Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Wheels - lighter weight vs aero

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Wheels - lighter weight vs aero

Old 02-07-23, 04:04 PM
  #76  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 5,526

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3399 Post(s)
Liked 5,426 Times in 2,571 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
I'm in therapy because of hill intervals.
Been there.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-07-23, 10:46 PM
  #77  
rsbob 
Grupetto Bob
 
rsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 4,312

Bikes: Bikey McBike Face

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1713 Post(s)
Liked 3,247 Times in 1,826 Posts
Originally Posted by elcruxio
Well I'm an idiot that's what.
Glad to see you have a sense of humor. Been there done that more times than I can count.
__________________
Road and Mountain 🚴🏾‍♂️

Happily mediocre at a low skill activity







rsbob is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 05:50 AM
  #78  
tFUnK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,301

Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked 242 Times in 194 Posts
Since much of the thread has been on the academic side, let's consider an extreme example: on performance/function alone I think for non-TT riding, most folks would prefer a 1500g shallow box section wheelset over a 1900g disc (or very deep dish) wheelset. So interpolate this to a 1500g 34mm wheelset compared to a 1900g 50mm wheelset, and I think it tips in favor of the 1500g wheelset even more.
tFUnK is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 07:59 AM
  #79  
Jughed
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 258

Bikes: Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked 200 Times in 105 Posts
Originally Posted by tFUnK
Since much of the thread has been on the academic side, let's consider an extreme example: on performance/function alone I think for non-TT riding, most folks would prefer a 1500g shallow box section wheelset over a 1900g disc (or very deep dish) wheelset. So interpolate this to a 1500g 34mm wheelset compared to a 1900g 50mm wheelset, and I think it tips in favor of the 1500g wheelset even more.
I don't know. I am a larger rider - 195# with decent peak/acceleration power output. The extra few watts it takes to spool up heavier wheels may not have the same impact on me as it does on a light/smaller rider with a different power profile. The overall % in weight savings from my total system weight of say 220# - vs a system weight of 150#'s.

Weight is what it is for me - too much. A pound or two on a bike makes very little impact.

Aero is my enemy. I am not fat, but have a large frontal profile/wide shoulders. I don't know if the aero savings from better wheels even makes that much difference % wise.
Jughed is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 08:27 AM
  #80  
Germany_chris
Im a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 2,263

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 619 Post(s)
Liked 1,162 Times in 587 Posts
A month or so ago I took my for foray into modern carbon era with these.

https://www.elite-wheels.com/product...ramic-bearing/

I got the extra light version, aluminum cassette, and 32mm RH extra light tires, while riding season isn't really here yet I do notice a difference in perceived effort with those wheels. I was expecting them to be a bit flexy and hard to control but the carbon spokes (I think) stiffen them up and while my wheels steered me once it's not happened again.

​​​​​
Germany_chris is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 09:15 AM
  #81  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 3,973
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1629 Post(s)
Liked 1,710 Times in 983 Posts
From Sheldon Brown's site:

Wheel Stiffness Test

Among the various points discussed on that page:

"Some believe that a wheel built with tighter spokes is stiffer. It is not. Wheel stiffness does not vary significantly with spoke tension unless a spoke becomes totally slack. "
Trakhak is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 09:36 AM
  #82  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2901 Post(s)
Liked 2,125 Times in 1,305 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
I like shiny things.
Me too. Shiny beats dull black every day of the week.
seypat is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 10:18 AM
  #83  
GhostRider62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 3,707
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2159 Post(s)
Liked 1,853 Times in 1,171 Posts
Originally Posted by tFUnK
Since much of the thread has been on the academic side, let's consider an extreme example: on performance/function alone I think for non-TT riding, most folks would prefer a 1500g shallow box section wheelset over a 1900g disc (or very deep dish) wheelset. So interpolate this to a 1500g 34mm wheelset compared to a 1900g 50mm wheelset, and I think it tips in favor of the 1500g wheelset even more.
I have a 55mm wheelset that weighs 1375 grams and even my cheapest deep carbon wheels are just over 1700.

I would don't ride box section aluminum rims because the aerodynamics suck and they tend not to hold trueness anywhere as good as a carbon rim.

