Tandem Cycling - Considering going to Rolf Tandem Wheels

I started riding tandem as captain mid summer last year on a Cannondale road. It is stock. Most of the tandems, and there is quite a few in our club, have upgraded to lighter wheels .. mostly Bontrager and Rolf. I am an avid road cyclist ... getting in 150 to 225 miles per week on average once I get my base up each year. I have been riding on Kysirum SLs now since 2001 and the Mavic Heliums before that when they first came out. I personally can feel and notice a difference compared to stock wheels on my single.

My question is ... for those of you who have switched, is there as much of a noticeable difference when upgrading from stock wheels to lighter wheels on the tandem? I'm interested in the Rolf tandem wheels specifically.

When I asked this question to 3 of the tandem teams that ride in the club, all three said yes definitely. Just thought I'd obtain opinions from a few BF members also.

Am running Rolf's right now. Tough wheels. Note that you have to pull the tire and the rim strip to true this wheel. Not so with the Bontragers. These wheels also present a significant area to catch cross-winds. I have noticed it, but it has not bothered me. I run Bont's on my single and am very happy with them also.

Suggest you poll your local riders and see which have performed the best.

for those of you who have switched, is there as much of a noticeable difference when upgrading from stock wheels to lighter wheels on the tandem?

Wheel mass and aero drag reductions have the same effect on tandems as they do on single bikes. Moreover, it's not so much the weight as it is the reduction in aero drag from the lower number of spokes and aero section rim profile that make the "integrated" Rolf, Shimano/Santana, or Bontrager wheelsets "faster" and more responsive than 36h or 40h wheelsets. In fact, you can easily build up conventional wheelsets for tandems using lightweight White Ind. hubs and box section rims that will be significantly lighter than the "integrated" Rolf, Shimano/Santana, or Bontrager wheelsets.

The question with these wheelsets remains: what are you trying to accomplish and at what cost?

We're hardly at the top of our game and our tandem is anything but svelte or aero by today's standards; however, we'll pass a lot of lighter tandems with aero wheels during the upcoming tandem rally season. Likewise, there will be teams on even heavier tandems with less aero wheels than our 36h deep section jobs who will drop us like a rock. We might be able to bridge some of the gap by dropping $10k on a 26lb super-tandem with aero wheels but, in the long run we'd be better off putting more quality miles in on the bike to soup-up our fitness with our current tandem and it's added "resistance".

Bottom Line: If you're competing for fame, fortune, or national pride... every second counts and low spoke count aero wheels will shave time from your TT numbers and longer events. If you've got a wad-o-cash to blow on some bling that will make your ride look cool and easier to pedal, bingo: integrated wheelsets will accomplish both quite well.

We are runing a set on our Co-Motion Robusta. So far they have proved to be a lite and strong wheelset. They are fast and stiff and have stayed true so far.The only complaint I have is the braking area on the rim is pretty narrow and you have to get your brake shoes adjusted just rite. I have Dura Ace duel pivots and it is not that bad, but if you have V brakes with a wider brake shoe it makes the adjustment of the brake shoes a little more difficult. They do look really nice and fast and the quality of the fit and finish is very nice. A 25mm to 28mm tire fit on them real nice, also they are quite a bit lighter than the Bontranger Tandem Race Lite Wheelset if wheight is important to you.

Here is a pic of how they look on our tandem

Take Care and Ride Together.:)
Bill G

That is a great looking tandem Bill G!! The paint job on the frame is really unique. And, the Rolf's really do look good! Thanks for the pic and info. I have Disc Brakes on the Cannondale tandem ... so that isn't an issue. I talked with my LBS owner tonight who has been dealing with tandems since they came about ... and really likes both the Bontrager and Rolf wheels ... while he gives the nod to the Rolf's. He hasn't experienced any customers with Bontrager wheel problems ... but he has heard about them. We have a pretty high number of tandems in our local club ... and most, if not all, swear by their lighter wheels.

TG -- thanks for your down-to-earth approach. Yeah, I do know what you mean. I am not a racer and I am not a real light rider either at 175lbs. But, I can appreciate a bike with a smoother ride in terms of rolling resistance. I could easily notice a difference when going back and forth between my stock wheels and my Kysirums on my single before plopping down all that $$ on them. And, "looks" are not the most important thing in the least, but they do matter at least somewhat. And, the Rolf's sure do have a great looking tandem wheelset.

Not sure yet what I'll do. I will wait till end of June most likely for a purchase as I am now buying a Cannondale Six13 Team1 and that is taking up ALL my extra money. Tandem wheels and a Yakima Sidwinder are coming up next in June/July however!

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Aerohead 36h (145mm)
1702g set [794g / 908g]

Chris King & Velocity Aerohead 36h (160mm)
1826g set [761g / 1065g]

White Industries & Velocity Aerohead 36h (160mm)
1826g set [873g / 953g]

Rolf Prima Vigor (145mm)
1875g set [820g/1035g]

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Deep V 36h (145mm)
1932g [909g / 1023g]

Chris King & Velocity Fusion 36 spoke (160mm)
1984g set

Chris King & Velocity Deep-V 36h (160mm)
2056g set [876g / 1180g]

White Industries & Velocity Deep V 36h (160mm)
2056g set [988g / 1068g]

Shimano Sweet 16 (160mm)
2057g set [876g / 1181g] - '06 & up
2207g set [951g / 1256g] - Thru '05

Bontrager Race Lite (145mm)
2245g set [995g/1250g]

Phil Wood FSC & Velocity Deep V 36h (145mm)
2259g set [1036g / 1223g]

----------- stock tandem wheelsets --------------

DT Hugi & Velocity Dyad 40h (145mm)
2418g set [1098g / 1320g]

Hadley & FiR Rims 40h (160mm)
2603g set [1476g / 1127g]

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Aerohead 36g (145mm)
1702g set [794g / 908g]

Chris King & Velocity Aerohead 36h (160mm)
1826g set [761g / 1065g]

White Industries & Velocity Aerohead 36h (160mm)
1826g set [873g / 953g]

Rolf Prima Vigor (145mm)
1875g set [820g/1035g]

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Deep V 36h (145mm)
1932g [909g / 1023g]

Chris King & Velocity Fusion 36 spoke (160mm)
1984g set

Chris King & Velocity Deep-V 36h (160mm)
2056g set [876g / 1180g]

White Industries & Velocity Deep V 36h (160mm)
2056g set [988g / 1068g]

Shimano Sweet 16 (160mm)
2057g set [876g / 1181g] - '06 & up
2207g set [951g / 1256g] - Thru '05

Bontrager Race Lite (145mm)
2245g set [995g/1250g]

Phil Wood FSC & Velocity Deep V 36h (145mm)
2259g set [1036g / 1223g]

Thanks for posting the weights for these wheels Mark as it illustrates that conventional wheels are around the same weight or even lighter.
Does anyone have any information as to the weight of the rims used in the Rolf/Bontrager/Sweet 16 wheels? I am presuming that due to the lower spoke count the rims used are heavier that say the Velocity Fusion rims.

