Aero Wheels or Electronic Shifting?
Comments
-
ugo.santalucia wrote:Charlie Potatoes wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Charlie Potatoes wrote:
Best I opt for the metric challenge then. I seem to recall that my fancy wheels didn't cut the mustard on the hill climb
Deal... I'm really hopeful to climb the GC a bit in April and I've got the Fred Whitton in May... 180 Km, so if I do a bit of loops of the car park before and after, that's 2 points, innit?
I see you've sneaked a midweek ride in this week :evil:
sunny day, the first in ages, took a day off to try the full FWC distance, albeit on a flatter terrain.
https://www.strava.com/routes/4630020
We had it planned for the weekend before, but it snowed in the morning and we had to cut our ambition to 120 Km or so. Should be doing another century this sunday... maybe 100-110, Im already in tapering mode
I see that's only showing moving time :shock:0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:philthy3 wrote:People are misusing the word vain. Vain means having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance or ability or worth. Producing no result; useless.
Buying the best because you can afford it is not vanity unless the individual is actually vain. I don't buy a nice car or watch because I think it makes me look good or important. I buy them because I like them. Accusing people of vanity for daring to buy the best they can afford is simple jealousy.
I don't think it's jealousy... I do admit to have a problem with waste... you see growing inequality and people spending money on stuff that is totally pointless... I belong to the 5% wealthiest people in the world, so there is really not much to be jealous about... but this is MY problem
My advice was sound...neither, because both are pointless upgrades.
Are you saying that lightweight / aero wheels offers no advatage at all? I don't remember reading what the OP is going to do (race or not)... maybe I missed it.0 -
philthy3 wrote:People are misusing the word vain. Vain means having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance or ability or worth. Producing no result; useless.
Buying the best because you can afford it is not vanity unless the individual is actually vain. I don't buy a nice car or watch because I think it makes me look good or important. I buy them because I like them. Accusing people of vanity for daring to buy the best they can afford is simple jealousy.
OP; buy the wheels and have the satisfaction of being able to index your gears yourself.
People are assuming that any proposed purchase or choice between this or that has the main aim of making the person 'look good' or inflate their 'worth'. I read it more like you, as in, which will be nicer to ride, between x and y?
I do agree somewhat about consumerism and that some people may feel entitled or coerced to get new stuff, at worst even when they can't affort it. But this isn't everyone by any stretch.0 -
Alex99 wrote:Are you saying that lightweight / aero wheels offers no advatage at all? I don't remember reading what the OP is going to do (race or not)... maybe I missed it.
In the right context they do. If for instance the right context for you is time trialling, then I am sure you can cut maye a second or two per Km by using deep section wheels, which can be significant.
However, for general purpose, they make no difference at all. I have yet to meet someone who can say that he went around the course ofthe Dragon Ride half an hour faster because he had aero wheels.
I have yet to meet someone who can keep up with his club ride fast group only with the help of aero wheels
I might be wrong, but I see fewer and fewer deep section wheels in the peloton these days. Three years ago they were all on 50-60 mm rims, now 30-40 mm seem to be the norm... maybe we are moving on...
left the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Alex99 wrote:Are you saying that lightweight / aero wheels offers no advatage at all? I don't remember reading what the OP is going to do (race or not)... maybe I missed it.
In the right context they do. If for instance the right context for you is time trialling, then I am sure you can cut maye a second or two per Km by using deep section wheels, which can be significant.
However, for general purpose, they make no difference at all. I have yet to meet someone who can say that he went around the course ofthe Dragon Ride half an hour faster because he had aero wheels.
I have yet to meet someone who can keep up with his club ride fast group only with the help of aero wheels
I might be wrong, but I see fewer and fewer deep section wheels in the peloton these days. Three years ago they were all on 50-60 mm rims, now 30-40 mm seem to be the norm... maybe we are moving on...
The 'pro's' wheels do seem to have got shallower.