The weight penalty going from 35mm to 50mm is nowhere near 400 grams, check your assumption
GhostRider62 is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 10:25 AM
  #84  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,819

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3180 Post(s)
Liked 5,692 Times in 2,291 Posts
Originally Posted by tFUnK
Since much of the thread has been on the academic side, let's consider an extreme example: on performance/function alone I think for non-TT riding, most folks would prefer a 1500g shallow box section wheelset over a 1900g disc (or very deep dish) wheelset. So interpolate this to a 1500g 34mm wheelset compared to a 1900g 50mm wheelset, and I think it tips in favor of the 1500g wheelset even more.
Your "interpolation" escapes me. Your first choice is most certainly made for reasons other than weight, while your second choice is almost purely based on weight.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 10:28 AM
  #85  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 5,331
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2707 Post(s)
Liked 2,936 Times in 1,843 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
I don't know. I am a larger rider - 195# with decent peak/acceleration power output. The extra few watts it takes to spool up heavier wheels may not have the same impact on me as it does on a light/smaller rider with a different power profile. The overall % in weight savings from my total system weight of say 220# - vs a system weight of 150#'s.

Weight is what it is for me - too much. A pound or two on a bike makes very little impact.

Aero is my enemy. I am not fat, but have a large frontal profile/wide shoulders. I don't know if the aero savings from better wheels even makes that much difference % wise.
I agree that you will gain more from the aero, but I wouldn't buy any wheelset with 17 mm internal rims today. I would focus on tyre choice in the 28-30 mm wide range and get wheels with 20+ wide internal rims to match. Whether they are 35 or 50 mm deep is not that critical really.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-08-23, 10:55 AM
  #86  
terrymorse 
climber has-been
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 5,860

Bikes: Scott Addict R1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2331 Post(s)
Liked 2,323 Times in 1,177 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I agree that you will gain more from the aero, but I wouldn't buy any wheelset with 17 mm internal rims today. I would focus on tyre choice in the 28-30 mm wide range and get wheels with 20+ wide internal rims to match. Whether they are 35 or 50 mm deep is not that critical really.
Follow up questions:
Why avoid rims with 17mm internal width?
Does that 17mm width limit your ability to mount different tire sizes?
Does the wider rim provide certain advantages?

Light Bicycle posts this rim width guide:



Source: lightbicycle.com

The center "sweet spot" tire size range for a 17-19 mm rim is 28-33 mm.
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat

terrymorse is offline  
Likes For terrymorse:
Old 02-08-23, 10:59 AM
  #87  
Jughed
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 258

Bikes: Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked 200 Times in 105 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I agree that you will gain more from the aero, but I wouldn't buy any wheelset with 17 mm internal rims today. I would focus on tyre choice in the 28-30 mm wide range and get wheels with 20+ wide internal rims to match. Whether they are 35 or 50 mm deep is not that critical really.
The 17mm wheels are sold... so not a concern anymore.

I've actually been teetering on spending the money on a bike fit instead. I think my biggest problem is position and lack of being aero. I am wasting a bunch of power on pushing air - fixing this could be a macro gain, vs spending $$$ on marginal gains.
Jughed is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 11:04 AM
  #88  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 5,526

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3399 Post(s)
Liked 5,426 Times in 2,571 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I agree that you will gain more from the aero, but I wouldn't buy any wheelset with 17 mm internal rims today. I would focus on tyre choice in the 28-30 mm wide range and get wheels with 20+ wide internal rims to match. Whether they are 35 or 50 mm deep is not that critical really.
Until the wind starts blowing sideways - lol. The wheels on my #1 road bike are 35mm(ish) front and 45mm(ish) rear. They do pretty well in crosswinds. My 50mm wheels, however, not so much. The front end gets yanked around pretty severely. In non-crosswind conditions, however, the difference doesn't seem like much, if anything.

Years ago, I borrowed a friend's set of Mavic Cosmic Carbone wheels - an early deep-section carbon/aluminum structure. They were heavy, and a bit sluggish to accelerate . However, once spinning fast, the flywheel effect was dramatic, and it felt like they were pulling you along.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 02-08-23, 11:10 AM
  #89  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 5,331
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2707 Post(s)
Liked 2,936 Times in 1,843 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Follow up questions:
Why avoid rims with 17mm internal width?
Does that 17mm width limit your ability to mount different tire sizes?
Does the wider rim provide certain advantages?

