HigherGround

Does anyone have feedback about the durability or performance of rear wheels with the Campagnolo G3 lacing pattern vs. Fulcrum's 2:1 pattern? I am just in to the Clydesdale category, and some of the local roads can be fairly rough. I already did a Google search, but would appreciate any additional thoughts. Thanks!

SkyDog75

I'm not quite a clydesdale, but not a featherweight either. The roads here are horrible enough to damage my car's suspension repeatedly, but my Campagnolo Vento G3's from 2006 keep on rolling true. They've been great from a durability standpoint.

Campag4life

A very good question and something I too have pondered having owned both styles of Campy/Fulcrum wheels. I guess philosophically, I prefer the more traditional 2:1 and why I prefer Fulcrum to some Campy wheels like Scirocco and Zonda which btw are both very good wheels at their price point. Honestly, I think either spoke pattern is effective. Given a choice, I just prefer the support of more equal spoke spacing of Fulcrum wheels.

gsa103

I'd imagine the difference is minimal.

The G3 pattern basically is 3 spokes all at equal tension, originating at a single point. The G3 geometry will give a better balance of spoke tension, but you rely on the rim stiffness for the gaps between the spokes. Since the rims are semi-deep section, the rim is inherently fairly stiff. Basically, you have a rim suspended by a set of triangles. It will be very stiff at the triangle and more flexible away from them. Its also much easier to reinforce the rim at the spoke point.

The 2:1 pattern probably results in a bit more variability in the tension, but you'll have a more uniform stiffness across the wheel. This design is likely better as the rim gets lighter and shallower, but for a fairly stiff Al or CF wheel I could see the G3 design being better.

Campag4life

Pretty well stated. Not sure if rim stiffness for example is actually elevated to meet the more point loaded G3 pattern...in the case of comparing Campy versus Fulcrum...because this difference would be detected by weight for a given rim selection and both wheelsets...Campy versus Fulcrum weigh about the same for their respective price points...most notable difference between say Zonda and Fulcrum 3 being expressly spoke pattern versus weight.

rpenmanparker 

They are both 2:1 patterns. I don't see why one 2:1 pattern would give more balanced tension than the other. In both cases the NDS with half the spokes of the DS will require twice the tension it would have if the spoke number were balanced side to side. That should bring the NDS tension up close to the DS tension.

clausen

I have '05 Ventos that are still perfectly straight, I also have a pair of Khamsins on my cross bike and there fine as well. My Zondas on my other road bike are also fine.

macca33

This was my belief also - both have the same spoke pattern basic, ie 2:1.

OP - I have Fulcrum R1 (x2), R3 and R5 wheelsets and am in the large category - they are all quite capable of lugging my big-ness around the crappy roads I endure over here. Fulrcum / Campag state a 109Kg rider weight limit, so if you are under that and treat your gear with a small modicum of respect, you should be fine with those wheelsets - your next choice will be whether you want Campag or Fulcrum branded wheels and how much you wish to spend.

cheers

equinoxranch

You are aware that Campy own Fulcrum, right?


On balance (no pun intended), the difference between either is minimal at best, if that. Both brands are beyond exceptional.

I am still partial to say Campy hubs built up in a 32x3X/14-15 brass nipple front, 32x3X/14-15 left side, 14 drive side rear, again brass nipples on as wide a tubular rim as possible. Sure wish Mavic still made their SSC's and/or that Ambrosio had not gone out of business.

gfk_velo

It's not quite true to say that the three spokes in each group are all at the same tension, gsa103 - what it is tue to say, though, is that the two drive side spokes should be at the same tension (in effect they act as one spoke) and that all the groups should be at the same nett tension. NGS tension is lower than GS tension, though on the newer asymmetric rim designs, they are very close to one another.

It's a fallacy to say that the rim needs to be significantly stiffer between the spoke groups in G3 than in other designs - in fact it's almost the reverse. In common with Rolf and Bontrager (which use Rolf Dietrich's patent) wheels, part of the object of G3 is to allow higher spoke tensions without the rim adopting a slight "S" profile which were the rim insufficiently stiff, tends to happen with equally spaced spokes. The shorter gap between the spoke grooups does not allow this distortion to occur.