A couple of seconds per km, is likely in the region of 1 kph quicker. You right in a sense, it doesn't really matter for most people whether they are 1 kph quicker or not. But, I'd think that a lot of riders would notice the feel of a bike that is genuinely '1 kph faster'.0 -
Alex99 wrote:But, I'd think that a lot of riders would notice the feel of a bike that is genuinely '1 kph faster'.
Funnily enough, no. You might read it on the Garmin and get all excited, but feeling it, no. I remember descending at 70 kmh with my 1980s racer was something to shit yourself, but with modern hyper stiff bikes it doesn't feel particularly fast. The stiffer the bike the slower it feels given the same speed, IME.
Descending at 40 kmh on a Raleigh Chopper might give you the sense of speed...
When I was into windsurf, I think I was going at 30 Km/h as the fastest speed, yet on choppy water it feels like going at 100 Km/h on a bike, it's terrifying...
Either way, 1 km/h faster is hard to perceive and besides, that is 1km/h in a time trial, which is not 1 km/h on your club ride or sportive.left the forum March 20230 -
You would not feel a gain of 1 km/h. It would be swamped by the noise of everyday riding. The difference threshold (just noticeable difference) for our perception of speed is surprisingly high, as it is for weight (about 10%), noise (about 5%), and brightness (about 8%).
You might over many rides notice an upward trend in your average speeds. And regardless of whether you notice it or not, it’s there, making every ride faster, and that’s important to some people.
However, aero wheels only give a gain of two seconds per km in advertisements.
What’s more, the design of most aero wheels is seriously misguided. The emphasis with the rounded Firecrest-style rims is low drag at unrealistically high yaw angles. In the real world, you spend most of your time riding at yaw angles quite close to zero. At such wind angles, today’s fat, rounded rims perform similarly to the V-notch rims of the old days.
This white paper by Catalyst Cycling explains why in some detail. It comes to this devastating conclusion:
“The main conclusion that can be drawn then is that wheels should be designed for much lower yaw angles than those that are currently being used. This means using narrower tires and narrower rims, as well as less bulbous rim shapes.”
Sky knows this, which is why Chris Froome is using 22 mm tyres for some races. And those are tubulars, so they really are 22 mm wide, unlike your ‘23 mm’ clinchers that are really 25 mm on fat rims.
Today’s deep-section rims are not very different from shallow ones at low yaw angles. That’s why so many pros (especially in the technically advanced teams like Sky) use shallow-section rims. They weigh less, helping riders stay on the wheel when others attack, and sacrifice little in aerodynamics.
The exception, contrary to everything you read, is in situations where crosswinds are likely to cause racing (echelons). When this happens, you do finally get high yaw angles (though often still lower than the insane angles quoted by wheel advertisers). At high yaw angles, deep rims act like sails or wings, in extreme circumstances not just reducing drag but conceivably producing forward thrust.
But at least aero wheels do something, however irrelevant, for your cycling. Electric gears are truly pointless (and tacky too).0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Alex99 wrote:But, I'd think that a lot of riders would notice the feel of a bike that is genuinely '1 kph faster'.
Funnily enough, no. You might read it on the Garmin and get all excited, but feeling it, no. I remember descending at 70 kmh with my 1980s racer was something to shoot yourself, but with modern hyper stiff bikes it doesn't feel particularly fast. The stiffer the bike the slower it feels given the same speed, IME.
Descending at 40 kmh on a Raleigh Chopper might give you the sense of speed...
When I was into windsurf, I think I was going at 30 Km/h as the fastest speed, yet on choppy water it feels like going at 100 Km/h on a bike, it's terrifying...
Either way, 1 km/h faster is hard to perceive and besides, that is 1km/h in a time trial, which is not 1 km/h on your club ride or sportive.
You can of course have a fun ride on a bike that isn't built with speed as the primary concern. Your analogy descending on the 80s racer, I think is about feeling close to the edge. I'm not sure it applies to this case. We're talking about putting a pair on wheels on the same bike. And, yes, you're right, 1 kph in a time trial isn't 1 kph on a club ride.0 -
OnYourRight wrote:You would not feel a gain of 1 km/h. It would be swamped by the noise of everyday riding. The difference threshold (just noticeable difference) for our perception of speed is surprisingly high, as it is for weight (about 10%), noise (about 5%), and brightness (about 8%).
