Are carbon clinchers overrated?

flopstocks

I been using Fulcrum Quattro carbons (40mm depth) on my best bike for the past few years. TBH I have never been overly impressed with them. So I decided to do a test with my winter wheels C15 Zondas. Same tyres, and tubes.

Last week I did a ride 31 miles 2200ft elevation on the fulcrums, and today the same ride on my Zonda's very similar conditions. The results pretty much identical, 17.9 mph average - heartrate and power pretty much the same also.

Am I not riding fast enough to take advantage of the deeper section wheels. I figure I had just as well sell the Fulcrums now and keep the Zonda's.

redvision

flopstocks said:

I been using Fulcrum Quattro carbons (40mm depth) on my best bike for the past few years. TBH I have never been overly impressed with them. So I decided to do a test with my winter wheels C15 Zondas. Same tyres, and tubes.

Last week I did a ride 31 miles 2200ft elevation on the fulcrums, and today the same ride on my Zonda's very similar conditions. The results pretty much identical, 17.9 mph average - heartrate and power pretty much the same also.

Am I not riding fast enough to take advantage of the deeper section wheels. I figure I had just as well sell the Fulcrums now and keep the Zonda's.

Not riding fast enough to see the deeper section benefits I'm afraid.

Zondas are renowned as very good wheels anyway, but deep section rims hold speed when your up to speed.

At 40mm they will be slightly quickly on flat rides and should climb just as well as the zondas.

imposter2.0

flopstocks said:

I been using Fulcrum Quattro carbons (40mm depth) on my best bike for the past few years. TBH I have never been overly impressed with them. So I decided to do a test with my winter wheels C15 Zondas. Same tyres, and tubes.

Last week I did a ride 31 miles 2200ft elevation on the fulcrums, and today the same ride on my Zonda's very similar conditions. The results pretty much identical, 17.9 mph average - heartrate and power pretty much the same also.

Am I not riding fast enough to take advantage of the deeper section wheels. I figure I had just as well sell the Fulcrums now and keep the Zonda's.

It's quite an extrapolation to suggest that because you were apparently no faster on 40s than Zondas that therefore carbon 40s are not better. Especially as we know nothing else about you, your bike or your setup.

In principle, if a wheel offers an aero benefit, then that benefit should be available proportionally at any speed, but obviously harder to detect at lower speeds. But if you have the frontal profile of a brick wall, then it won't be as easy to identify in any case.

ugo.santalucia

The benefits are not huge and you need a large number of data points to appreciate them.
Assume you don't measure your power and so rely on speed only, let's say that if over 10 similar rides the average speed is not different, then you can conclude that there is no advantage.

For comparison, I am using a mix of Vittoria Rubino and Vittoria corsa tyres... seemingly, like for like (temperature, wind conditions and including power output) the Corsa are about 0.4 km/h faster... it's not life changing, but in a time trial, it's a bunch of seconds

flopstocks

Thanks for the info, as I live in Cornwall with hilly terrain. I am tempted to swap to Cero AR30 lightweight climbing wheelset. Specs say 1376g 30mm profile. Shouldn't they be better on the hills?

kevin_stephens

I’ve had AR30s for a few years now, they have been very good especially on my local Peak District hills

flopstocks

I could get a new set of AR30's and flog the Fulcrums and have a bit of spare cash too. Seriously tempted

imposter2.0

flopstocks said:

Thanks for the info, as I live in Cornwall with hilly terrain. I am tempted to swap to Cero AR30 lightweight climbing wheelset. Specs say 1376g 30mm profile. Shouldn't they be better on the hills?

Why would they be? Not sure how the weight compares to the others, but if they are marginally lighter then you might be 0.01 seconds marginally faster up each climb, or not....

flopstocks

imposter2.0 said:

flopstocks said:

Thanks for the info, as I live in Cornwall with hilly terrain. I am tempted to swap to Cero AR30 lightweight climbing wheelset. Specs say 1376g 30mm profile. Shouldn't they be better on the hills?

Why would they be? Not sure how the weight compares to the others, but if they are marginally lighter then you might be 0.01 seconds marginally faster up each climb, or not....

I would say that they were probably 150g lighter than the other wheelsets. Thought this would make a difference.

fenix

Weigh yourself and your bike and then see what 150gr is as a percentage.