What Campagnolo also do in the G3 rim, which differentiates from the Fulcrum rim, is a step after the rim is drilled, machined, anodised and checked for axial planarity and roundness: The areas between the spoke groups are depressed radially. This means that when the correct tension is present in the spoke groups, the wheel will be "sprung" radially true. In effect this springing counterbalances the tensions in the spokes and makes for a more torsionally stable wheel.

Spoke load paths through the wheel are also different in G3 to 2:1. To check this, if you have an accurate spoke tensioneter, sit a colleague on a bike with a standard wheel and measure the tension in each spoke, then do likewise for a G3 and a 2:1. You will note that the way that the weight of the rider is distributed through the spokes is different and stays more equal in a G3 wheel than a standard one. 2:1 is more equal than a "normal" wheel.

All technical considerations aside, the G3 and the 2:1 patterns both make for very durable wheels. We rarely have to rebuild or repair either at the SC, unless as a result of crash damage or rim damage from the edge of a pothole, etc.

HigherGround

Yep. Basically it is an opportunity for them to expand their wheel market to Shimano or Sram equipped riders, without them needing to be putting Campagnolo-labeled wheels on their bikes.

Thank you to everyone who contributed responses to this thread!

Campag4life

Nicely stated. All said, do you have a personal preference be it G3 versus 2:1 based upon the differences you note above?

PS: Perhaps Campagnolo has placed their vote implicitly by using the G3 spoke pattern on their namesake wheels and opting for 2:1 on their sister company.

Thanks

Campag4life

A good point as to why Fulcrum exists...including their crank line up.

gfk_velo

Thanks for your kind words, Campag4life!

For me, I think G3 has the edge but there is very little in it :-)
That might just be me with my Campagnolo SC hat on ...

BTW Equinoxranch, I think the Ambrosio rims you are referring to are the Nemesis Day / Reine du Nord? They are still available, Ambrosio are alive and kicking :-) - I built a pair (albeit conventionally spoked 32/32 x3 just two weeks ago for a guy doing the Hot Chillee Dunkerque-Roubaix Sportif.

xifias

Im about to buy a pair of shamals ultra mega etc..Currently i own a pair of Fulcrum Racing 5 (2014 model) and a pair of Campy Ventos G3 (2011 model) no assymetric rim.I weigh around 88 kilos.Between the two fulcrums feel way more responsive easier to pedal and reactive whereas Ventos feel sluggish slow to react and i feel tired as if i waste energy on them on climbs.
Does this happen due to the j bend spokes the ventos have,or the G3 pattern is a gimmick and eye candy?Cause as a matter of sense fulcrum wheels have evenly spaced spokes around the rim.
I dont want to spend so much money on shamals to learn the hard way that zeros would be better.
I do read many reviews that shamals and the G3 are excelent etc but so say for the 2011 ventos too,but for me they are just pure crap compared to racing 5's

Sy Reene

Currently riding and enjoying Eurus G3 wheelset. Am 185lb so not technically a Clyde. No issue fwiw to date. Seem extremely solid, if a bit stiff.

xifias

have you or someone else ridden both shamal/eurus and racing zero to place an opinion?
As i get it the lacing of the latter is better?

garciawork

I can only state my experience with two sets of fulcrum racing 3 two way's (one set sold with a bike). Never had ONE problem. Still as true as the day I bought them with thousands of miles. I would prefer campy wheels to match, but they cost more most of the time, so I went fulcrum.

tomato coupe

I presently have two sets of Fulcrum wheels and two sets of Campy wheels, and have never had a problem with any of them. I weigh about 180 lbs.

xifias

Do they differ in reactiveness?is G3 lacing flexing more than fulcrums?which models?

tomato coupe

I don't know what that means.

I don't notice any difference.

Scirocco, Zonda, Racing 3, Racing 3 two-way.

xifias

Its how quick responds to the external parameters as a change of pace,or a very hard sprint,or climbing out of the saddle,or response to steering commands for the front wheel.
Cause as i mentioned above an earlier pair of G3 ventos i own is really really sluggish compared to racing 5.Yet its a bit heavier.

gfk_velo

You really need to compare like with like if you want to assess the difference in spoking patterns on two current wheels (which are somewhat different to your reference wheels in any case) and you're not doing so here ...