I think the bulk of the perceived difference in ride is a combination of placebo effect and after spending that amount of money there must be a difference!
They do have a bling factor though .............if you like bling.

On the Big NSW ride their were a few cyclists that had broken spokes in the low spoke wheels and the wheels couldn't be repaired as the support mechanics had no spares.

Cheers

Geoff

500 to 700 grams is actually a HUGE difference in weight from stock to say .. the Rolf wheels. TG -- if you have any info on the actual (not just perceived) difference between rolling mass/resistance for a reduction of 500 to 700 grams, please post it.

The Rolf's, or the other two lighter weight wheelsets, provide quite a reduction in weight from your list which is why I have considered them.

Bottom line from all my research, if you choose to spend money on lightening your bicycle, put that money in the wheels as this is the most noticeable differnce compared to any other component/part.

Very interesting info TG .. thanks.

http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsInertia_Page.html

You'll notice the exact same differences. I've raced for a long time and had a ton of top shelf racing wheels. Went to the Bontragers and have had great luck. FWIW: if you switch, try the Specialzed Roubaix specials on them... a really tough tire that works well as a performance tandem tire. Most folks here suggest COnti Gatorskins and they are great for training, but for high performance the Roubaix is very nice.

Thanks rjberner and ElRey! I'll check out those specialized tires also. I'm still leaning toward the Rolf wheelset given the weight reduction and fan fare from those who have been riding them for a while.

Are the Rolf Prima Vigor wheels compatable with the dual disk brakes on a Cannondale?

Are the Rolf Prima Vigor wheels compatable with the dual disk brakes on a Cannondale?

Co_Motion offers there top end tandems with the duel disk option and the Rolf wheelset, so I would say yes to Rolf making a wheelset compadable to a duel disk setup.

Take Care And Ride Together :)

Bill G

I'm new to tandems, but I've become a wheel geek.

If you have reasonable wheels now, there's no way that lighter wheels will noticably effect your team's performance. Stoker pony tail positioning will have a bigger effect. Skinsuits instead of jerseys would have a MUCH bigger effect. There's just no way that 1 or 2 lbs on a 350 lb rider-rider-bike system is going to matter -- even on climbs.

I would go for aerodynamics. I would stay away from paired spokes like the Rolfs. If you must go low spoke count, that's your decision, but there is no engineering reason to pair the spokes. Spreading the spokes evenly is structurally more stable. If you're low spoke count anyway, pairing just subtracts strength that helps keep the wheel round.

All it takes is one unknown pothole to make the difference.

I'll be building my own wheels for the tandem in the next year. Cost-no-object, I'd go with Phil Wood hubs and 40H Velocity Deep-Vs. 2.0/1.8/2.0 3-cross spokes front and rear. Brass nipples. They'll probably weigh 1 lb more than the Rolfs. Who cares? That's 0.5%. They'll be bombproof.

Since I'm frugal, I'll be substituting Shimano tandem hubs in there, because they will perform 99.5% as well as any other hub out there (other than the possible freehub problems for powerful teams -- but my stoker pool will keep that from being a problem).

Anyway, I ride 36H Deep Vs on my solo road bike, and regularly dust my friends with the $700+ wheelsets. It's all about the training. Get reliable wheels that are aero, and you won't be sorry.

If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, take a trip somewhere cool that you haven't been to ride your tandem.

(QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST From waterrockets) If you have reasonable wheels now, there's no way that lighter wheels will noticably effect your team's performance. Stoker pony tail positioning will have a bigger effect. Skinsuits instead of jerseys would have a MUCH bigger effect. There's just no way that 1 or 2 lbs on a 350 lb rider-rider-bike system is going to matter -- even on climbs.


I beg to differ with you, all of the things you listed will help. You are off base when you say rotational mass such as wheel weight does not matter. The biggest overall improvement on a bike is done in the wheels ( rotational weight) and frame set, bottom brackets and then the other components come into play. The fact that a tandem teem may weight 350 LB plus makes everything such as weight savings even more important if performance is what your looking for, especially with a tandem. A good wheelset is very important and 1 or 2 lbs of rotational weight is a big factor, it does and will make a big diffrence especially on climbs with a tandem.

Also I met and talked with Rolf personaly at Co-Motions facility along with Dwan the owner. We talked exstensivley about wheel strength and spoke count because I had some of the same concerns about paired spokes. Rolf said in his design which differs from others the strength of the wheel comes from the design of the deep V rim and the super high tension of spokes and how there paired to the special design hub. All of this is suppose to make up for more spokes to give the wheel strength. The Rolf wheel is a patent design that no one else can copy so other paired spoke wheels are diffrent in design even though they may look somewhat the same in appearance. He also said they tested the tandem wheelset for over two years extensively on all types of roads rough, smooth roads, fast downhills and fast hard cornering and exstreme racing with men racing teams weighing 350lb plus to over 400 lbs plus. After two years the wheelsets tested were still true and just as strong as the day they were put on the tandem with no major failures. All I know is Dwan and Dan the owners of Co-Motion have tested them along with Rolf and recomend them, that is good enough for me. I do not feel they would put there name or reputation on something that was not proven. They care to much about the reputation they have built over the years and have to much to loose.

Take Care And ride Together,:)
Bill G

(QUOTE FROM ABOVE POST From waterrockets) If you have reasonable wheels now, there's no way that lighter wheels will noticably effect your team's performance. Stoker pony tail positioning will have a bigger effect. Skinsuits instead of jerseys would have a MUCH bigger effect. There's just no way that 1 or 2 lbs on a 350 lb rider-rider-bike system is going to matter -- even on climbs.