You might over many rides notice an upward trend in your average speeds. And regardless of whether you notice it or not, it’s there, making every ride faster, and that’s important to some people.
However, aero wheels only give a gain of two seconds per km in advertisements.
What’s more, the design of most aero wheels is seriously misguided. The emphasis with the rounded Firecrest-style rims is low drag at unrealistically high yaw angles. In the real world, you spend most of your time riding at yaw angles quite close to zero. At such wind angles, today’s fat, rounded rims perform similarly to the V-notch rims of the old days.
This white paper by Catalyst Cycling explains why in some detail. It comes to this devastating conclusion:
“The main conclusion that can be drawn then is that wheels should be designed for much lower yaw angles than those that are currently being used. This means using narrower tires and narrower rims, as well as less bulbous rim shapes.”
Sky knows this, which is why Chris Froome is using 22 mm tyres for some races. And those are tubulars, so they really are 22 mm wide, unlike your ‘23 mm’ clinchers that are really 25 mm on fat rims.
Today’s deep-section rims are not very different from shallow ones at low yaw angles. That’s why so many pros (especially in the technically advanced teams like Sky) use shallow-section rims. They weigh less, helping riders stay on the wheel when others attack, and sacrifice little in aerodynamics.
The exception, contrary to everything you read, is in situations where crosswinds are likely to cause racing (echelons). When this happens, you do finally get high yaw angles (though often still lower than the insane angles quoted by wheel advertisers). At high yaw angles, deep rims act like sails or wings, in extreme circumstances not just reducing drag but conceivably producing forward thrust.
But at least aero wheels do something, however irrelevant, for your cycling. Electric gears are truly pointless (and tacky too).
Very interesting stuff. I wonder, has anyone done a blinded test on the perception thing? I'd be very interested to see if a rider can tell which wheels are on the bike without being able to see (or hear?) them. How would you design such an experiment? If you have a reference for the 10% figure, I'd be interested to see it.
I am fairly confident that I can feel a difference going from my 32 spoke wheels to Campag Zondas. But, I am aware of how unreliable perception is and how susceptible to bias we all are.0 -
Get some aero wheel. They look cool as fook.
That's the only reason we buy this stuff isn't it?!...0 -
OnYourRight wrote:You would not feel a gain of 1 km/h. It would be swamped by the noise of everyday riding. The difference threshold (just noticeable difference) for our perception of speed is surprisingly high, as it is for weight (about 10%), noise (about 5%), and brightness (about 8%).
You might over many rides notice an upward trend in your average speeds. And regardless of whether you notice it or not, it’s there, making every ride faster, and that’s important to some people.
However, aero wheels only give a gain of two seconds per km in advertisements.
What’s more, the design of most aero wheels is seriously misguided. The emphasis with the rounded Firecrest-style rims is low drag at unrealistically high yaw angles. In the real world, you spend most of your time riding at yaw angles quite close to zero. At such wind angles, today’s fat, rounded rims perform similarly to the V-notch rims of the old days.
This white paper by Catalyst Cycling explains why in some detail. It comes to this devastating conclusion:
“The main conclusion that can be drawn then is that wheels should be designed for much lower yaw angles than those that are currently being used. This means using narrower tires and narrower rims, as well as less bulbous rim shapes.”
Sky knows this, which is why Chris Froome is using 22 mm tyres for some races. And those are tubulars, so they really are 22 mm wide, unlike your ‘23 mm’ clinchers that are really 25 mm on fat rims.
Today’s deep-section rims are not very different from shallow ones at low yaw angles. That’s why so many pros (especially in the technically advanced teams like Sky) use shallow-section rims. They weigh less, helping riders stay on the wheel when others attack, and sacrifice little in aerodynamics.