Probably the differences that you are feeling is partly generated by the difference in drive-side hub flange size. the 2011 Vento did not have the Mega flange, the R5s, being a more recent design, do. Larger flange = better torque transfer. Also the hub shell (aside from the flanges) is different and as a result the R5s may transfer toque a bit better. The Assymetric rim evens out spoke tensions to some extent in the R5s so that contributes to greater torsional stiffness ... the G3 pattern does the same thing by a different route but the older Vento Reaction design has a shallower rim with smaller cross-section so it may not be as effective as the rim platform is less rigid.

I think you'd have to ride current alloy R0s and Shamals back-to-back to get a real comparison but we work on both regularly and find them equally technically reliable. I've ridden both but own all Shamals.

xifias

Sure that would be the best test.From your experience which of the two (shamals-R0s) ride "better" in some extent?
R0s have alloy rear hub (instead of carbon on shamals) which i think it may be better from integrity's perspective,instead of a glued together plastic+metal alloy.

Apart from hubs,spoke tension on Vento's drive side are like 1/3 of the tension R5s have.Non drive side is less too.I tried to crank up the tensions in order to improve them but the rim becomes a "polugon" if you know what i mean,with high and low spots where it has groups of spokes and where it hasnt.

gfk_velo

Don't try to over-think this. The bonded hubs are used on all Campagnolo's top-end wheels, Bora 35s, Bora Ultras, Shamals and the older models like Hyperon Ultra, Neutron Ultra etc - separation practically never happens and I certainly never heard Greipel or Valverde complain about the stiffness of the wheels when sprinting or climbing (and I do work with the teams).

It won't be a third, that much is for sure. I don't know how much knowledge of wheelbuilding you have but typical values for the older Ventos are around 120 kgf on the drive side and 90 kgf on the non-drive side. The more recent R5s are build at around the same, maybe 10 kgs higher with a tolerance of +/- 10 kfg on the drive side in both cases, with whatever variation that produces in the non-drive side when the wheel has correct offset / dish.

If a wheel like the Vento only had a gear side tension of 40kgf, it would simply collapse in use, because it would be incapable of supporting the combined weight of the rider and the bike,or resisting the torsional load of pedalling. This would be true of virtually any wheel, let alone one with a low spoke count.

As a very general rule, the lower the spoke count, the higher the tension required in each spoke in order to support the loads on the wheel. In a correctly built wheel, the spokes at lowest tension at any given time in the rotation of the wheel, when the wheel is in use, must still retain enough tension to actually be in significant tension ... so say the spoke starts at a static tension of 90 kgs, if the fact that the wheel is being rotated by forces on the hub and being effectively deformed by the weight of the rider and bike acting through the hub reduces tension by 40 kgs (as an example) then the spoke retains a tesnion of 50kgs, which is fine. The lower that retained tension figure goes, towards zero, the less integrity the wheel will have, and in the case of a wheel with j-bend sookes, the less longevity the spokes will be liable to have. This is the reason that a conventional rear wheel will tend to break spokes on the looser, non-gear side rather than the gear side.

The correct net gearside / non-gearside tension is reached in a G3 wheel, when it is being built, when the wheel is round. The rims are actually made polygonal to start with, so that when the spoke tension is introduced, the areas that are now "low spots" in your wheel are actually "high spots" before the wheel is built / tensioned. Hence it's no surprise that your wheel has now gone "the other way". Unfortunately, once that has happened, there is no way to correct it which is why we don't recommend that wheelbuilders who are not familiat with G3 wheels work on them.

I don't find any great difference between G3 and Fulcrum-style 2:1 lacing, my gut feeling from three decades of building wheels for everyone from World Champions to club riders is that because of the different way loads pass through a G3 wheel, they are probably a better proposition for heavier riders but Fulcrum and Campagnolo give the same rider weight advice for both designs. My colleagues at the factory tell me that FEA produces no significant differences, so maybe my gut feeling is wrong - that's the danger of basing judgement on perception - sometimes it is warped!

I think the problem, as I mentioned, is that you are not making a direct like-with-like comparison. you have identified a difference and assumed that the difference arises from the spoking pattern when in fact there are several other variables at work.