"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - How come...

Some people race with Carbon aero wheels (Deep V) and some don't. Are their any advantages to training with a Carbon wheel? why zipp's, Reynolds, HED etc.. when you can get a good set of easton EC90's or similar, thats way more bomb proof.

I know most of you will say they are way more aerodynamic. Then why aren't all riders using them?

grr. ment to post in Road cycling... I will post there to if a mod wants to delet this.

This is the right forum for this question.

It is pretty well accepted that deep dish wheels have an aerodynamic advantage at speeds above 25mph. Deep dish wheels made of Al would get rather heavy, so they are more often made of carbon, hence the popularity of deep dish carbon wheels. Some ride them for this aero and light weight advantage, some think the lower durability and high cost is not worth the high price. It is as simple as that.

I personally ride Ritchey WCS Carbon rims (58mm deep) and love them.

$$$

$$ is usually why someone won't race carbon wheels. There is the "wheels are too expensive to buy" level as well as the "I can afford the wheels but don't want to risk breaking them" level.

Since tall profile rims require a lot of material (you have to make a 58mm tall wall to have a 58mm tall rim), it seems general practice to make such rims out of carbon (versus aluminum or other materials). The carbon rims cost more than aluminum rims.

When I first went to 10s, I only had one wheelset for my 10s drivetrain - a pair of (aluminum) Eurus. Although I'd pair the rear with an aero front, I didn't race a different rear wheel until a year later when I finally bought a pair of Reynolds DV46s. I was willing to wait to pay less and I did - I traded a season of racing on Eurus for about $700 worth of savings.

cdr

$$ is usually why someone won't race carbon wheels. There is the "wheels are too expensive to buy" level as well as the "I can afford the wheels but don't want to risk breaking them" level.

Since tall profile rims require a lot of material (you have to make a 58mm tall wall to have a 58mm tall rim), it seems general practice to make such rims out of carbon (versus aluminum or other materials). The carbon rims cost more than aluminum rims.

When I first went to 10s, I only had one wheelset for my 10s drivetrain - a pair of (aluminum) Eurus. Although I'd pair the rear with an aero front, I didn't race a different rear wheel until a year later when I finally bought a pair of Reynolds DV46s. I was willing to wait to pay less and I did - I traded a season of racing on Eurus for about $700 worth of savings.

cdr

Do you think that decision ever cost you a race/placing/money?

Do you think that decision ever cost you a race/placing/money?

The year I had the Eurus I wasn't in the running for too much, first year back on the bike after 3 years of piddling around. Interestingly enough the year I first day I raced the 10s/Eurus (2nd to last race of one of the Bethel Spring Series) I won the field sprint. Before that I was running TriSpokes.

The year I got the DVs, actually in the second (?) race having the DVs I managed to do a pretty significant win:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0vBBlyGvVIk
The clip explains why I piddled around for 3 years, although in the middle of that piddling I managed to get 2nd at the Nutmeg State Games (2002) and by default become the Cat 3 CT Crit Champ (first racer was from MA I think).

Because of the significance of the 2005 win, missing any/all places etc from 2004 was worth winning the Series in 2005. Based on my experience with the wheels now, I figure I may have lost a few places over 30-40 races, but nothing super significant. For example in the Bethel Spring Series in 2004 I got two 2nds and two 3rds. I wasn't close to winning though so the wheels wouldn't have helped.

In 2006 I managed to win the CT Crit gold again (this time I got 3rd in the race), and yes I was on the DV46s:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fiMfxE14yaQ

I had a friend at Reynolds who helped me get the DV46 tubulars (they only offered those and clinchers at the time, no other wheels), hence I have those now. Now I think a 60mm rim would be better, not a 50-ish mm rim. The DV66 would be nice, or 404s, or similar. Aerodynamically I think that's the minimum to be equal on equipment with the Cat 3s (and 2s) around here. I stopped using my 340s (pre-303s) because I felt they weren't fast enough, and I stuck with my 440s (pre-404s) and TriSpokes (pre-HED3). Then I decided to race wheels which would help a friend of mine (he worked for that wheel company). When he quit the company I went back to TriSpokes (2004):

http://www.krislau.com/cycling/bethel/2004-03-28/img_4946_std.jpg
Full page is here (http://www.krislau.com/cycling/bethel/2004-03-28/), and yeah, I'm like 185-190lbs. Both the TriSpokes have been dented hitting a pothole (previous owner) so they're not very smooth, but they certainly are fast.

cdr

Cool videos. right on man!