The exception, contrary to everything you read, is in situations where crosswinds are likely to cause racing (echelons). When this happens, you do finally get high yaw angles (though often still lower than the insane angles quoted by wheel advertisers). At high yaw angles, deep rims act like sails or wings, in extreme circumstances not just reducing drag but conceivably producing forward thrust.
But at least aero wheels do something, however irrelevant, for your cycling. Electric gears are truly pointless (and tacky too).
Given that the expressed aim of the publishers is to challenge the established thinking - and hence promote their line of products - I'm a little bit sceptical that this 'research' was without bias....FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
Sorry, I don’t. I may have made it up. Google provides a few references but also many that say the just noticeable difference (JND) is less than 10% for weight.Alex99 wrote:If you have a reference for the 10% figure, I'd be interested to see it.
Scepticism is good, but their argument is waterproof as far as I can see. Did you read the paper or just the conclusion?Svetty wrote:Given that the expressed aim of the publishers is to challenge the established thinking - and hence promote their line of products - I'm a little bit sceptical that this 'research' was without bias....
Another way of proving the validity of their argument to yourself is to consider where you typically ride when drafting someone. I know in my case that’s usually directly behind them. A very tiny percentage (far less than 1%) of my drafting time is spent at a 20-degree offset, and yet that is the kind of yaw angle for which purveyors of aero wheels make big claims. Even if their claims for high yaw angles were true in the real world – and of course they’re not – statistically, approximately no-one should care how their wheels perform at yaw angles over 5 degrees.
Aero wheel makers like to talk about high yaw angles because at the low angles we typically encounter, their products make hardly any difference.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:Alex99 wrote:Are you saying that lightweight / aero wheels offers no advatage at all? I don't remember reading what the OP is going to do (race or not)... maybe I missed it.
I have yet to meet someone who can keep up with his club ride fast group only with the help of aero wheels
I might be wrong, but I see fewer and fewer deep section wheels in the peloton these days. Three years ago they were all on 50-60 mm rims, now 30-40 mm seem to be the norm... maybe we are moving on...
I think most riders want to believe that they can indeed buy speed.
As for more 30-40 mm rims in the pro ranks these days. I doubt it has much to do with what the pros want. The pros are moving billboards and not a lot more. They answer to their sponsors desires. When their wheel sponsor decides that they have sold pretty much all the 50-60 mm rims, for now, that they can, then they will make a few minor cosmetic changes to their 30-40 mm rims, promote them as the fastest, greatest thing yet, and give them to their teams to ride. Then, of course, all the NON pro riders will see this and even if they already have an OLD set or 30-40's, will rush to buy the NEW ones because they are faster. In a few years this will be repeated with 50-60 mm wheels when the manufacturers have sold all the 30-40's. This is NOT about what wheel is fastest, what wheel is best. It's about sales of wheels to the cycling public. By all indications the cycling public is just as gullible as the golf public in that they will try and buy just about anything to try and get better.0 -
It seemed pretty sound to me too, admittedly with a quick read. A fairly nice bit of analysis and no marketing claims.0
-
dennisn wrote:As for more 30-40 mm rims in the pro ranks these days. I doubt it has much to do with what the pros want. The pros are moving billboards and not a lot more. They answer to their sponsors desires. When their wheel sponsor decides that they have sold pretty much all the 50-60 mm rims, for now, that they can, then they will make a few minor cosmetic changes to their 30-40 mm rims, promote them as the fastest, greatest thing yet, and give them to their teams to ride. Then, of course, all the NON pro riders will see this and even if they already have an OLD set or 30-40's, will rush to buy the NEW ones because they are faster. In a few years this will be repeated with 50-60 mm wheels when the manufacturers have sold all the 30-40's. This is NOT about what wheel is fastest, what wheel is best. It's about sales of wheels to the cycling public. By all indications the cycling public is just as gullible as the golf public in that they will try and buy just about anything to try and get better.
That pretty much solves the question "why aren't Shimano or Mavic moving with the times and making wide-rimmed race wheels?" Because it's marketing BS.0