It's about 1/3 of a normal water bottle. It's a small difference and I bet you can't tell how full the bottle is just by how easy it is to pedal the bike ?

ugo.santalucia

If you are lucky, you'll get a ROI of about 1-2 seconds over a 1 km climb at 10%. It all adds up if you are planning to compete in hill climbing, but otherwise there are better ways to climb faster.
Most of us carry around 10 kg of unnecessary fat, for instance...

flopstocks

For sure, still struggling to shift the Christmas weight gain. Just thinking the AR30 should be more aero than Zonda's being 30mm, lighter than the Fulcrum, and I would end up with £200+ in my pocket.

shortfall

I'm not sure how buying a set of wheels you don't need means you end up in pocket? The advice you asked for and wwhich was given to you is that all other things being equal, an aero wheel will give you a small but noticeable speed advantage. Your Fulcrums are a decent enough mid range wheel and probably superior to the AR 30s in all respects except for a very slight weight penalty which will be unnoticeable in real world conditions. I think you just want an excuse to buy some new wheels, in which case there are several UK based wheelbuilders who can make you a set of carbon aero wheels tailored specifically to your intended use for somewhere between 6 and 8 hundred quid depending on spec. Sell the Quattros and Zondas and you're well on your way to that.

redvision

Think you need to forget the differences between weight and aero-ness tbh.

A lighter wheel will (usually) make it slightly easier to climb a hill faster than a heavier wheel, but with the cheaper light weight options you can almost guarantee they will not be as stiff and may actually be slower going up hill (and flexy).

Personally I think swapping your zondas for the AR30 would be a downgrade and waste.

Ultimately it's the engine which matters, so concentrate on your fitness.

Your money though.

flopstocks

Ah OK I was thinking the AR30's would have been better than the Zonda's more aero and less weight. Was going to flog the Fulcrums, and get the AR30's

I did the Eden classic 100k sportive 5 minutes quicker on my Zonda's then the Fulcrums so it just got me thinking. Granted it was two years apart and conditions may have been different.

I really do prefer the braking on the alloy compared with carbon though.

ugo.santalucia

With all due respect... if you have put some weight on over Christmas, shedding that should be your priority...

For reference, until I reach BMI 21, I don't think it's worth me bothering with faster/lighter equipment. I bought some super light time trial tyres, but I will keep them for racing only and once I've lost enough weight to make them count

imposter2.0

flopstocks said:

I did the Eden classic 100k sportive 5 minutes quicker on my Zonda's then the Fulcrums so it just got me thinking. Granted it was two years apart and conditions may have been different.

No offence, but putting it kindly, that is statistically irrelevant.

flopstocks

I guess at the end of the day, I am disappointed because I shelled out £650 on wheels and not really seeing a performance improvement over my £200 Zondas

pblakeney

Unfortunately there is a multitude of ways to blow a whole lot of cash in the search for marginal gains. And the more you spend, the more the law of diminishing returns applies.

imposter2.0

flopstocks said:

I guess at the end of the day, I am disappointed because I shelled out £650 on wheels and not really seeing a performance improvement over my £200 Zondas

Without wishing to prolong your misery, the big question is - who or what made you think you would be faster if you spent £650 on some wheels?

flopstocks

Watching to many youtube videos I guess. My FTP is 283W so thought I would benefit from deeper wheels. But I guess the problem is my weight 13.5 stone 😟

oxoman

Nothing wrong with your weight as long as your not 5ft tall. As long as your fit that's all that matters, to much emphasis put on being stick thin, my brothers 6ft and currently 18 stone and as fit as a butcher's dog cycling wise and likes to bling his bike up to. To many people number watching ftp, watts, zones etc, you want nice wheels get them. But just ride and stop number crunching unless a pro racer.

monty_dogcp

I've spend a fair bit of time cycling in Cornwall and it was always noticeable how my average speed dropped - the heavy, chipped surface, the wind and constant changes in direction - very hard to maintain a steady effort, build and hold speed which is really where aero wheels give you benefit - but you need to get to that speed first.

flopstocks

Agreed I am just surprised how close the wheel sets are. Not bragging but am not slow. Finished 11th in a 100k Cornish sportive last year. Also finished within the top 10% at Wales and Birmingham Velos. I am still tempted to flog the quattros

neeb

As others have implied, you won't detect any differences between these wheels looking at average speeds riding hilly routes on rough-surfaced roads, and most people overestimate the aero gains from deep section wheels alone. The wheels WILL almost certainly be faster but you need to compare them properly.

Find a local route on mostly flat, fast roads and ride it regularly with a power meter. After a while you'll start to get a feeling for the relationship between power and speed on that particular route, but you'll need quite a ot of sample points (many rides) to iron out the effects of different conditions (mainly wind). Then try swapping the wheels around - after a few rides on each you'll probably see a difference, but it will be in the order of magnitude of significantly less than 1mph, maybe 0.3 - 0.5ish. That's actually pretty significant, but it's less than what many people think it should be..

What tyres are you running on the Fulcrums and are they narrower than the external rim width, especially on the front?

flopstocks

Continental 25 gp4000's. I guess in Cornwall the wheels are not being given a fair chance.

I have always wondered whether I should have gone to Shamals/Zeros. Or even Fulcrum Zero carbon. When I seens the lightweight AR30'S I was so tempted but got put off.