Campy bullet 50s or shamal ultras ?

meds6974

I am in the market for a new set of wheels , these two are of similar price . Campy bullet 50s or shamal ultras , all feedback welcome .

shortfall

I had some Bullet 80s which I believe are identical to the 50s barring rim depth. They were horrible. The worse thing about them was the sh1tty cartridge bearings which were rough from new and which quickly seized up despite only dry use and no jet washing or hose pipes. The 50s might be a bit lighter and catch the sidewinds less I suppose. I have Zondas which by contrast are wonderdful. The Shamals get good reviews but I'm not sure they're worth double the price of Zondas and you're paying a lot of money for gimmicky ceramic bearings and not a lot else from what I can see.

rolf_f

Shortfall wrote:

I had some Bullet 80s which I believe are identical to the 50s barring rim depth. They were horrible. The worse thing about them was the sh1tty cartridge bearings which were rough from new and which quickly seized up despite only dry use and no jet washing or hose pipes. The 50s might be a bit lighter and catch the sidewinds less I suppose. I have Zondas which by contrast are wonderdful. The Shamals get good reviews but I'm not sure they're worth double the price of Zondas and you're paying a lot of money for gimmicky ceramic bearings and not a lot else from what I can see.

There's nothing wrong with the cartridge bearings in principle - though Campag do go for the cheapest, single sided ones they can find - which does reduce life expectancy. But, even on wet roads they last a decent amount of time and cost nothing to replace (you can get hybrid ceramic replacements from Aire Bearings for less than £20, standard steel for less than a tenner - and those double sealed) and replacing them is pretty easy. If yours were rough from new you should have taken them back; they were clearly faulty.
Of the two I'd go with the Shamals every time but the Zondas are certainly better value for money. But then Khamsins are better value for money than Zondas!

shortfall

Rolf F wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I had some Bullet 80s which I believe are identical to the 50s barring rim depth. They were horrible. The worse thing about them was the sh1tty cartridge bearings which were rough from new and which quickly seized up despite only dry use and no jet washing or hose pipes. The 50s might be a bit lighter and catch the sidewinds less I suppose. I have Zondas which by contrast are wonderdful. The Shamals get good reviews but I'm not sure they're worth double the price of Zondas and you're paying a lot of money for gimmicky ceramic bearings and not a lot else from what I can see.

There's nothing wrong with the cartridge bearings in principle - though Campag do go for the cheapest, single sided ones they can find - which does reduce life expectancy. But, even on wet roads they last a decent amount of time and cost nothing to replace (you can get hybrid ceramic replacements from Aire Bearings for less than £20, standard steel for less than a tenner - and those double sealed) and replacing them is pretty easy. If yours were rough from new you should have taken them back; they were clearly faulty.
Of the two I'd go with the Shamals every time but the Zondas are certainly better value for money. But then Khamsins are better value for money than Zondas!

I didn't say I had a problem with cartridge bearings, just the ones on my Bullets. I did consider sending them back to Ribble but I googled it first and it seems it's a common issue with these wheels. I couldn't be bothered to get into a dispute with Ribble over who was responsible for postage if I returned them as a warranty claim so I just popped the seals myself and stripped and regreased them. Point being, Campagnolo have a well deserved reputation for their bearings and these don't live up to that.
On value for money, I don't dispute that Shamals are excellent wheels but at roughly £600 depending on offers I wouldn't say they were good value against the Zondas at well under £300 which have Record quality bearings and excellent all round performance and reliability with very similar weight to the Shamal. The Zondas have many virtues including quality and price whereas Khamsins are budget efforts that whilst having a reasonable reputation for durability, are realtively hefty and also have crappy bearings. They are cheap I suppose but that's about it so far as I can see.

rolf_f

Shortfall wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I had some Bullet 80s which I believe are identical to the 50s barring rim depth. They were horrible. The worse thing about them was the sh1tty cartridge bearings which were rough from new and which quickly seized up despite only dry use and no jet washing or hose pipes. The 50s might be a bit lighter and catch the sidewinds less I suppose. I have Zondas which by contrast are wonderdful. The Shamals get good reviews but I'm not sure they're worth double the price of Zondas and you're paying a lot of money for gimmicky ceramic bearings and not a lot else from what I can see.

There's nothing wrong with the cartridge bearings in principle - though Campag do go for the cheapest, single sided ones they can find - which does reduce life expectancy. But, even on wet roads they last a decent amount of time and cost nothing to replace (you can get hybrid ceramic replacements from Aire Bearings for less than £20, standard steel for less than a tenner - and those double sealed) and replacing them is pretty easy. If yours were rough from new you should have taken them back; they were clearly faulty.
Of the two I'd go with the Shamals every time but the Zondas are certainly better value for money. But then Khamsins are better value for money than Zondas!

I didn't say I had a problem with cartridge bearings, just the ones on my Bullets. I did consider sending them back to Ribble but I googled it first and it seems it's a common issue with these wheels. I couldn't be bothered to get into a dispute with Ribble over who was responsible for postage if I returned them as a warranty claim so I just popped the seals myself and stripped and regreased them. Point being, Campagnolo have a well deserved reputation for their bearings and these don't live up to that.
On value for money, I don't dispute that Shamals are excellent wheels but at roughly £600 depending on offers I wouldn't say they were good value against the Zondas at well under £300 which have Record quality bearings and excellent all round performance and reliability with very similar weight to the Shamal. The Zondas have many virtues including quality and price whereas Khamsins are budget efforts that whilst having a reasonable reputation for durability, are realtively hefty and also have crappy bearings. They are cheap I suppose but that's about it so far as I can see.

You haven't read what I said have you?