I beg to differ with you, all of the things you listed will help. You are off base when you say rotational mass such as wheel weight does not matter. The biggest overall improvement on a bike is done in the wheels ( rotational weight) and frame set, bottom brackets and then the other components come into play. The fact that a tandem teem may weight 350 LB plus makes everything such as weight savings even more important if performance is what your looking for, especially with a tandem. A good wheelset is very important and 1 or 2 lbs of rotational weight is a big factor, it does and will make a big diffrence especially on climbs with a tandem.

I'm not trying to argue here, but this myth needs to be dispelled. I'm certainly not trying to be nasty, so imagine me saying this with a warm smile :)

Rotational mass matters for drag cars. The myth that it matters for bicycles is what boutique wheel manufacturers depend on for sales, but that doesn't make it true. Think about when you chuck a bike up in a workstand and crank the rear wheel up to 50 or 60 mph. With one hand on a pedal. It's not hard. It happens fast. Way faster than you could do it on the road. Now take the tire and tube off and try it. Will it happen faster with this greatly reduced rotating weight? Barely. On the road? You couldn't even measure it without a lab.

On top of that, a huge portion of the "rotating weight" is in the hub, which is at most 2" from the axle. This will have very little torque resistance at that radius. Some significant portion of that weight are the axle, skewer/nuts, and inner bearing races -- and they don't rotate at all.

Where does the myth come from? If it's true, why aren't we all riding 20" wheels? Why not 12" wheels? Why didn't 650c wheels catch on and take over?

The fact that the mass is rotating only matters during acceleration, since once you have it spinning, there's no resistance created by the mass. I could see an argument for wheel weight from an elite criterium racer, sprinting hard out of every corner for 90 minutes. But on a tandem on the open road, the acceleration is minimal.

I have experimental evidence as well. I have a set of 32H Dura-Ace/Mavic Open Pro wheels that weigh a full 3/4 of a pound less than my 36H Ultegra/Velocity Deep Vs. I switched wheels weekly for a month when I first started riding the Deep Vs. Every single benchmark ride I tried, the Deep Vs were measurably faster. The only place they are the same, is on Jester here in Austin (0.5 mile at ~20% grade) - and I would expect the Deep Vs to loose on such a steep hill. But they don't. The Deep Vs are faster on moderate terrain because of their superior aerodynamic profile (over the Open Pros).

During that same time, I rode my brother-in-law's American Classic Sprint 350s (the lightest aluminum clinchers made). Not faster. Not even up Jester (I tried like hell for a personal record that day, and got nothing). They had to help a little, but I couldn't feel it or see it. These wheels were nearly 1.5 lbs lighter than my Deep Vs.


Also I met and talked with Rolf personaly at Co-Motions facility along with Dwan the owner. We talked exstensivley about wheel strength and spoke count because I had some of the same concerns about paired spokes. Rolf said in his design which differs from others the strength of the wheel comes from the design of the deep V rim and the super high tension of spokes and how there paired to the special design hub. All of this is suppose to make up for more spokes to give the wheel strength. The Rolf wheel is a patent design that no one else can copy so other paired spoke wheels are diffrent in design even though they may look somewhat the same in appearance. He also said they tested the tandem wheelset for over two years extensively on all types of roads rough, smooth roads, fast downhills and fast hard cornering and exstreme racing with men racing teams weighing 350lb plus to over 400 lbs plus. After two years the wheelsets tested were still true and just as strong as the day they were put on the tandem with no major failures. All I know is Dwan and Dan the owners of Co-Motion have tested them along with Rolf and recomend them and that is good enough for me. I do not feel they would put there name or reputation on something that was not proven. They care to much about the reputation they have built over the years and have to much to loose.

Take Care And ride Together,:)
Bill G

Those are reasonable durability results, but how many miles in two years? I'm talking about wheels that will last for 30,000 miles. Built with "heavy" shimano hubs, and Velocity rims, you could build these wheels for $350, and they would weigh only 3/4 lb more than a set of Rolf tandem wheels. I just don't see what makes the Rolfs worth $600 more... even if they could last for 30,000 miles (I believe it when I see it).

My neighbor weighs 10 lbs less than me and doesn't ride as often. His 2-year-old solo Rolfs have worked their way out of true, and I fixed them up for him. I didn't see any high spoke tensions, though I've heard the claims before. I have a tensiometer, and the drive side measured 95 kgf (I build my Velocities up at 110 kgf) I can see how you'd need to be paired with really high tension, so the rim doesn't snake left and right -- but I'm not seeing high tension in his wheels. Maybe they worked themselves loose somehow, but that shouldn't be possible with a strong Deep V design and really high spoke tension.

If you ever break a spoke on a low-count wheel, you're going to need a vehicle to pick you up. The wheel will go so far out of true, it may hit the frame. I once broke a spoke on my MTB off road (36H wheels), and the rim didn't even rub the brake pad. I just twisted the spoke around a neighbor, tightened the other side slightly, and finished my ride. (a rock broke the spoke)

I've also plucked spokes on brand new Rolfs in the shops, and the tension irregularity frightens me. Same with Bontragers and Mavics. They sound like someone playing the piano with their elbows. A properly built wheel should sound the same tone all the way around on each spoke (or just the drive side for the rear). I'm not seeing impressive build quality there.

(remember, I'm still sporting the warm smile here -- I'm just trying to make a point) :D

The only low-count wheel that impressed me was a new Dura-Ace wheel, that was dead on for tension regularity out of the box and 1000 miles later. Never seen anything like it. As good as handcrafted.

I'm sure the Rolfs are decent wheels, but the performance gain will be unnoticeable, the wallet hit is ridiculous, and they can't last as long as a properly built 40H wheel. People who say they can feel the difference are feeling it because their wallet is so much lighter. Who's going to spend $950 on a set of wheels and tell you it was a mistake when you ask? Or that they really can't tell any difference? For $950, you're damned right they're faster. They feel like a motor's pushing the bike!

-Mike

I was never trying to argue or did I mean for it to come across that way. I have heard both sides of the debate over and over again over the years. There are many that think like what you have stated and there are others on the other side of the debate. When I say rotational mass I mean the weight of the wheel and tire being turned not the size. I really dont care if the spoke count is 32,36,40, paired, 700c or 26". It is still easier to spin under a load a lighter wheel and tire combo, in theory it should take less effort. A truck with the same horsepower will pull a lighter trailer up a hill faster than a heaver one. More weight less power, less weight more power thats the way it is.

