At what rim depth do benefits kick in at realworld speeds?

ben@31

They'll never make me the fastest, but they do look nice.

Mark Alexander

Unless you're racing don't bother with deep section.

cycleclinic

So unless you muscian dont buy good hi fi. Unless you are professional cleaner dont buy labour saving cleaning aids. Unless you are a mechanic dont buy good tools. Unless you are IT expert don't a buy a fast computer. Unless you are a racing driver dont buy a fast car.

I could carry on but that is where that logic takes us.

rolf_f

thecycleclinic wrote:

So unless you muscian dont buy good hi fi. Unless you are professional cleaner dont buy labour saving cleaning aids. Unless you are a mechanic dont buy good tools. Unless you are IT expert don't a buy a fast computer. Unless you are a racing driver dont buy a fast car.

I could carry on but that is where that logic takes us.

It's not a fair analogy though. Not unless there is convincing evidence that deep rim wheels offer a benefit (beyond aesthetic taste!) over low profile rims - ie low profile rims are not meaningfully an inferior product. A minute in 40k is probably not a noticeable benefit to anyone who isn't timing their ride. A genuine feeling of being ever so slightly fresher after 40k might be but I'm not sure anyone has claimed that. A fast car is genuinely and very noticeably faster than a normal car (though of course there are plenty who buy Ferraris and never get them out of London so what you do with your expensive toy is an issue) whereas deep rims don't appear to be noticeably faster.

So far, unless you are racing, the only convincing argument I've seen for deep rims is 'cor, they look nice' and if that is worth a £1k sized hole in your bank account then that's fine!

bendertherobot

You can do it for less though. A lot less. Though I do accept they are about going faster, whatever that means to whoever it means it to.

I think what IS interesting from pieces like this http://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1467/ ... eight-rims is that you don't really need to worry about what deep sections you buy relative to what you already own. So if you're chopping around in the 1500-1800g range then, it seems, you're likely to be a bit quicker on aero and it won't really hamper your climbing.

Or, if you like, if all things are equal then they do look nice.

simon_masterson

Rolf F wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

So unless you muscian dont buy good hi fi. Unless you are professional cleaner dont buy labour saving cleaning aids. Unless you are a mechanic dont buy good tools. Unless you are IT expert don't a buy a fast computer. Unless you are a racing driver dont buy a fast car.

I could carry on but that is where that logic takes us.

It's not a fair analogy though. Not unless there is convincing evidence that deep rim wheels offer a benefit (beyond aesthetic taste!) over low profile rims - ie low profile rims are not meaningfully an inferior product. A minute in 40k is probably not a noticeable benefit to anyone who isn't timing their ride. A genuine feeling of being ever so slightly fresher after 40k might be but I'm not sure anyone has claimed that. A fast car is genuinely and very noticeably faster than a normal car (though of course there are plenty who buy Ferraris and never get them out of London so what you do with your expensive toy is an issue) whereas deep rims don't appear to be noticeably faster.

So far, unless you are racing, the only convincing argument I've seen for deep rims is 'cor, they look nice' and if that is worth a £1k sized hole in your bank account then that's fine!

No worse than having a nice bike because you can afford to, though - or making your bike light. If anything, at least the performance benefit of aero wheels is verifiable - and certainly larger and more tangible than the latter.

hantstooflat

I am a fairly light rider at 60kg riding 50mm rims (alu rims with carbon fairings) most of the year. I switch to 24mm rims for the rest. All anecdotal but find with the deeper rims I can hold my higher speeds a lot more easily when riding with heavier more powerful riders. On the other hand I have been caught out with strong, gusty cross winds in both the very open sections of the New Forest and the coastal roads in Hampshire (top of Portsdown Hill). Not enough to cause a dangerous swerve across the lane but enough to make me think I need to concentrate a bit harder and back off.

rolf_f

Simon Masterson wrote:

No worse than having a nice bike because you can afford to, though - or making your bike light. If anything, at least the performance benefit of aero wheels is verifiable - and certainly larger and more tangible than the latter.

Actually, I'm not yet convinced that there has been much evidence that aero wheels have a more tangible benefit. They are different things for a start so how do you compare the gains? Probably by cost/benefit but it's all marginal. I've cut the weight of my best bike from about 7.3kg to 6.8kg and it does feel flightier than it did before. But as a benefit, that seems about as dodgy a justification as the benefits claimed for aero wheels at normal speeds!

My problem is that I'd really like to try the deeper rim wheels but it just doesn't seem worth the money. And at least the money I have invested in making the bike light is mostly not at risk of being written off in one go by a traditional British pothole! I do expect to try them in the not too distant future - but that will be on the velodrome and it will be for racing purposes.

But I agree that they are a nice thing if you want them - just not that there is much rationality behind them!