Wheelset Advice Appreciated

2»

Comments

  • neilkav1
    neilkav1 Posts: 91
    Stueys wrote:
    I've got years of data of riding my bikes across my local roads in varying conditions, all tracked by a power meter for the last 3 years. I think my 50mm deep wheels gave me about a 0.7-1.2mph advantage.

    It's impossible for me to tell whether that was purely the rim depth, better hubs (CK45), traffic, weather conditions etc, etc, so it's not exactly scientific but it is the same roads, on the same bike (but with different wheels) and broadly the same power output (sadly.....) across repeated rides. The other thing I notice is that if I'm riding next to mates on a club ride my bike starts to pull away from them on descents, it's not normally me that's heavier.

    The other thing I love about the wheels is the stiffness of the things, they are lovely to ride. Out of my three 'vanity upgrades' on the bike (deep wheels, di2, aero road bar) the wheels would be the ones I would keep if I had to choose.

    Wouldn't disagree with the advice that others have given though, biggest bang for buck is always the rider starting with position. For tri a dedicated tri bike would make a big difference but it's probably only worth worrying about on your 70.3 distance; for the olympic and sprint stuff I would just make your everyday bike as fast/fun as possible and leverage that for tri, the bike leg isn't going to be long enough to get more worried than that.

    Cheers for that, very interesting, and thanks for the information!

    Yeah i think the other comment I'd not really considered would be ride quality, the stiffness would certainly change the nature of the 'feel'
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    neilkav1 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    neilkav1 wrote:
    Bottom line I just want to train bloody hard, have fun, compete with myself, do my best - the best that I can do, and not get too caught up in all the myriad of 'possible' marginal gains.

    So you don't need new wheels then?

    Spot the forum smart ars* then... :D

    I meant going any further than position, tri bars, bike fit, training, PM, and yes some reasonable wheels, which according to a few folk will give an advantage of maybe .7-1.0 mph, which i would be delighted with. trying to further analyse after all that for me would be pretty pointless. Anyhow thanks for the advice.

    That seems a lot... what would constitute going further? A low oxygen tent to sleep in? A 300 pounds skin suit toddler sized? Sessions at the local wind tunnel facility for £ 500 an hour? GH?
    left the forum March 2023
  • MikeBrew
    MikeBrew Posts: 814
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "
  • neilkav1
    neilkav1 Posts: 91
    MikeBrew wrote:
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "

    Doesn't bother me mate, he's clearly such a pro, that as far as I can tell no-one could possibly live up to his standards on this forum or any other lol.

    Ugo, I am clearly not fit to lace your shoes, forgive my utter ignorance and inability to be a superstar like you....
    Butt the feck out mate, not interested in your snide comments,

    Mods - feel free to block me - but IMO as a new user, this guy Ugo just seems to want to abuse/ridicule, up to you!
  • charlie_potatoes
    charlie_potatoes Posts: 1,921
    neilkav1 wrote:
    MikeBrew wrote:
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "

    Doesn't bother me mate, he's clearly such a pro, that as far as I can tell no-one could possibly live up to his standards on this forum or any other lol.

    Ugo, I am clearly not fit to lace your shoes, forgive my utter ignorance and inability to be a superstar like you....
    Butt the feck out mate, not interested in your snide comments,

    Mods - feel free to block me - but IMO as a new user, this guy Ugo just seems to want to abuse/ridicule, up to you!

    :shock: Blimey! We are only on page 2. Hope you stick around for page 3. That's when you get told not to upgrade your bike until you've lost some weight. :D
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • kingrollo
    kingrollo Posts: 3,198
    purley on bling the cosines look pretty mean !

    don't underestimate the power of looking good - you will want to go fast on deep section carbons - ! - and really if you just want to look good theres no crime in that !
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    I gave you the good advice on page 1, based on the only numbers we can trust (same athlete with and without aero), the rest is speculation. Not sure where the 0.7-1 mph number comes from, but as I said in page 1, I think it's way over stated. It will not happen, unless you also tinker with the way you measure your speed, which is one way of going faster many use!

    If you get 10-15 Watt worth of drag saved, which is wishful thinking, bearing in mind these numbers are churned out by manufacturers based on speeds you cannot sustain, that is in the region of a quarter of a mile to half a mile

    Here

    https://whosatthewheel.com/2016/11/06/c ... and-power/

    The best advice you received is about position. There is a very useful thread in the training section (or is it the amateur racing?) about TT position, which has been going for years... I suggest you read it, there is some very good input from folks who know how to ride fast.

    I also advised you to buy Michael Hutchinson's "Faster" which is an entertaining read and a very educational insight in the world of time trialling and speed.