Also the older Rolf wheels from what Rolf told me was limited due to Treks involvment and limitations they put on his wheel desien and him. Is your friends wheels one of the models that were maid during Rolfs involvment with Trek?, I had a pair back then and they were junk and I did not care for them. That is why I questioned the man in detail when I met him. I also told him I did not care for the older set that I had owned for my road bike back then. I am not trying to defend Rolf or the fact I spent a lot of money on the Rolf Tandem Specific wheel. I did on the other hand take Dwan the owner of Co-Motion word and personal esperiance on the wheelset to be true. If they turn out to be junk I will be the first one to say it and say spending that kind of money on a wheel was a mistake, trust me I will let people know if that is the case. So far they seem to be a great performing lite set of wheels that look pretty darn good on our tandem.

Take care,:)
Bill G

Thanks for posting the weights for these wheels Mark as it illustrates that conventional wheels are around the same weight or even lighter.

Yes, and... well yes. What's not obvious about the weight comparisons is that the lower spoke count wheels compensate for the loss of the wheel strength that comes from using fewer spokes by increasing the mass of the rims. Thus, while the total wheel weights are on par with or, in the case of the Rolfs, lower than higher spoke count conventional wheels, the rims are a bit heavier than all of the conventional rim designs.

As noted in some other posts, rotating mass and it's impact on performance is quite subjective. However, bear in mind the performance advantage that low-spoke count wheels provide are reduced aerodynamic drag which has a direct relationship to rotational speed: the faster the wheels spin, the greater the benefit.

However, to keep this in the realm of reality, the net improvement to a given team's performance from lower weight or reduced aero drag wheels must be off-set by all of the other factors associated with a given tandem team and also contrasted to the associated baselines (team weight, current aero drag coefficient, power output, etc...)... never mind the cost benefit analysis that then should follow which often times reminds us that the most cost effective performance improvements on a bicycle or tandem will always come from putting more effort into improvements in the weight and power output of the motors.

Bottom Line: Ride what you like and like what you ride. Just go into it with your eyes wide open; buying performance improvements has a very low ROI and often times those rather small returns are short-lived.

I was never trying to argue or did I mean for it to come across that way. I have heard both sides of the debate over and over again over the years. There are many that think like what you have stated and there are others on the other side of the debate. When I say rotational mass I mean the weight of the wheel and tire being turned not the size. I really dont care if the spoke count is 32,36,40, paired, 700c or 26". It is still easier to spin under a load a lighter wheel and tire combo, in theory it should take less effort. A truck with the same horsepower will pull a lighter trailer up a hill faster than a heaver one. More weight less power, less weight more power thats the way it is.

I didn't think you were arguing :)

All true, but it's all percentages... you can see what difference 3/4 lb makes on a calculator at http://www.analyticcycling.com/

Regardless, I can't argue that weight doesn't make any difference -- just that it's not as big of a deal as companies who deal light stuff would have us believe.

Aerodynamics play so much larger of a role. We spend the majority of our energy fighting the wind.


Also the older Rolf wheels from what Rolf told me was limited due to Treks involvment and limitations they put on his wheel desien and him. Is your friends wheels one of the models that were maid during Rolfs involvment with Trek?, I had a pair back then and they were junk and I did not care for them. That is why I questioned the man in detail when I met him. I also told him I did not care for the older set that I had owned for my road bike back then. I am not trying to defend Rolf or the fact I spent a lot of money on the Rolf Tandem Specific wheel. I did on the other hand take Dwan the owner of Co-Motion word and personal esperiance on the wheelset to be true. If they turn out to be junk I will be the first one to say it and say spending that kind of money on a wheel was a mistake, trust me I will let people know if that is the case. So far they seem to be a great performing lite set of wheels that look pretty darn good on our tandem.

Take care,:)
Bill G

My friend's Rolfs are 2003s, I believe.

I would never think any of these high end wheels are junk. I'm sure they are fine wheels, but I think they are all race wheels, not every-day wheels. As such, they trade minimal performance for durability.

Lance Rides conventional 32H Bontrager Classics these days (there was a pic on Cycling News this week). He's not racing, and doesn't need the minimal performance gains. And he's a guy who probably has a ton of the race wheels hanging on his wall at home.

All well said my friend with some good points. I will ride the Rolf Tandem wheelset untill they give me problems. I hope they will last and perform like Co-Motion said, only time will tell. If I do have problems with them I will put my hand built White Ind tandem specific hubs built up on a set of 36 spoke black Velocity deep V rims with 14 G spokes and brass nipples on the Robusta and like you said almost guarantee a trouble free set of bullet proof wheels or wheelset with a minimal over all difference in performance. I truly think a small advantage may go to the Rolf wheelset at the higher speeds of around 20 to 30mph. You do have to admit the Rolf wheels look really cool, my wife and stoker loved the looks of them and suggested lets get a set when we pick up our Robusta frame set.

Take Care and Ride Together,:)
Bill G

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Aerohead 36g (145mm)
1702g set [794g / 908g]

So how much would a set of these run verses the $849.00 list on the Bontragers?

White Industries Racer-X & Velocity Aerohead 36g (145mm)
1702g set [794g / 908g]

So how much would a set of these run verses the $849.00 list on the Bontragers?

My quess would be $550.00 to $625.00, again this is just a educated quess. I have seen the Bontrangers for $649.00 and the Rolfs for $849.00 at Tandems East online.

Take Care & Ride Together,:)

Bill G

I'd estimate around $600. Here's a guy who'll build them for you. You can email him and get a quote.

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/index.html

Below are the retail prices you'll usually see, i.e., what it might cost you to do it yourself if you pay retail and can build your own wheels. In some cases, the wheelbuilders will be able to get better pricing (particularly on spokes since they buy them in bulk) and pass that along in the cost of a complete wheelset such that the "build cost" gets absorbed.