As for Khamsins - they really aren't much different to the Zondas when it comes down to it. Just a bit heavier - and on the flat even that doesn't make any difference - 90% of a Zonda for half the price ish. Bearings, for winter riding, are arguably actually better in practical terms than the Zondas as you don't have to worry about maintenance - grease them and they last longer but it isn't a big deal if you don't. The worst that neglect can cost you is new bearings a bit sooner. And I've never ridden my Neutrons and thought "these bearings are so much better than those on the Khamsins".

As I said (ie the bit I think you didn't read) Zondas are better value but they aren't the be all and end all; if your budget is £600 and you want to spend that, why buy the Zondas?

It's down to perception - the value is at the cheaper end as all this sort of stuff is good and functional. The more expensive stuff really doesn't make much difference to performance unless racing. So the only reason for spending more is your target bling level.

I like Shamals - but I couldn't quite bring myself to blow £600 on them so I made my own lighter wheels for £200! Not as blingy though......

shortfall

Rolf F wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I had some Bullet 80s which I believe are identical to the 50s barring rim depth. They were horrible. The worse thing about them was the sh1tty cartridge bearings which were rough from new and which quickly seized up despite only dry use and no jet washing or hose pipes. The 50s might be a bit lighter and catch the sidewinds less I suppose. I have Zondas which by contrast are wonderdful. The Shamals get good reviews but I'm not sure they're worth double the price of Zondas and you're paying a lot of money for gimmicky ceramic bearings and not a lot else from what I can see.

There's nothing wrong with the cartridge bearings in principle - though Campag do go for the cheapest, single sided ones they can find - which does reduce life expectancy. But, even on wet roads they last a decent amount of time and cost nothing to replace (you can get hybrid ceramic replacements from Aire Bearings for less than £20, standard steel for less than a tenner - and those double sealed) and replacing them is pretty easy. If yours were rough from new you should have taken them back; they were clearly faulty.
Of the two I'd go with the Shamals every time but the Zondas are certainly better value for money. But then Khamsins are better value for money than Zondas!

I didn't say I had a problem with cartridge bearings, just the ones on my Bullets. I did consider sending them back to Ribble but I googled it first and it seems it's a common issue with these wheels. I couldn't be bothered to get into a dispute with Ribble over who was responsible for postage if I returned them as a warranty claim so I just popped the seals myself and stripped and regreased them. Point being, Campagnolo have a well deserved reputation for their bearings and these don't live up to that.
On value for money, I don't dispute that Shamals are excellent wheels but at roughly £600 depending on offers I wouldn't say they were good value against the Zondas at well under £300 which have Record quality bearings and excellent all round performance and reliability with very similar weight to the Shamal. The Zondas have many virtues including quality and price whereas Khamsins are budget efforts that whilst having a reasonable reputation for durability, are realtively hefty and also have crappy bearings. They are cheap I suppose but that's about it so far as I can see.

You haven't read what I said have you?

As for Khamsins - they really aren't much different to the Zondas when it comes down to it. Just a bit heavier - and on the flat even that doesn't make any difference - 90% of a Zonda for half the price ish. Bearings, for winter riding, are arguably actually better in practical terms than the Zondas as you don't have to worry about maintenance - grease them and they last longer but it isn't a big deal if you don't. The worst that neglect can cost you is new bearings a bit sooner. And I've never ridden my Neutrons and thought "wow, these bearings are so much better than those on the Khamsins".

As I said (ie the bit I think you didn't read) Zondas are better value but they aren't the be all and end all; if your budget is £600 and you want to spend that, why buy the Zondas?

Well the guy asked for opinions on 2 whselsets. I've owned the Bullets (admittedly the 80s not the 50s he mentioned) and I gave my feedback to him. I haven't owned the Shamals but I have had 2 sets of the Zondas and I gave my experiences and the reasons why I personally wouldn't splash out more than double the money for Shamals. I did credit the Shamals as being an excellent wheel with good reviews however and if the guy spent his money on them I'm sure he'd be happy. I think he'd be almost as happy with Zondas and 300 quid the richer but that's his choice and whether he thinks ceramic bearings are all that. I briefly owned a set of Khamsins which I bought on offer to put them on a bike I was selling. They were similar to some Ventos I owned ie:. dull, heavy, and uninspiring but more so. Comparing them to Zondas is like saying a 1.6 Ford Sierra is like an RS Cosworth. They're both Fords, they're both Sierras, and they both do exactly what you want out of them, but you know which one you really want.

Edit:. I agree with you on ££££s spent not necessarily translating to real world gains in a linear fashion and yes often it just buys you more bling, some "boutique" or niche kudos and maybe bragging rights down the pub.

shortfall

Was researching this subject and it appears this has been discussed here already viewtopic.php?t=12967756

I can only speak about my personal experience of Bullet 80s but they were slower on climbs than my Zondas as recorded on Strava and they certainly felt it too. The 50s may be a better compromise though? They were fast on the flat and in the right conditions so if you definitely want them then maybe budget for a set of better bearings from somewhere like Aire Bearings. In a straight up choice between the two I'd pick the Shamals but just to throw a spanner in the works I have got a set of Borg 31 tubeless on order which are a good bit cheaper than either option even when fitted with a set of tubeless tyres!

thespanishadam

I've had the scirocco 35mm... Very sluggish on spinning up and any form of acceleration. Killed the bike somewhat. Khamsins much better. Currently got Khamsins and racing zeros. Nice to swap them every now and then but definitely not worth the extra cash.. Look the part though which is always part of it right. Much faster? Definitely not.

smoggysteve

I own Zondas and Bullet 50's

The Shamals are not worth what you pay. May as well get Zonda if you want lightweight(ish) if you want aero the Bullets are good but not amazing. If it were me I would base my decision on the weight vs aero . If you go for weight get Zondas