I miss my Rev-X's.

I miss my Rev-X's.

Those were, still are, very fast wheels.

It is pretty well accepted that deep dish wheels have an aerodynamic advantage at speeds above 25mph.

Only by those who believe the laws of physics change suddenly at 25 mph. For those who don't, the aero advantage is the same at all speeds and the importance of this advantage depends on how one chooses to measure it (e.g., time saved, increased speed, reduced power).

Only by those who believe the laws of physics change suddenly at 25 mph. For those who don't, the aero advantage is the same at all speeds and the importance of this advantage depends on how one chooses to measure it (e.g., time saved, increased speed, reduced power).

You're splitting hairs here. Yes, the aerodynamics works the same regardless of speed (laws of physics), but the benefit of having more aerodynamic equipment on a bike starts to come into play in the mid 20 mph range. Below that the benefit is less (or not) significant, above that it is more (and can be much more) significant.

cdr

You're splitting hairs here. Yes, the aerodynamics works the same regardless of speed (laws of physics), but the benefit of having more aerodynamic equipment on a bike starts to come into play in the mid 20 mph range. Below that the benefit is less (or not) significant, above that it is more (and can be much more) significant.

What is your justification for saying the benefit starts in the mid 20's? I can show TT results where people would have improved many places through the use of such equipment even though their speeds were in the high teens. As you know time saved increases with decreasing speed but the time gaps remain more or less constant so it's easier for slower riders to move up through smart equipment choices than faster ones.

I ride my 303s all the time. I can understand riding cheap wheels in training and nice wheels in a race but not vice versa.

What is your justification for saying the benefit starts in the mid 20's? I can show TT results where people would have improved many places through the use of such equipment even though their speeds were in the high teens. As you know time saved increases with decreasing speed but the time gaps remain more or less constant so it's easier for slower riders to move up through smart equipment choices than faster ones.

is this what the thread is going to turn into?

I'm guessing cdr speaks from perceived effort to maintain speeds at 25mph.

Yes, you get a benefit, and the benefit goes roughly as the cube of velocity. What number of watts saved is significant? If you say 2W, then a rider TT-ing at 15mph should use carbon wheels. If you say 8W, then you need to be going 30mph for it to matter (i'm making these numbers up, but they scale roughly correctly).

The reason, as already pointed out, that more people don't run them is money. That's it. If I handed you a pair of Mavic open pro/ultegras, and a pair of 404s -- you and everyone else on the planet would most likely choose the Zipps. It comes down to how much each Watt is worth to you. That happens to be subjective, so....this thread is going nowhere.

The basis of my reasoning is that drafting becomes extremely significant in the mid 20 mph range (based on no wind otherwise). If the draft doesn't help, then air resistance is low enough that it isn't significant. Reducing air resistance, even in a less than optimal way, would help increase rider speed.

If the draft is not significant, then air resistance is not a factor, and therefore aerodynamic parts, even significant ones, won't help very much.

As far as TTs in the high teen mph speeds, by introducing a 15 mph headwind, it's easy to make the racer speed high (19+15 would be 34 mph wind speed). At that point, yes, aero equipment helps. So would drafting. But now you're talking about much higher speeds - given that, I could say that, well, my TriSpokes helped me ride up some bridge in Florida at 4 mph because we had a steady 50 mph headwind with gusts of 80 mph. But I wouldn't say that "at 4 mph my TriSpokes helped reduce my aero footprint".

Does that make sense?

cdr

Cool videos. right on man!

