be the weight?

jermas

"Could it be the weight?". Yes that too, but not necessarily rotational weight. Why would it be harder to spin a wheel uphill than on the flat? It's just that you're carrying extra weight overall.

ugo.santalucia

jermas wrote:

"Could it be the weight?". Yes that too, but not necessarily rotational weight. Why i would it be harder to spin a wheel uphill than on the flat? It's just that you're carrying extra weight overall.

That I am sure is not... having recently lost 5 Kg of fat and not being faster.

Rotational weight is becoming under-rated... I blame the aero brigade, mainly led by the British school of thought that is all about the aerodynamics. You go on an Italian forum and it's all about the weight.
The assumption that the force you have to overcome is 90% down to breaking the air might be true for a 10 miles flat TT, which is a popular discipline over here, where you can assume a lot of numbers being constant, but it doesn't reflect the reality of riding a bicycle in general, where accelerations and decelerations are very frequent and average speed significantly lower.
Tarmac is always assumed to be perfect too, which is hardly ever the case.

Moral, I don't believe any of that and I only believe the numbers I measure in my own cycling... they do not seem to be consistent with a 90% aerodynamics. If aerodynamics were 90% of the all figure, how come it is easier to cycle at 10 mph in a 20 mph head wind than it is to cycle at 30 mph in zero wind?