    That said, if you are here for the wheels, then look no further than last years's Kona Iron man result and which wheels people were using... Scroll down until you find something you can afford... the name Planet X has not come up yet, that's probably a good place to start for cheap and fast.

    Sarcasm is part of the internet, but you can't really say that I didn't give you good advice... I gave you the best advice!
    left the forum March 2023
  • kingrollo
    kingrollo Posts: 3,198
    MikeBrew wrote:
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "

    Couldn't agree more - whats wrong with everyone on here lately ?

    It seems once a thread gets going its ok - but the early posts in a thread just seem to consist of ridicule and put downs. its almost as though some people just scan the forum for new threads hoping they can put a smart arse post in there...
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    kingrollo wrote:
    MikeBrew wrote:
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "

    Couldn't agree more - whats wrong with everyone on here lately ?

    It seems once a thread gets going its ok - but the early posts in a thread just seem to consist of ridicule and put downs. its almost as though some people just scan the forum for new threads hoping they can put a smart ars* post in there...

    What are you talking about? The first 7 posts, until Sloppy made a joke, were very useful... maybe we have a different concept of what is useful
    left the forum March 2023
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Don't see putdowns really. Just honest advice and some probing questions. Surely by now we all know that typed messages on forums automatically seem sarcastic and grumpy even when they're not???
  • neilkav1
    neilkav1 Posts: 91
    Its all good folks

    Thanks for the advice there Ugo, read your link, but also read a few reports recently that get the difference slightly higher, anyhow, we all know that its very subjective and depends hugely on conditions.
    I will dig out the position thread, and try to get the book for xmas, cheers.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    neilkav1 wrote:
    Its all good folks

    Thanks for the advice there Ugo, read your link, but also read a few reports recently that get the difference slightly higher, anyhow, we all know that its very subjective and depends hugely on conditions.

    I'm not sure it does. Once you know how much drag you save, it's easy to work out how much faster you will go. The former quantity is the unknown... I am giving you "the best case scenario", the one manufacturers quote... the reality can only be worse... so half a mile is the very best you can hope for, more likely it is going to be less.

    That is not to say that drag savings can't be huge. For instance, when Hutchinson went for his (failed) Hour record attempt, his first trial involved 550 Watt to go at 49.5 Km/h... his final setup was 385 Watt to go at the same speed and that didn't involve ANY aero equipment, just working on his position on the bike... 165 Watt saved is huge!
    Compare that with the 10-20 Watt you might be able to get if you splash 2 grand on the best wheels money can buy
    left the forum March 2023
  • kingrollo
    kingrollo Posts: 3,198
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    kingrollo wrote:
    MikeBrew wrote:
    Ah, yet another hapless new forum user enjoying one of U.S.'s customary fulsomely-warm welcomes to the forum, I see.... Friendly lot "cyclists" :roll:



    "

    Couldn't agree more - whats wrong with everyone on here lately ?

    It seems once a thread gets going its ok - but the early posts in a thread just seem to consist of ridicule and put downs. its almost as though some people just scan the forum for new threads hoping they can put a smart ars* post in there...

    What are you talking about? The first 7 posts, until Sloppy made a joke, were very useful... maybe we have a different concept of what is useful

    Not directed at you or indeed exclusive to this thread - more the forum in general.
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    neilkav1 wrote:
    Its all good folks

    Thanks for the advice there Ugo, read your link, but also read a few reports recently that get the difference slightly higher, anyhow, we all know that its very subjective and depends hugely on conditions.

    I'm not sure it does. Once you know how much drag you save, it's easy to work out how much faster you will go. The former quantity is the unknown... I am giving you "the best case scenario", the one manufacturers quote... the reality can only be worse... so half a mile is the very best you can hope for, more likely it is going to be less.

    That is not to say that drag savings can't be huge. For instance, when Hutchinson went for his (failed) Hour record attempt, his first trial involved 550 Watt to go at 49.5 Km/h... his final setup was 385 Watt to go at the same speed and that didn't involve ANY aero equipment, just working on his position on the bike... 165 Watt saved is huge!
    Compare that with the 10-20 Watt you might be able to get if you splash 2 grand on the best wheels money can buy

    That is a staggering difference. FWIW, I've done some aero testing myself on a flat stretch of road. Summary below. I saw relatively small differences between slowest and fastest (about 1 MPH). I wonder what else I could try to get gains anything like the above?