Velocity Rims: Prices range from ~$50 - $70
Whilte Industries Racer Front Hub: Prices range ~$120 (Although I've seen them lower)
Whilte Industries Racer-X Rear Hub: Prices range ~$225 - $250
Good DB Spokes from DT or Wheelsmith: ~$.075 - $1.00 /ea with brass nipples
Wheel building: $20 - $35 / per wheel

Good wheelbuilders who I've done business with:
Peter White (already mentioned / linked)
Mel Kornbluh at TandemsEast.com
John Kovachi @ Kovachiwheels.com

FWIW: The Aerohead is a very lightweight rim... too lightweight for regular duty on tandems IMHO. Probably OK for very lightweight teams who do a lot of climbing and included in the list only to demonstrate the low-end of the spectrum. My personal pick for a narrow width tandem performance rim -- even though it's heavier -- is the Velocity Deep-V rims: very aero and very tough. This is what we've been riding for many years and what I always recommend for a very good set of aftermarket road wheels. If Mavic hadn't discontinued the CXP-30 we'd still be running those on our tandem (well, maybe -- the ti grey Velocity rims look great on any tandem; better than black). We could probably go with a 32h or even a 28h for our front wheel given our team weight of 280lbs; however, since we're not competing for national titles I'm unwilling to give up the extra margin the 36h rims give us.

As for other choices. Velocity's Fusion rim -- while not as deep as the Deep V -- is also a good choice; lighter than the Deep-V and comparable to the Mavic CXP-33. For heavy-duty demands like touring or teams who need to run larger diameter tires (28mm and up), in the Velocity range the Dyad is the recommended rim. Mavic also offers two good "trekking" rims for tandems in this range.

Below are the retail prices you'll usually see, i.e., what it might cost you to do it yourself if you pay retail and can build your own wheels. In some cases, the wheelbuilders will be able to get better pricing (particularly on spokes since they buy them in bulk) and pass that along in the cost of a complete wheelset such that the "build cost" gets absorbed.

Velocity Rims: Prices range from ~$50 - $70
Whilte Industries Racer Front Hub: Prices range ~$120 (Although I've seen them lower)
Whilte Industries Racer-X Rear Hub: Prices range ~$225 - $250
Good DB Spokes from DT or Wheelsmith: ~$.075 - $1.00 /ea with brass nipples
Wheel building: $20 - $35 / per wheel

Good wheelbuilders who I've done business with:
Peter White (already mentioned / linked)
Mel Kornbluh at TandemsEast.com
John Kovachi @ Kovachiwheels.com

FWIW: The Aerohead is a very lightweight rim... too lightweight for regular duty on tandems IMHO. Probably OK for very lightweight teams who do a lot of climbing and included in the list only to demonstrate the low-end of the spectrum. My personal pick for a narrow width tandem performance rim -- even though it's heavier -- is the Velocity Deep-V rims: very aero and very tough. This is what we've been riding for many years and what I always recommend for a very good set of aftermarket road wheels. If Mavic hadn't discontinued the CXP-30 we'd still be running those on our tandem (well, maybe -- the ti grey Velocity rims look great on any tandem; better than black). We could probably go with a 32h or even a 28h for our front wheel given our team weight of 280lbs; however, since we're not competing for national titles I'm unwilling to give up the extra margin the 36h rims give us.

As for other choices. Velocity's Fusion rim -- while not as deep as the Deep V -- is also a good choice; lighter than the Deep-V and comparable to the Mavic CXP-33. For heavy-duty demands like touring or teams who need to run larger diameter tires (28mm and up), in the Velocity range the Dyad is the recommended rim. Mavic also offers two good "trekking" rims for tandems in this range.

Nice summary, good info. I'll be building some 26" wheels sometime this year for our new (old) Burley. I emailed Velocity, and they recommended the Aeroheat (26" MTB) 40H. Do you know how this compares to the 26" Deep-V?

I'm thinking in a 26", I've got a little more freedom with a 300 lb team...

Nice summary, good info. I'll be building some 26" wheels sometime this year for our new (old) Burley. I emailed Velocity, and they recommended the Aeroheat (26" MTB) 40H. Do you know how this compares to the 26" Deep-V? I'm thinking in a 26", I've got a little more freedom with a 300 lb team...

I wasn't aware that they offered the Aeroheat AT in a 40h model... Is it a new offering for '06?

Regardless, the question is, how hard do you plan to abuse your wheels and what size tire(s) will you be running? If you're planning on road riding, Deep-V hands-down. If you're looking at off-road.... read on.

For reference purposes, we've been riding 36h Aeroheat AT's (un-machined sidewall version w/disc brakes) on our Ventana F/S off-road tandems for six seasons. I built the first set for our first Ventana and John Kovachi built the wheels on our '02 Ventana which we bought as a complete bike from Alex at MTBTandems.com (FWIW: it was his first tandem sale). I was impressed with how easily the wheels built-up; very robust for a mid-depth rim. We're nominally a 275-280lb team and it would be fair to say that I tend to be an aggressive single track rider, particularly when it comes to descents. Thus far, all we've ever done to these rims -- despite various obstacle hits, occasional "air" off jumps, and the like -- was a dinged sidewall when I clipped the edge of the rim on a chuck of good old Georgia granite at Bull Mountain near Dahlonega, Georgia. Even with 203mm rotors front & rear and 135mm rear spacing, i.e., double dished rear, both sets of wheels held their tension and remained true. On hardpack we'll run 2.1" XC tires, but for all other conditions we mount 2.4" WTB Motoraptors; however, I'd say that the 2.4s are probably at the limit on tire width for the 24mm wide Aeroheat ATs (as well as the Deep-Vs): lots of sidewall float. Ideally, the Cliffhanger would be the rim of choice for the 2.3" and larger tires on an XC / Enduro off-road tandem. Now, it's fair to say that having front & rear suspension does a lot to reduce the wear and tear on wheels which is why I felt safe in going with the lighter 36h Aeroheat AT rims vs. the Deep-V or Cliffhanger.

So, back to your Samba and your original question: how do the Aeroheat & Deep-V compare?

The Deep-V's ERD (inside diameter, spoke hole bed) is 19mm smaller than the Aeroheat AT with the same 24mm rim width, which should yield a significantly stronger wheel if built with the same number but shorter length spokes as an Aeroheat AT. However, you pay for that added depth and rim strength with an extra 100g of rim weight. Of course, what the taller and stronger Deep-V rims allow you to do is to reduce the number of spokes needed to get the equivalent strength of the Aeroheat AT, e.g., 32H front / 32 or 36H rear for Deep V vs. 36h front / 36h rear for Aeroheat ATs. You could conceiveably go with 40H front & rear Deep-Vs, but they'd be overkill for anything short of aggressive single track with an Enduro tandem.

