Fifty Plus (50+) - Anyone here have experience with these wheels?

Rolf Prima Elan Aero's

Very lightweight clinchers (a little under 1300 grams without skewers) and I have found what I think is a pretty sweet deal. While I'm NOT a weight weenie I can greatly appreciate and enjoy having a little lighter rolling mass on these centuries with 9000-11,000 ft of climbing.

I'm pushing the recommended rider weight limit but during the time of the year I'd be using them I know I'd be a good bit lighter so I think there's certainly more margin for error. Maybe it would just be a good incentive to keep the weight down!

Not sure why Rolf is discontinuing them in '08 though.........

Not much here on BF, but I did find this thread over at weight weenies

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14028&highlight=rolf+prima+elan

It might help.

We have them on my wife's Orbea Orca. FYI...my LBS who sold them to us said that I could NOT use them. He was having trouble keeping them in true even with lighter riders than specified by Rolf. I was going to use them in a hill climb race and called my LBS for permission to use them and he said again that as long as the road was smooth and I did not hit any bumps then go ahead. I did not use them. However, they are perfect on the wife's bike and have no problems.

We have them on my wife's Orbea Orca. FYI...my LBS who sold them to us said that I could NOT use them. He was having trouble keeping them in true even with lighter riders than specified by Rolf. I was going to use them in a hill climb race and called my LBS for permission to use them and he said again that as long as the road was smooth and I did not hit any bumps then go ahead. I did not use them. However, they are perfect on the wife's bike and have no problems.

Thanks Hermes! Just the kind of feedback I was interested in. That is very similar to other feedback I'm hearing as well.

Unless one is a sponsored racer, I am adamantly dead-set against paired-spoke or reduced spoke count wheels. This is a major step backward in wheel engineering, in the sense that one increases a wheel's strength-to-weight ratio and reliability by using more spokes, not fewer. There is no way I am giving up my 32 or 36 spokes per wheel, in a 3X pattern. (Or sometimes 4X, with 36 spokes.) The sole benefit of reducing the spoke count is a minuscule reduction in wind turbulence. Rims designed for 32 spokes are actually lighter than those designed for fewer spokes. If I am out on a ride, I can limp home with a broken spoke, a feat I could not duplicate with a Rolf wheel.

1300 grams of wheel on a 9000 to 11000 foot climbin ride is certainly a reason to want these wheels. You may want to treat them like race wheels though and train on something else while saving these for the special rides.

Although many of these modern wheels use fewer spokes, they replace the standard spoke with a much stronger design. As John E points out, the rim is much stronger (and in some cases heavier). This helps deliver the load around the circumference of the wheel to the top so the hub can hang from there. Straight pull spokes replace the traditional elbow design and (may) reduce breakage at that point. As with all new(ish) things, it may yet take a while to get the industry completely comfortable with this technology.

Unless one is a sponsored racer, I am adamantly dead-set against paired-spoke or reduced spoke count wheels. This is a major step backward in wheel engineering, in the sense that one increases a wheel's strength-to-weight ratio and reliability by using more spokes, not fewer. There is no way I am giving up my 32 or 36 spokes per wheel, in a 3X pattern. (Or sometimes 4X, with 36 spokes.) The sole benefit of reducing the spoke count is a minuscule reduction in wind turbulence. Rims designed for 32 spokes are actually lighter than those designed for fewer spokes. If I am out on a ride, I can limp home with a broken spoke, a feat I could not duplicate with a Rolf wheel.

I have a friend here in Ann Arbor who has built a wheel stress-testing rig, where he can apply known lateral forces and measure lateral deflection. One preliminary generalization is that low-count wheels have less lateral stiffness (they show more deflection) than conventional 32 or 36 hole wheels. He won't say anything yet about radial stiffness.

The reduced lateral stiffness makes sense. Spokes stretch when lateral force is applied, acting as springs. Fewer spokes are fewer springs, or equivelently a smaller less stiff spring. More spokes are effectively stiffer.

One hypothesis based on this is: If similar lateral forces are pervasively present in cycling, then low-spoke count wheels should stress spokes closer to failure than conventional wheels. The statistical failure rate should be higher. This also assumes that similar grades of stainless at similar thicknesses are used in low-count wheels versus conventional wheels.

I don't know if any data exists to evaluate this hypothesis.

Road Fan

I have 2500 miles on my Bontrager Race XXX lite 24 paired spoke carbon wheels with carbon hubs 1300 gms and no problems and no maintenance and 700 miles on my original Bontrager Race Lite 24 paired spoke wheels - no problems. If I were to get another set of wheels, I would consider the Mavic Ksyrium SL 1485 gms for training and non race events and use the Easton deep dish carbon tubulars for racing. I really like the Race XXX lite except the braking is not as good as alloy wheels. I use the Suisse Stop pad $66 per set:eek: which are good but in the mountains on steep descents, I prefer more braking power.

Many of our P/1/2/3 guys use the SL with no problem and we consider these bombproof.

I think wheel durability is more about engineering, material selection, quality assurance and control during manufacture and testing than absolute spoke count. And the better quality lighter wheels are expensive and worth every penny.