Light Bicycle posts this rim width guide:

The center "sweet spot" tire size range for a 17-19 mm rim is 28-33 mm.
I think that info is outdated. I have a pair of Giant carbon SLR rims that are 17 mm internal and indeed I can fit 32 mm tubeless tyres. But the profile looks like a mushroom and they squirm more than I would like at lower pressure. It works but is not ideal. Aero is going to suffer as well with the mushroom profile.

I also have a pair of DT Swiss wheels with 22 mm internal width, fitted with 30 mm tyres and they are a much better match. There's no way I would buy narrow rims at this point unless I was still running narrow tyres.

I'm not suggesting it's a huge deal, but it doesn't make sense to buy a new set of narrow rims if you intend to be riding 28mm+ tyres.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-08-23, 11:13 AM
  #90  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 5,331
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2707 Post(s)
Liked 2,936 Times in 1,843 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
Until the wind starts blowing sideways - lol. The wheels on my #1 road bike are 35mm(ish) front and 45mm(ish) rear. They do pretty well in crosswinds. My 50mm wheels, however, not so much. The front end gets yanked around pretty severely. In non-crosswind conditions, however, the difference doesn't seem like much, if anything.

Years ago, I borrowed a friend's set of Mavic Cosmic Carbone wheels - an early deep-section carbon/aluminum structure. They were heavy, and a bit sluggish to accelerate . However, once spinning fast, the flywheel effect was dramatic, and it felt like they were pulling you along.
Good point. I only have first hand experience of up to 35 mm wheels. I've ridden these in very windy conditions and they were fine.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 11:18 AM
  #91  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 5,526

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3399 Post(s)
Liked 5,426 Times in 2,571 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
Good point. I only have first hand experience of up to 35 mm wheels. I've ridden these in very windy conditions and they were fine.
Newer rim profiles might fare better (just guessing). My 50mm wheels are older Shimano C50s.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 02-08-23, 01:22 PM
  #92  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 14,592

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7169 Post(s)
Liked 2,625 Times in 1,431 Posts
I read somewhere (too uninterested to look it up) that one of the biggest aero losses with wheels/tires were the vortices generated by the air hitting a wide tire and then sucking into the lower-pressure area of the narrow rim, and that while ogive rim section might be optimal, even a box-section rim was good if the tire and rim were the same width, and no amount of "aero" depth wade up for fat tires on skinny rims .... in short, match mounted tire width the rim width for a smooth transition if you wanted to gain any aero benefit from rim shape.

That is possibly part of the wider rim cross-sections (inner and outer widths) we have been seeing in the past several years---mushroom tires on skinny wheels suck, literally.
Maelochs is offline  
Likes For Maelochs:
Old 02-08-23, 01:27 PM
  #93  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 5,526

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3399 Post(s)
Liked 5,426 Times in 2,571 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
I read somewhere (too uninterested to look it up) that one of the biggest aero losses with wheels/tires were the vortices generated by the air hitting a wide tire and then sucking into the lower-pressure area of the narrow rim, and that while ogive rim section might be optimal, even a box-section rim was good if the tire and rim were the same width, and no amount of "aero" depth wade up for fat tires on skinny rims .... in short, match mounted tire width the rim width for a smooth transition if you wanted to gain any aero benefit from rim shape.

That is possibly part of the wider rim cross-sections (inner and outer widths) we have been seeing in the past several years---mushroom tires on skinny wheels suck, literally.
I have read this same thing from multiple sources.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 02-09-23, 01:21 AM
  #94  
tFUnK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,301

Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked 242 Times in 194 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
I don't know. I am a larger rider - 195# with decent peak/acceleration power output. The extra few watts it takes to spool up heavier wheels may not have the same impact on me as it does on a light/smaller rider with a different power profile. The overall % in weight savings from my total system weight of say 220# - vs a system weight of 150#'s.