Bottom Line: At 300lbs on a rigid 26" off-road enduro tandem, I think either of the aforementioned Aeroheat AT / Deep-V combinations laced 3x would work well, with a slight nod to the Deep-Vs for maximum stiffness. If you feel you want the added comfort and cross bracing strength of 4x lacing for your rear and/or front wheel, then the 40H Deep-Vs would be your only choice in the Velocity line.

I wasn't aware that they offered the Aeroheat AT in a 40h model... Is it a new offering for '06?

Regardless, the question is, how hard do you plan to abuse your wheels and what size tire(s) will you be running? If you're planning on road riding, Deep-V hands-down. If you're looking at off-road.... read on.

For reference purposes, we've been riding 36h Aeroheat AT's (un-machined sidewall version w/disc brakes) on our Ventana F/S off-road tandems for six seasons. I built the first set for our first Ventana and John Kovachi built the wheels on our '02 Ventana which we bought as a complete bike from Alex at MTBTandems.com (FWIW: it was his first tandem sale). I was impressed with how easily the wheels built-up; very robust for a mid-depth rim. We're nominally a 275-280lb team and it would be fair to say that I tend to be an aggressive single track rider, particularly when it comes to descents. Thus far, all we've ever done to these rims -- despite various obstacle hits, occasional "air" off jumps, and the like -- was a dinged sidewall when I clipped the edge of the rim on a chuck of good old Georgia granite at Bull Mountain near Dahlonega, Georgia. Even with 203mm rotors front & rear and 135mm rear spacing, i.e., double dished rear, both sets of wheels held their tension and remained true. On hardpack we'll run 2.1" XC tires, but for all other conditions we mount 2.4" WTB Motoraptors; however, I'd say that the 2.4s are probably at the limit on tire width for the 24mm wide Aeroheat ATs (as well as the Deep-Vs): lots of sidewall float. Ideally, the Cliffhanger would be the rim of choice for the 2.3" and larger tires on an XC / Enduro off-road tandem. Now, it's fair to say that having front & rear suspension does a lot to reduce the wear and tear on wheels which is why I felt safe in going with the lighter 36h Aeroheat AT rims vs. the Deep-V or Cliffhanger.

So, back to your Samba and your original question: how do the Aeroheat & Deep-V compare?

The Deep-V's ERD (inside diameter, spoke hole bed) is 19mm smaller than the Aeroheat AT with the same 24mm rim width, which should yield a significantly stronger wheel if built with the same number but shorter length spokes as an Aeroheat AT. However, you pay for that added depth and rim strength with an extra 100g of rim weight. Of course, what the taller and stronger Deep-V rims allow you to do is to reduce the number of spokes needed to get the equivalent strength of the Aeroheat AT, e.g., 32H front / 32 or 36H rear for Deep V vs. 36h front / 36h rear for Aeroheat ATs. You could conceiveably go with 40H front & rear Deep-Vs, but they'd be overkill for anything short of aggressive single track with an Enduro tandem.

Bottom Line: At 300lbs on a rigid 26" off-road enduro tandem, I think either of the aforementioned Aeroheat AT / Deep-V combinations laced 3x would work well, with a slight nod to the Deep-Vs for maximum stiffness. If you feel you want the added comfort and cross bracing strength of 4x lacing for your rear and/or front wheel, then the 40H Deep-Vs would be your only choice in the Velocity line.

We'll probably end up running standard city slicks (1.5") and riding on the road. Some occasional off-road is possible, but my stoker doesn't do that much even on her solo.

Dunno about the 40H Aeroheat ATs... looking at their site, they don't seem to offer them. Matt from Velocity mentioned 40H Aeroheats.

I'm favoring the Deep-V simply because I favor aerodynamics over weight at every turn. We'll be on our own for most of our rides, so drafting will be a rare treat.

I'll probably stick with 40H for peace of mind. I don't mind carrying eight extra spokes, and the aero benefits of low spoke count are minimal. (actually the aero benefits of a deep rim are pretty minor too, but it makes me feel good)

Besies, I'm riding a 36H Deep-V rear on my solo now (32H front), so my brain can't make the jump to say that my ideal choice for a solo would also be the ideal choice for a tandem. I know it's a bit of overkill, but I'm tired of building new rears every 2 years.

I'll start another thread to discuss hubs...

Thanks for the info

We've been pleased with our Bontrager paired spoke wheels. We were at a ride yesterday and after I loaded the bike, I picked up my wife at the shelter. She says did you see that tandem, I said what tandem?

She said the one that had the "bent wheel and broken spokes".

I say where is it, she didn't know.

I asked what brand of bike, didn't know.

I looked around but could find any sign. Apparently it was the first ride and they only made it out a few miles before being force to return and totally trashing the wheel. My wife did recall they were not a really large tandem team.

Funny, how I'm going nuts trying to see the bike, wheels, get details, etc... and my wife was just hanging out.

John

Besies, I'm riding a 36H Deep-V rear on my solo now (32H front), so my brain can't make the jump to say that my ideal choice for a solo would also be the ideal choice for a tandem. I know it's a bit of overkill, but I'm tired of building new rears every 2 years.

FWIW, we've got 4 seasons and over 10k miles on one of our sets of 700c Deep-V wheelsets (White Ind. Racer-X hubset) which remain stout and true... an occasional tweak of the rear wheel on the truing stand at best. Again, nominal team weight of ~275 to ~280 but last summer we were easily pushing ~295. We probably climb 350k - 500k vert feet a year.

Our other tandem is also running Deep-Vs (Phil Wood FSC hubset). It had about 4k miles of trouble-free wheels over 2 seasons before we "bashed" both rims on a pothole while riding in a paceline at 25mph or better where the lead couple didn't quite call it out or steer around it. Despite hitting it hard enough double pinch flat and to deform the rim, they actually remained round and didn't go out of true to the extent that I was able to do a field repair with a cresent wrench to straighten out the bent sidewalls (one side each), mount tires, and then completed a metric century. The front rim was replaced when I got home but the back was "good enough".

