nanunanu

Ummm...okay. It's basic physics and basic common sense. Look buddy, my Dad taught me a LOT about mechanical things (and increasing performance) from early on. He was a farm kid, hot rodder from the 50's, and a boiler tender in the Navy. I am 38 years old and I have worked on cars, trucks, snowmobiles, motorcycles, small engines, and yes....bicycles over the years and the degree I had on top of this and the 5 years I worked as a design engineer were just an outflowering of that passion and background. I am not bragging and I wish now that i wouldn't have even brought it up in the first place.

But Bottom line, in every single arena I just spoke of...from hot rodding cars to snowmobiles to small engines, it is common knowledge that rotational mass is more important to lower for higher performance than dead weight. The poster on Weight weenies is a great example of a guy who trusts a "model" over real life experience. A model is just a map, it is not the territory. The people that actually do this for a living do extensive testing on this with real humans on a bike on rollers, dynos and computers hooked up to the riders and do you know what they use on race day? They surely don't use heavy steel wheels. They will only go heavier when they want to go aero for the flats. According to the guy on weight weenies they should put the heaviest wheel on you could put on....I mean thats what his "model" says to do and that is the whole basis of your arguemant.

The fact is that we are accelerating our drive train a lot...and it adds up. You don't have to see a huge increase in speed to have an acceleration. Acceleration is nothing more or less than a change in velocity...and velocity is speed and directio...which are always changing in your bike drivetrain on a real road. It's funny people say that weight adds momentum...lol yeah and makes it harder to accelerate and increases roilling resistance too. It doesn't come out even because you supposedly go downhill faster.

Do you know a what a flywheel does? Have you ever had to spin one up? Sure it keeps rolling smooth but if you have to change the speed even SLIGHTLY, it takes way more energy and time than if it were a lighter, round object of sorts.

Now i admitted on here long ago that the wheel weight (well normal bike wheels not monster truck sized wheels) isn't as important as training and having a smooth pedalling stroke (which means you have very little in the way of acceleration each power stroke). But it DOES make a difference in the real world: the world that cyclists and engineers operate in which happens to be the world that internet eggheads like the guy you routed me too don't trust. You see, engineers have those math skills that the eggheads do but we aren't building something on paper, drafts are just a plan and you ALWAYS have to go back and update prints to match what REALITY itself taught you from building it.

The lighter the wheel the more skill it takes to have a smooth (ie: non-accelerated) pedalling cycle. I can tell this as I just got slightly lighter wheels on my new bike and all of a sudden my one somewhat smooth pedaling got a little herky-jerky...just as physics would predict.

Okay..I'm bored with this...LOL...

nanunanu

Thanks Tsuru...of course rotational mass matters which is why hotrodders, motorcycle racers, world class cyclists all pay VERY much attention to it. My Dura Ace cassette has a few titanium gears in it for christ sakes. They didn't do that for bragging rights...they did it for performance..for lessened weight.

Yep, details matter, especially when you are talking seconds determining the winner of a race and when you are a little guy like me, it matters a lot more than the clydes.

nanunanu

I will for sure post my results when i get them.

I guess I don't have any real world experience with the aeros, but I have given it some thought. My opinion is that the aero will save some calories for you on a longer race (especially some really deep rims) but I am opting for easing my hill climbing and acceleration. i have seen the debates on just how deep you would have to go to see real world results, and I just think that there are too many unknowns in that. I wish I could try them out side by side. My current set are only slightly less mass than the last set and I do feel it when i am mashing....that is why I want to go even lighter. i mean they are only $435...if I was spending $2500 it wouldn't be worth it to me....the cost/benefit is so small that it really wouldn't matter. But yeah the weight difference really isn't that much...I am just a really light guy who doesn't need any stiffer rims on his carbon bike...so the 2.0s are it for me.

Lol...jeez i ramble on these posts....

remixity

I have those wheels. well, I have the same niobium rims, soul hubs, and dt swiss competition spokes. 180lb on a 20/24-spoke set and have had no problems with alignment after a few hundred miles.

BlastRadius

As a corollary to the lighter is better argument, I'll add that lighter at the edge of the wheel also makes a difference. I have two wheelsets, American Classic 420s and Spinergy FCCs. I weighed both rear wheels and they weighed within 6 grams of each other. With 200gr tires and 75gr tubes mounted, the only difference between them is the rim on the AC 420s weigh 420gr and the Spinergy FCC rims weigh 530-545gr (according to Spinergy). While the Spinergy wheels feel stiffer in out-of-saddle pedaling, the AC 420 wheels are noticeable easier to pedal and feels lighter. Of course, I "only" weigh 130lbs so what is noticeable to me may not be noticeable to a heavier or more powerful rider.

fordfasterr

i would like to try these rims.

vadimivich

This kind of makes me laugh that you posted this, because you can't see the answer right in front of your nose. The reason the model that Mark McM posted on the WW forum works is because he is also calculating the benefit of the inertial forces that a heavier wheel is effected by. The same thing with a flywheel - they stay at speed once you spin them up ... the energy from the original spin up isn't wasted, it's just delivered across a longer time frame. Same thing with a bicycle wheel - a heavier wheel actually has reverse benefits from a lighter one in that it requires more effort from friction to slow it down. In all practicality, for bicycle purposes that means that rotating mass is a zero sum game - bearing smoothness matters far more, since it's where friction is being applied. All in all, a 15 pound bike will go the same speed with the same power and gearing no matter how the weight is distributed.

