Campagnolo G3 vs. Fulcrum 2:1
#1
Descends Like Avalanche
Thread Starter
Campagnolo G3 vs. Fulcrum 2:1
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!
__________________
The rider in my avatar is David Etxebarria, not me.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 3,780
Bikes: Bianchi San Mateo and a few others
Likes: 0
Liked 15 Times
in
11 Posts
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.
#3
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.
#4
Senior Member
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.
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.
#5
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.
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.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
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.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 3,659
Bikes: Colnago Master XL, Bianchi Via Nirone 7, Marinoni Fango
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: West Gippy, Australia
Posts: 607
Bikes: 2017 Ridley Noah SL - Candy Apple DA9000, 2011 CAAD10 Berzerker Ult6800, 2013 FOCUS Mares CX Ult6800
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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
#9
Newbie
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.
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.
#10
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.
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.
#11
Descends Like Avalanche
Thread Starter
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!
Thank you to everyone who contributed responses to this thread!
__________________
The rider in my avatar is David Etxebarria, not me.
#12
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.
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.
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
#13
A good point as to why Fulcrum exists...including their crank line up.
#14
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
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
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.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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
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
#16
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,853
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Liked 1,612 Times
in
1,060 Posts
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.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As i get it the lacing of the latter is better?
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Lewisburg, TN
Posts: 1,356
Bikes: Mikkelsen custom steel, Santa Cruz Chameleon SS, old trek trainer bike
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
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.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
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!
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
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.
#23
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
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
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.
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
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.
#25
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by gfk_velo; 09-06-16 at 06:28 AM. Reason: explanation, spelling