The rear rim subsequently got nailed by a missed pothole again two months later during a night time "Christmas Lights Ride" and while the bead was banged up the rim still didn't lose its roundness or true. Believe it or not, a new rear rim was nailed again at last year's STR under a similar scenario as the first... drafting behind a lead tandem crusing at a pleasant 20mph or so that didn't see a pothole until the last minute. A bunny hop save the front rim but not the back. Given that we use a rear disc, this rim's braking surface doesn't need to be "perfect" and it remains in service as once again it didn't go out of round or true. Needless to say, we've found the Deep-Vs to be very stout rims that are ideally suited for tandem duty and we're really starting to get leary about drafting teams with whom who regularly ride: rims aren't cheap and I've got better things to do with my time than lacing new rims onto damaged wheels.

We use the Rolf wheels because ... well ... that's what came with our tandem. The rear wheel arrived with the spokes incorrectly laced and we had problems with spokes breaking for awhile, but that has since been fixed by our lbs replacing all the drive side spokes (lacing them correctly this time). Other than that we have been pleased with the wheels. They look good, they're relatively light, they're aerodynamic, they're stiff, etc.

My main point in writing is to disagree with the comment that breaking a spoke on the Rolf's will put the wheel so out of true that it might even hit the rim. Even with two spokes broken (which happened to us on one occassion) the wheel came only slightly out of true and we had no trouble riding over 50 miles home on it. We have a disc brake on the back, but even if we'd had rim brakes, I think we could simply have released them and avoided any rubbing. Those rims are obviously very tough.

Agree - best hand built wheels are very good and surprisingly light compared with the marketing put out by Mavic and others. So far my Bontrager tandem wheels as well as all my other Mavic and Campag machine built wheels are fine. My American Classic wheels, which were probably not machine made are also fine.

However, the average / badly hand built wheels whether machine built or hand built can give lots of aggro. Best to spend the money first on wheelbuilding then on fit for purpose components.

On the subject of whether x or y spokes are needed, my view is that most of a wheel's strength and ability to hold spoke tension comes from the rim. Thus 20-hole tandem wheels using a deep, relatively wide rim section work fine. What won't work is a open-pro type section rim with 20 spokes. This is probably why Mavic and others only offer low spoke count rims in complete wheels, which they then charge lots of money for.

We use the Rolf wheels because ... well ... that's what came with our tandem. The rear wheel arrived with the spokes incorrectly laced and we had problems with spokes breaking for awhile, but that has since been fixed by our lbs replacing all the drive side spokes (lacing them correctly this time). Other than that we have been pleased with the wheels. They look good, they're relatively light, they're aerodynamic, they're stiff, etc.

My main point in writing is to disagree with the comment that breaking a spoke on the Rolf's will put the wheel so out of true that it might even hit the rim. Even with two spokes broken (which happened to us on one occassion) the wheel came only slightly out of true and we had no trouble riding over 50 miles home on it. We have a disc brake on the back, but even if we'd had rim brakes, I think we could simply have released them and avoided any rubbing. Those rims are obviously very tough.

Interesting. Either the rims must be very laterally strong, or your wheel was undertensioned (which would explain the broken spokes). If the wheel was undertensioned, then the opposing non-broken spoke wouldn't be pulling that hard, especially if it was non-drive side, since those are so much lower tension.

Still, sounds like a tough rim. Thanks for the experience.

Interesting. Either the rims must be very laterally strong, or your wheel was undertensioned (which would explain the broken spokes). If the wheel was undertensioned, then the opposing non-broken spoke wouldn't be pulling that hard, especially if it was non-drive side, since those are so much lower tension.

You need to do some research on each of the different low-spoke count wheel designs to understand how they work and differ from conventional wheel construction before making too many assumptions on how broken spokes and the like will affect them.

As another data point relative to drive / non-drive side spoke tension, conventionally spoked 145mm and 160mm tandem wheels are usually symetrical (or near symetrical) with equal (or near equal) tension on both sides of the rear hub, not off-set / asymetrical like 130mm road wheels or 135mm off-road wheels. Thus, the loss of a drive side spoke on a tandem hub with wide, symetrically spaced flanges will not cause an inordinate amount of out-of-true condition as it does on your typical asymetrical single bike. For tandems with 140mm, 135mm or even more narrow asymetrical rear spacing, then your assumptions about unequal spoke tension would be correct.

You need to do some research on each of the different low-spoke count wheel designs to understand how they work and differ from conventional wheel construction before making too many assumptions on how broken spokes and the like will affect them.

I don't see what I'm missing here. The only research one can do on these wheels is in marketing literature, forums, and newsgroups. Unless you have a lab and buy a few sets of them.

The way spoked wheels work hasn't changed since their invention. Contrary to their marketing, Rolf, Mavic, and Bontrager have NOT reinvented the wheel. They have compromised strength to lower the weight of the wheel and to make it more aerodynamic. That's great for performance, but it needs to be clear that it lowers the wheel's durability. Nothing comes for free, and a conventional bicycle wheel is an amazingly strong and light structure. When you start removing parts, you lose something. You can make up for it with stronger rims, but that adds weight, which can be mitigated with carbon fiber.

My neighbor's Rolf Vector (which was stock on his 2004 Specialized), which I trued, had only one spoke under-tensioned. I didn't use a tensiometer on it, but it was probably around 60% tension (from the plucking sound). The rim was so far out of true that it recentered his brakes. If I had completely detensioned it, the tire would have rubbed the chainstays at that point (it only cleared it by 0.5 mm as it was).

When building my current 700c 36H rear Deep V, when I was all done, I completely detensioned one drive-side spoke (temporarily). It wasn't out of true enough to even touch a brake pad. My Deep V has about the same rim profile as the Rolf, but it's obviously a much stronger wheel because of all the spokes. It's heavier too, and slightly less aerodynamic, but my wheels still crest hills first and cross TT lines first...


As another data point relative to drive / non-drive side spoke tension, conventionally spoked 145mm and 160mm tandem wheels are usually symetrical (or near symetrical) with equal (or near equal) tension on both sides of the rear hub, not off-set / asymetrical like 130mm road wheels or 135mm off-road wheels. Thus, the loss of a drive side spoke on a tandem hub with wide, symetrically spaced flanges will not cause an inordinate amount of out-of-true condition as it does on your typical asymetrical single bike. For tandems with 140mm, 135mm or even more narrow asymetrical rear spacing, then your assumptions about unequal spoke tension would be correct.