That doesn't mean that lighter rims don't offer benefits when quick accelerations are required (say, field sprints or explosive moves on a climb) and heavier rims probably are actually superior in disciplines like time trials where accelerations are kept to a minimum and constant delivery of power is the goal.

exRunner

Someone else that took the time to read the post and has the education to understand

Tsuru

So.... in the real world, when slowing, stopping, starting, and quick acceleration are repeatedly part of every ride because my rides, at least, aren't closed off to traffic, all things being equal, lighter wheels are definitely better?

Thanks!

exRunner

I seriously doubt it, but I suppose under certain extreme circumstances and conditions it could be true. For nearly everyone else it is just a false belief and a poor application of a general principle of physics.

Tsuru

But, if you take a bike at 19lbs, and go to lighter wheels so it is now <19lbs, and the difference is all in the wheels, would you feel a difference?

max power

it's weird that you would take on the Flywheel debate, considering all performance oriented flywheels are designed to be as light as possible . . . . .

it's absolutely mind baffling how people will argue that rotational weight doesn't matter. at the end of the day, none of their arguments apply in the real world

exRunner

Yes, but that wasn't the argument (discussion). A lighter bike is a lighter bike, it doesn' matter what made it lighter. 1 lb off your wheel equals 1 lb off your frame equals 1 lb off your butt.

klages

losing weight on the bike is easy (wheels or otherwise)

removing excess fingers, toes & ear lobes is when you've proved yourself a true cyclist

exRunner

From my view point what is baffling is how people can keep repeating that when it flys in the face of numerical proof. It is a wives-tale that has merit in many applications, but not in bicycling.

Tsuru

Ah, gotcha. I may get these bad boys..... bring that Kapu to the 2000's! ha!

What ever happened to 1 lb off the wheels is equal to 2 lbs off the bike or something something?

What works for me is comparing at extremes.... someone should take a good weight frame and put super lightwheels on it and then take a super light frame and put heavy ass wheels (non-disk, real world wheels), and test ride them side by side what all that power meter and what nots attached. Biggest extremes they can and still get them to the same weight.

I'm curious of how it'd all go.

No one has done that yet?

max power

what numerical proof? you can't just make up your own formula in order to prove your own point. that link you keep trying to shill concludes that you're better off running the heaviest wheels you can find. . . .just because you've wasted your time convincing yourself that thread proves something in the real world doesn't mean the rules of physics all of a sudden don't apply to bicycles . . . .

info

any picture to show ?

fnords

"For all practical purposes, when climbing, it is only total mass that matters, not how it is distributed."

What about this conclusion implies you're better off running the heaviest wheels you can find?

VA_Esquire

I weigh 190lb. and iffy about purchasing a pair of SOUL S2.0s due to the weight issue so I am probably going to end up purchasing 3.0s or 4.0s

max power

first of all that conclusion in itself is wrong because he is talking about distribution of static weight, which is not the same as rotational mass. . . .

"The speed oscillations (micro-accelerations) are greater with the lower rotating mass, but the average speed is also slightly lower with lower rotating mass."

that statement, along with all of the statements and premises taken by that thread, it just makes me sick

it's absolutely dumbfounding how anyone with a high school education can read through this and not see all of the fallacies. sure, people make "models" all the time based on hard scientific knowledge, but just like any other experiment it can be so easily biased to the point where real world practically no longer applies.


as a scientist, i find it pretty disheartening to see anyone claiming to be "educated" read through something like that and come away thinking that they understand it, or worse, believe it to be true . . . absolutely despicable

bassplayinbiker

eat a f****** sandwich dude

nickthaquick1

i'm no pro..but i'd say your 100% wrong on that argument based on my personal experiences...

GPB

The S3.0s (standard hubs, standard build) are IMO a very good deal. I'm 190 and lovin' the S3.0s. The freehub's a little loud...but I've gotten used to it. It took a few rides for the spokes to stop tinging (slightly) under torque. Sean advised that shouldn't be a problem and it hasn't been. Good luck!

nanunanu

Of course yet another personal shot at me. I DID read it and I DO have the education to understand that he is WRONG. I was a Designer for Eaton Corporation (a fortune 500 company) and THEY thought I had enough college level math and physics to be hired, but you, some random guy on the internet, doesn't? LOL This is so fricking hilarious from where I am standing that you can't imagine.