I glazed over your post, but thanks :)

cdr

Only by those who believe the laws of physics change suddenly at 25 mph. For those who don't, the aero advantage is the same at all speeds and the importance of this advantage depends on how one chooses to measure it (e.g., time saved, increased speed, reduced power).

You are right, the laws of aerodynamics don't suddenly change at 25mph, but you are wrong that the aero advantage is the same at all speeds. The higher the speed, the higher percentage of power output goes into losses from pushing air around. Therefore the advantage is greater at higher speeds.

Are their any advantages to training with a Carbon wheel?

Yes - if you have carbon race wheels and similarly set up carbon training wheels, then you don't have to worry about any handling differences when you put on your race wheels. There may be some tuning required to use carbon race wheels if your training wheels are not carbon, i.e. aluminum.

I should point out that I made a big effort to get (clincher) training wheels similar to my (tubular) race wheels. Since money was a big factor (I didn't want to spend $2500 on a pair of wheels) I waited for a year to two years before I finally got the wheels I wanted at the price I was willing to pay.

I made this big effort to get carbon training wheels because I found that I'd spend the first 30 minutes on my carbon race wheels getting used to them. They braked differently, handled differently, and basically threw me off enough that I felt that I wasn't smooth on them.

Since I do minimal warm ups for many of my races (200 meters warm up is typical in March and April), those 30 minutes of relearning, for example, how the brakes worked happened while I was in a field of racers. I didn't think this was the best way to get re-acclimated with my race wheels.

So I got a matching set of wheels (clinchers) and now I train on them. When I put my race wheels on, they no longer feel foreign to me. I don't have to worry about brake pad swaps (carbon rims typically require different brake pads), adjusting my derailleur (identical hubs), or adjusting my brakes (same rim width).

If I had aluminum brake surfaces but tall profile rims (45+ mm), I'd only get a FRONT wheel to train on. You'll get all the handling quirks with that front wheel but because your brake surfaces are the same, you don't need to get a rear wheel (unless you wanted one). I did this with my TriSpokes - I have a pair of tubular TriSpokes and one clincher front TriSpoke. Aero rear wheels only stabilize your bike, but there is a difference between aero and non-aero front wheels in how they turn and how they handle in gusty/unpredictable wind. You should be used to those quirks so that your race wheel doesn't feel weird.

cdr

Some people race with Carbon aero wheels (Deep V) and some don't. Are their any advantages to training with a Carbon wheel? why zipp's, Reynolds, HED etc.. when you can get a good set of easton EC90's or similar, thats way more bomb proof.

I know most of you will say they are way more aerodynamic. Then why aren't all riders using them?

I just re-read the original post and realized I didn't answer your question regarding training with deep dish wheels. In short, there isn't really an advantage to training with deep dish wheels. It is good to get used to riding them in cross winds, but thats the only reason I can think of to train on them.

You are right, the laws of aerodynamics don't suddenly change at 25mph, but you are wrong that the aero advantage is the same at all speeds. The higher the speed, the higher percentage of power output goes into losses from pushing air around. Therefore the advantage is greater at higher speeds.

That really depends on how you measure the advantage now doesn't it? You chose to measure it in terms of reduced absolute power. What if you had chosen to measure the advantage in terms or percentage reduction in aero drag or reduced time to cover a set distance? Run the numbers for yourself and you'll see that in the first case, the benefit is independent of speed and in the second, the benefit goes down as speed increases.

That really depends on how you measure the advantage now doesn't it? You chose to measure it in terms of reduced absolute power. What if you had chosen to measure the advantage in terms or percentage reduction in aero drag or reduced time to cover a set distance? Run the numbers for yourself and you'll see that in the first case, the benefit is independent of speed and in the second, the benefit goes down as speed increases.

yes, a rider only putting out 100W will see a greater benefit from 2W than a rider putting out 200W will see from a 3W gain. This translates into more time savings for the weaker rider.