That makes sense, but only for the wider axles. Remember that they leave room for a drum brake out there on the left side, which pushes the left flange in and effectively makes the hub more symmetrical. An Ultegra 130mm road hub flange spacing is 38.4mm/20.8mm, while the 145mm Phil Wood hub is 32mm/25mm. So the Phil is more symmetrical, but it's also still 7mm off because they had to haul the left flange in so far to make room for the brake. The right flange only moved out 4.2mm compared to the Ultegra, when there's theoretically 7.5mm available ((145mm - 130mm) / 2).

Gaining symmetry is nice, but you want your flange spacing to be as wide as possible. Moving the left flange in for the sake of symmetry doesn't help. You want to push that right flange out.

Of course, you're correct that the increasing symmetry will prevent the spoke tension differential I mentioned.

The way spoked wheels work hasn't changed since their invention. ...Of course, you're correct that the increasing symmetry will prevent the spoke tension differential I mentioned.

No, it hasn't, but since this is a tandem forum you need to set aside some of what you have learned about single bike wheels and figure out what these integrated wheel builders have done to adapt their technology for tandem applications and therein you'll find some of the answers to why the tandems are less affected by a single broken spoke than a regular, 1/2 bike wheel from the same builder.

No, it hasn't, but since this is a tandem forum you need to set aside some of what you have learned about single bike wheels and figure out what these integrated wheel builders have done to adapt their technology for tandem applications and therein you'll find some of the answers to why the tandems are less affected by a single broken spoke than a regular, 1/2 bike wheel from the same builder.

I appreciate that, and continue to learn...

The Rolf wheel is a patent design that no one else can copy so other paired spoke wheels are diffrent in design even though they may look somewhat the same in appearance.

I finally got around to researching this patent, and I've found that it's worthless in production Rolf wheels. The patent is not for paired spoking alone, but for a strange invention where they have some spokes coming radially out of the center of the hub. So they've got the now-ubiquitous pairs evenly spaced around the hub and rim, then these centerline spokes that go out to the rim symmetrically in between two pairs. Here's an image from the patent (there are 3 pairs of spokes and 3 solo centerline spokes -- for an interesting 9-spoke wheel :) ):
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1944/rolfpatent9bm.jpg

The patent can be reviewed here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=05931544&OS=05931544&RS=05931544

If that link doesn't work, look for pat # 05931544 (obtained from the Rolf Prima site) here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

The purpose of the invention was to eliminate front end shimmy, which they claim it does.

Needless to say, none of the Rolf wheels actually being produced feature this centerline spoke set, just the conventional pairs. Rolf even mentions at least two other paired spoke patents as Prior Art, noting that they don't have the centerline spokes.

So, Rolf is waving this patent around like it makes their wheels special, but they don't actually use any of their protected technology in their products.

Anyway, their wheels are round, they seem to be reasonably durable, reasonably aerodynamic, reasonably light, and quite visually attractive -- but they're not special because of any Rolf patent.

fsa makes wheels like that. they claim that the center flange 'hides' 1/3 of the spokes from the wind. i guess they never ride in any kind of crosswind.
http://www.fullspeedahead.com/fly.aspx?layout=product&taxid=49

I finally got around to researching this patent, and I've found that it's worthless in production Rolf wheels. The patent is not for paired spoking alone, but for a strange invention where they have some spokes coming radially out of the center of the hub. So they've got the now-ubiquitous pairs evenly spaced around the hub and rim, then these centerline spokes that go out to the rim symmetrically in between two pairs. Here's an image from the patent (there are 3 pairs of spokes and 3 solo centerline spokes -- for an interesting 9-spoke wheel :) ):
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1944/rolfpatent9bm.jpg

The patent can be reviewed here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=05931544&OS=05931544&RS=05931544

If that link doesn't work, look for pat # 05931544 (obtained from the Rolf Prima site) here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

The purpose of the invention was to eliminate front end shimmy, which they claim it does.

Needless to say, none of the Rolf wheels actually being produced feature this centerline spoke set, just the conventional pairs. Rolf even mentions at least two other paired spoke patents as Prior Art, noting that they don't have the centerline spokes.

So, Rolf is waving this patent around like it makes their wheels special, but they don't actually use any of their protected technology in their products.

Anyway, their wheels are round, they seem to be reasonably durable, reasonably aerodynamic, reasonably light, and quite visually attractive -- but they're not special because of any Rolf patent.


I was only going of what Rolf told me about his wheels being covered under certain patents. The wheels work great on our tandem so far and look good. I am glad you did the research for your self. It really does not matter to me if they use the patent or not, or if the patent makes them special or not, witch may be the case. I like the wheels and maid the choice to spend the money on them, if there not for you and you feel there not all there cracked up to be thats ok too. I can tell you they are a fast and easy spinning wheelset on our tandem and there is a diffrence. I have ridden quite a few miles in the last 6 years on several diffrent tandems with diffrent types of wheelsets, many that have been mentioned above.

EDITED 06-01-06, Here are the rest of the Rolf patents you forgot to mention, there are 6 total pluss 1 in Canada and others pending.
5,931,544 / 5,938,293 / 5,947,565 / 6,244,667 / 6,497,042 / 6,024,414 / Canada Patent 2,136,053 and others pending
Take Care & Ride Together.:)
Bill G

I was only going of what Rolf told me about his wheels being covered under certain patents. The wheels work great on our tandem so far and look good. I am glad you did the research for your self. It really does not matter to me if they use the patent or not, or if the patent makes them special or not, witch may be the case. I like the wheels and maid the choice to spend the money on them, if there not for you and you feel there not all there cracked up to be thats ok too. I can tell you they are a fast and easy spinning wheelset on our tandem and there is a diffrence. I have ridden quite a few miles in the last 6 years on several diffrent tandems with diffrent types of wheelsets, many that have been mentioned above.

Take Care & Ride Together.:)
Bill G

Cool, I'm not trying to burn anyone's muffins here :)

Cool, I'm not trying to burn anyone's muffins here :)

No burt muffins, but I think the pros and cons of paired spoke wheels are pretty clear, also the fact they are pricey and not for everyone.

Take care:)
Bill G