Weight is what it is for me - too much. A pound or two on a bike makes very little impact.

Aero is my enemy. I am not fat, but have a large frontal profile/wide shoulders. I don't know if the aero savings from better wheels even makes that much difference % wise.
Not disputing what you're saying here. But we're specifically comparing a 34mm wheel with modern aero profile against a 50mm wheel with traditional aero profile, with a 400g difference. I guess what I'm saying is I don't think the 50mm wheel gives you more aero, certainly not enough to outweigh (no pun intended) the 400g difference. If you stop and go a lot or like to chase moves, the 200g per wheel difference is noticeable on accelerations.
tFUnK is offline  
Old 02-09-23, 01:22 AM
  #95  
tFUnK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,301

Bikes: Too many bikes, too little time to ride

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked 242 Times in 194 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed

The weight penalty going from 35mm to 50mm is nowhere near 400 grams, check your assumption
Those numbers were taken from OP.
tFUnK is offline  
Old 02-10-23, 10:06 PM
  #96  
rsbob 
Grupetto Bob
 
rsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 4,312

Bikes: Bikey McBike Face

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1713 Post(s)
Liked 3,247 Times in 1,826 Posts
Found this article rather interesting: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/w...tweight-wheels
__________________
Road and Mountain 🚴🏾‍♂️

Happily mediocre at a low skill activity







rsbob is offline  
Likes For rsbob:
Old 02-11-23, 06:48 AM
  #97  
PeteHski
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 5,331
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2707 Post(s)
Liked 2,936 Times in 1,843 Posts
Originally Posted by rsbob
Found this article rather interesting: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/w...tweight-wheels
I just take the middle ground with 35 mm 1477g aero wheels (DT Swiss ERC 1400). 22mm internal width (perfect profile for 28-30 mm tyres) and unaffected by crosswinds. Most of my local routes have lots of short, steep punchy climbs and my key annual events involve 4000m+ climbing, so I'm happy with this compromise. My one major flat event ends up in a large peloton, so I don't see much point in deeper section rims there either. Might save several seconds per hour if I got dropped!
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 02-11-23, 07:07 AM
  #98  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 67 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2901 Post(s)
Liked 2,125 Times in 1,305 Posts
OP is a larger rider looking for aero advice and nobody mentions the aero gut? The forum is slipping.

seypat is offline  
Old 02-11-23, 08:00 AM
  #99  
CrowSeph
Senior Member
 
CrowSeph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: South Italy
Posts: 855

Bikes: BMC SLR01; Cannondale Trail; Robur 1956 ; Tomasini 1976 ; Chiorda Condorino 1974 ; Frejus/Rola 1937 ; Specialized RockHopper 1990

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked 133 Times in 82 Posts
Originally Posted by Jughed
Budget in mind - 500+\-, found examples of both.

Aluminum for both choices -

Hunt 34mm deep at 1500 grams

vs

Bontrager 50mm deep aluminum/carbon mix at 1900 grams, floor model and 60% off.


Replacing heavy stock Emonda ALR 5 wheels. The lighter set with tubeless tires will take 1.5 pounds off the bike. But I am 195, so its a very small # of the total system weight.

Most of my riding is on flat terrain, will do some mountain riding.


Leaning towards the aero wheels not sure what would be better overall.
i had 50mm wheels for 1390g and they were awsome.
Now i have 35mm for 1600g (disks) and they are awsome.

i think your best choice will be the Hunt since they are light and 35mm is fair enought for all round type of riding and the SIDEWIND will not make you fly.
Also you can think abouth use both combination, the front wheel with a light setup and a lower profile and the back more aero and a bit heavier... but you must buy different wheel or start assembly by yourself.
CrowSeph is offline  
Likes For CrowSeph:
Old 02-11-23, 08:37 AM
  #100  
Jughed
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 258

Bikes: Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 181 Post(s)
Liked 200 Times in 105 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat
OP is a larger rider looking for aero advice and nobody mentions the aero gut? The forum is slipping.

https://youtu.be/Z4Te-wrCQsM

It works on big ships. A beachball under my jersey = 1.5 kph at 350w, per GCN.
Jughed is offline  
Likes For Jughed:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.