    Over several runs at average power of 280 W, my conclusions are:

    -Hands on the tops (natural cruizing position, arms slightly bent) vs on the drops (low but 'natural' sustainable) position gives about 1 MPH difference
    -The hoods (neutral position, arms slightly bent), is about the same on the tops
    -Low on the hoods (near parallel arms) is also about the same as the tops but is a lot less comfortable
    -Trying to get very low on the drops doesn't make much more difference than being just on the drops at a comfortable position
    -Being on the tops but trying to get low (near parallel arms) is as good as being on the drops, but hard on the arms

    Take home...
    1) being on the hoods is about the same as being on the tops, and slower than the drops
    2) getting low on the hoods gains me nothing
    3) comfortable on the drops is where it's at for me (comfort to speed return)

    YMMV
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Alex99 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    neilkav1 wrote:
    Its all good folks

    Thanks for the advice there Ugo, read your link, but also read a few reports recently that get the difference slightly higher, anyhow, we all know that its very subjective and depends hugely on conditions.

    I'm not sure it does. Once you know how much drag you save, it's easy to work out how much faster you will go. The former quantity is the unknown... I am giving you "the best case scenario", the one manufacturers quote... the reality can only be worse... so half a mile is the very best you can hope for, more likely it is going to be less.

    That is not to say that drag savings can't be huge. For instance, when Hutchinson went for his (failed) Hour record attempt, his first trial involved 550 Watt to go at 49.5 Km/h... his final setup was 385 Watt to go at the same speed and that didn't involve ANY aero equipment, just working on his position on the bike... 165 Watt saved is huge!
    Compare that with the 10-20 Watt you might be able to get if you splash 2 grand on the best wheels money can buy

    That is a staggering difference. FWIW, I've done some aero testing myself on a flat stretch of road. Summary below. I saw relatively small differences between slowest and fastest (about 1 MPH). I wonder what else I could try to get gains anything like the above?

    Over several runs at average power of 280 W, my conclusions are:

    -Hands on the tops (natural cruizing position, arms slightly bent) vs on the drops (low but 'natural' sustainable) position gives about 1 MPH difference
    -The hoods (neutral position, arms slightly bent), is about the same on the tops
    -Low on the hoods (near parallel arms) is also about the same as the tops but is a lot less comfortable
    -Trying to get very low on the drops doesn't make much more difference than being just on the drops at a comfortable position
    -Being on the tops but trying to get low (near parallel arms) is as good as being on the drops, but hard on the arms

    Take home...
    1) being on the hoods is about the same as being on the tops, and slower than the drops
    2) getting low on the hoods gains me nothing
    3) comfortable on the drops is where it's at for me (comfort to speed return)

    YMMV

    Just to add, I'll do the same runs again with different wheels at some point. Anyone want to give me some Zipp 808s?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    Alex99 wrote:

    That is a staggering difference. FWIW, I've done some aero testing myself on a flat stretch of road. Summary below. I saw relatively small differences between slowest and fastest (about 1 MPH). I wonder what else I could try to get gains anything like the above?

    YMMV

    It's all documented in his book "the hour", which is his best book, the most entertaining I mean. He strated with a track bike borrowed to a friend (550W) and ended up with a bespoke frame with long top tube... lost of corrections of stem height and angles and a figure of 385 Watt.

    On the night of the attempt he wasn't allowed SRM cranks, so there is no evidence of how many watts he needed to keep the pace (which was short of the record by over 1 Km/h) but he is preety adamant he cannot do more than 400 Watt for any serious length of time.

    The bike looks very long, as you can see

    lBVnw0f.jpg
    left the forum March 2023
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:

    That is a staggering difference. FWIW, I've done some aero testing myself on a flat stretch of road. Summary below. I saw relatively small differences between slowest and fastest (about 1 MPH). I wonder what else I could try to get gains anything like the above?

    YMMV

    It's all documented in his book "the hour", which is his best book, the most entertaining I mean. He strated with a track bike borrowed to a friend (550W) and ended up with a bespoke frame with long top tube... lost of corrections of stem height and angles and a figure of 385 Watt.

    On the night of the attempt he wasn't allowed SRM cranks, so there is no evidence of how many watts he needed to keep the pace (which was short of the record by over 1 Km/h) but he is preety adamant he cannot do more than 400 Watt for any serious length of time.

    The bike looks very long, as you can see

    lBVnw0f.jpg

    Interesting. Obree was planning an attempt within the Merckx rules a few years back. He had a very long and narrow bar setup in prototype. Not totally unlike the very narrow bars we see on team GB's track bikes. Effectively it gave a mock tri-bar position but would require much more effort to hold the position. Maybe I'll follow the long/narrow path and do some more tests.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    Some aero folks swear by 36 cm bars... mine are 44 :-)
    left the forum March 2023
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Some aero folks swear by 36 cm bars... mine are 44 :-)

    Laura Kenny's are in the 32 cm area. But she's a dot.

Categories