JPPE, you may want to consider a deep dish carbon with an alloy braking surface such as the Mavic Cosmic Carbone clincher series or equal. I know these are heavy but at your speed / power the overall aero energy savings in a 100 mile event will accrue to you on all but the steeper hills. As I recall (and I cannot find the source so this info is suspect), the breakpoint in energy savings on heavier aero wheels versus ultralight non-aero wheels for pro riders was an 8% grade. For us, hmmm, lower power guys, the break point is a lot lower but you get the idea. And if you are one of these guys who do not use brakes descending then a metal braking surface is not in the equation - go all carbon and save the weight: Zipp 404 or 303s or equal.

1300 grams of wheel on a 9000 to 11000 foot climbin ride is certainly a reason to want these wheels. You may want to treat them like race wheels though and train on something else while saving these for the special rides.

My thinking exactly. I have 3 other sets of wheels I'd use for training and the bulk of other riding I do. I would only plan to use them for the mountain rides. Probably 7-8 rides per year so less than 1000 miles per year. Probably a good bit of expense when broken down to a per ride basis..........

I have 2500 miles on my Bontrager Race XXX lite 24 paired spoke carbon wheels with carbon hubs 1300 gms and no problems and no maintenance and 700 miles on my original Bontrager Race Lite 24 paired spoke wheels - no problems. If I were to get another set of wheels, I would consider the Mavic Ksyrium SL 1485 gms for training and non race events and use the Easton deep dish carbon tubulars for racing. I really like the Race XXX lite except the braking is not as good as alloy wheels. I use the Suisse Stop pad $66 per set:eek: which are good but in the mountains on steep descents, I prefer more braking power.

Many of our P/1/2/3 guys use the SL with no problem and we consider these bombproof.

I think wheel durability is more about engineering, material selection, quality assurance and control during manufacture and testing than absolute spoke count. And the better quality lighter wheels are expensive and worth every penny.

JPPE, you may want to consider a deep dish carbon with an alloy braking surface such as the Mavic Cosmic Carbone clincher series or equal. I know these are heavy but at your speed / power the overall aero energy savings in a 100 mile event will accrue to you on all but the steeper hills. As I recall (and I cannot find the source so this info is suspect), the breakpoint in energy savings on heavier aero wheels versus ultralight non-aero wheels for pro riders was an 8% grade. For us, hmmm, lower power guys, the break point is a lot lower but you get the idea. And if you are one of these guys who do not use brakes descending then a metal braking surface is not in the equation - go all carbon and save the weight: Zipp 404 or 303s or equal.

Great ideas-thanks so much for taking the time to share your insights. At my speed the breakpoint would probably be a 4-5% grade!! Seriously it is some interesting things to consider-even to the extent how much of the 100 mile ride is with a pack (minimizing the aero benefits) verus getting thrown off the back and riding solo. At least I've rekindled some interest in riding again!!

I cannot recommend low spoke count wheels for anyone who cares about reliability, longevity, cost of ownership, or acceleration. I can recommend them for anyone who is concerned primarily about air resistance and who does not mind buying a wheelset every few years. They may make sense for sponsored pros, they probably do not make any sense at all for the average club, touring, or sport cyclist, and they certainly do not make sense for me.

My thinking exactly. I have 3 other sets of wheels I'd use for training and the bulk of other riding I do. I would only plan to use them for the mountain rides. Probably 7-8 rides per year so less than 1000 miles per year. Probably a good bit of expense when broken down to a per ride basis..........
Well, I see your point, but based on what has been posted here and on WW, what about the downhill high speed descents?

Well, I see your point, but based on what has been posted here and on WW, what about the downhill high speed descents?

Forget about low spoke count and Aerodynamics of a wheel or even the speed you climb hills at. I know I am relatively new to road riding but I live in a hilly area. I think for the uphills I could put the cheapest set of wheels possible on a bike and I won't notice the difference except in rotational weight. Downhill is a different matter though. The OCR came with 36 spoke wheels. Not good quality and the tyres were not that good either. Uphill and on the flat- I did not know better but I started to doubt these wheels when I went down a couple of steep hills and I was slower than on the MTB with knobblies fitted. I analysed what was wrong and felt that the front wheel- was deflecting on the curves and was also forcing me to the outside of those curves. Change of wheels to a hand built set and I had no problem The wheel did not deflect and I was able to keep a tighter line on the corners. Then I got the Ultegra wheels set up with the same tyres and on a 10 mile run my average speed was higher than with the hand built wheels BUT I took them down one of the steep hills and did not get the same speed as On the hand builts. Next time down that hill and even the 16 spoke front Ultegra wheel is deflecting on the curves.

Then again- If I am going on a club or special ride- then the Ultegras are going on the bike. They ride so beautifully and speed for the ride is definitely up- Even if I have to stop looking at the front wheel on the downhills. By going for a lighter wheel and all the benefits that they will give- you have to look at a wheel and find the faults aswell. It does appear that these rolf wheels are good wheels- but I think as some-one else has mentioned- they are not a wheel for every day riding. And possibly for taking care of on the fast downhill curves.