The issue, however, is that for an individual riding his/her bike. FTP doesn't change if I'm putting out 100W or 200W, but my exertion does. If I'm going 15mph, at 150W and then I throw on the wheels and now I'm doing 15.1 at 150W then I'll save a bunch of time. If my FTP is 200W, though then 150W or 152W both feel "easy".

The same rider, going at his limit will see a greater benefit for higher speeds. The energy saved at sub-effort levels is not as helpful (physiologically and psychologically) as that saved when burying one's self.

The issue, however, is that for an individual riding his/her bike. FTP doesn't change if I'm putting out 100W or 200W, but my exertion does. If I'm going 15mph, at 150W and then I throw on the wheels and now I'm doing 15.1 at 150W then I'll save a bunch of time. If my FTP is 200W, though then 150W or 152W both feel "easy".

But why in the world would you ride at 150W if you're capable of 200W? It's always possible to ride slower, I thought we were talking about ways of getting faster riding at your potential. As you come dangerously close to saying, while the 150W rider will save a bunch of time, the 200W one will save considerably less.

And I don't understand how the same rider going at his limit under the same conditions could see different speeds.

But why in the world would you ride at 150W if you're capable of 200W? It's always possible to ride slower, I thought we were talking about ways of getting faster riding at your potential. As you come dangerously close to saying, while the 150W rider will save a bunch of time, the 200W one will save considerably less.

And I don't understand how the same rider going at his limit under the same conditions could see different speeds.

what?

I don't disagree with you. The slower rider will save more time.

I just want to be clear that your "delta wattage" with and without aero wheels is GREATER for faster speeds. The fact that the math for a set course gives greater time savings for a slower rider has no impact on a faster rider. The faster rider still gets the glory -- he just doesn't win by the same amount of time.

I think i figured out my answer from reading other posts.. Thanks all!!!

What i was looking for was
Q: why don't tour riders all use deep V carbon wheels.
A: Because it is more dangerous when riding in a peloton with crosswind.

This seems like the most logical reason for tour riders not all using deep V wheels.

Those were, still are, very fast wheels.

Yes indeed they were/are. And they were rugged enough to be an everyday wheel. Their only downside was weight, but the comfort and speed made up for it. If I had a set of todays modern carbon wheels, I dont think i'd take use them for anything other than races and special events where poser points count, like an organized century.

Spinergy hit it out of the park with the Rev-Xs. Even if they were rotating Ginzu knives of death. :lol:

Also not all "aero" wheels are equal. Zipps aren't that good compared to other aero wheels.

I think i figured out my answer from reading other posts.. Thanks all!!!

What i was looking for was
Q: why don't tour riders all use deep V carbon wheels.
A: Because it is more dangerous when riding in a peloton with crosswind.

This seems like the most logical reason for tour riders not all using deep V wheels.

Don't forget to factor in what wheel manufacturer sponsors the team.

Related question (I'm new to this aero stuff so humor me a bit).

As related above a deterrent to CF aero rims is expense, If I tried to offset that expense by running a Zipp or whatever brand front wheel and just kept my rear wheel high quality and light am I giving up too much of the aero benefit?

It seems to me that since the front wheel is the one that first "meets" the air that's where the majority of the benefit would be.

Like I said the aero stuff is new to me. I've been doing this a long time but I've always been of "the lighter (if you can ride it reliably, the better" school.


:beer:

Like I said the aero stuff is new to me. I've been doing this a long time but I've always been of "the lighter (if you can ride it reliably, the better" school.

You live in florida... You should drop out of that school.

Yeah the front wheel is much more important. If you have money for one wheel now get a front. You will probably see more advantage from an aerodynamic rear wheel than a light one.

I've been in that school longer than alot of people around here have been alive but I try to stay open-minded. I might be able to get a front wheel past the wife. :)


:beer:

Of course, you don't need either. I race the same wheels I train on too. 36 spokes with a boxish type rim. I'm too slow to ever win the money back too. The most cost effective way for me to use my limited winnings is on my track bike :)