Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - A question for aerospokkers

What exactly is the appeal?
I, personally, think that they make any and every bike I see them on look extra stupid.
Is it all aesthetics? Or are there any performance enhancements that make them worth the complete *****ery that they add to a bicycle?

Completely serious question.

Why?

They're heavy. I guess they're "aero" but i don't know if that would make any sort of difference.

Aesthetic appeal. To each their own. I don't run an Aerospoke anymore, switched to a Hed. 3 front.

^
Same type of thing though. So you like how it looks? That's it, right?

The higher end composite wheels are different than the aerospoke in terms of quailty.

Of course it's about aerodynamics. Nothing Else.

http://www.m-99.co.uk/Car_Bodykits/Honda_Civic/civic_stylex_rear_spoiler.jpg

weight isn't too big an issue on the track. at racing speed im sure they can be aero....but its old technology, kinda obsolete in terms of performance advantage, and is run primarily because some people actually do like the way they look.

before fixxed gear was a craze, messengers would or could buy an aerospoke on the cheap. they're easy to lock up quickly, (were) cheap, and even then, was different-looking, which people are often into.


i dont like em personaly....but the OP kinda works from the assumption that "aerospokes make a bike look ugly" so in that light, asking "so why do you run them?" is rhetorical. similar to asking someone "are you stupid or something?"

Stupid thread.

weight isn't too big an issue on the track. at racing speed im sure they can be aero....but its old technology, kinda obsolete in terms of performance advantage, and is run primarily because some people actually do like the way they look.

before fixxed gear was a craze, messengers would or could buy an aerospoke on the cheap. they're easy to lock up quickly, (were) cheap, and even then, was different-looking, which people are often into.


i dont like em personaly....but the OP kinda works from the assumption that "aerospokes make a bike look ugly" so in that light, asking "so why do you run them?" is rhetorical. similar to asking someone "are you stupid or something?"

weight makes a diff and the fact that aerospokes aren't known to be the most "rigid" composite wheels either.... they are super flexy imho.

Of course it's about aerodynamics. Nothing Else.

http://www.m-99.co.uk/Car_Bodykits/Honda_Civic/civic_stylex_rear_spoiler.jpg

:thumb:Because this car will ever go fast enough to require the added down force generated by the spoiler...perfect example.:thumb:

Dude the original Aeropok is done for. It's all about the wheelchair spoks now baby!!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wb8bAl1P-N0/SX36N1gR43I/AAAAAAAAF1I/R6FNQ8VHbSM/s1600/wheelchair%2Bwheel.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wb8bAl1P-N0/SX36N1gR43I/AAAAAAAAF1I/R6FNQ8VHbSM/s1600-h/wheelchair+wheel.jpg

Heds, Aerospokes, are a very old style of areodynamics. They were very popular in the 80's mid 90's. Beside looks, which I think ruin a bike as well, they do not increase speed or aerodynamics at all.

because people like them?

to me, they look good on the right bike. But if you don't get it right...it's ALL kinds of wrong.

Heds, Aerospokes, are a very old style of areodynamics. They were very popular in the 80's mid 90's. Beside looks, which I think ruin a bike as well, they do not increase speed or aerodynamics at all.

old tech?.... i guess that that's why people STILL use HEDs in the Tour..... i have YET to see a professional road/track rider use an arrospoke.....if that's an indication of anything.

dont increase speed or aerodynamics? .... u do realize that parts of bikes are wind tunnel tested when u start looking into higher end parts. A HED is asymmetrical in design like an aircraft wing unlike the 'spoke...

YES, i agree that most fg riders u see on the street with heds or spokes aren't riding at speeds which these aero advantages come into play, BUT one cannot deny that there is a BIG difference between heds and spokes...

I cant wait til Mavic iO's come in clinchers and are $300 LOL

Before selling them, I rodde mine for a year and a half. Great wheels I thought. They weren't heavy to me (even though they were heavy in comparision by a long shot, but I think a lot of the complaints about them being heavy come from riders who are much lighter than me where it will be a bit more noticeable - I'm 190lbs) because I thought of them as good weight training and they were very durable. I didn't do tricks on them I rode them in all weather except when it became really cold (you risk cracking them that way). I did a century tour with them and many rough road rides. There was a time I hat a huge pot hole and I thought the rear wheel was cracked. I checked it out and not even a slight wobble. I liked them for looks, butit was my shared goal in getting them foras durability as well, which I feel they were.


When I switched out the wheels for a newly built set, I immediately understood why many were saying they were flexy...they really are! I thought I had a new bike when I put spoked wheels on. The handling and overall feel of the bike stiffened up. I still like the way they look, but for performance I'd say look elsewhere. I bought them before there was this crazy price jump, but I wouldn't buy them again at the current market.

Here they were on a few bikes (along with their stages) I had (* I only had one pair, I would just switch them between bikes)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/493562129_e5786de6fc.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/615567139_a6e9a081c2.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2163545673_f511c83a9f.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1197/1234624814_f1c9487321.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1151/1403265625_d191498127.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2324059667_fcb89078ac.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/2378585012_69a6f8d9ed.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3022/2508454489_dccdabc0cb.jpg?v=0

^
Same type of thing though. So you like how it looks? That's it, right?

this is a dumb thread. you basically wanted someone to say that. you already knew what answer you were looking for, so why bother?:rolleyes:

old tech?.... i guess that that's why people STILL use HEDs in the Tour..... i have YET to see a professional road/track rider use an arrospoke.....if that's an indication of anything.

dont increase speed or aerodynamics? .... u do realize that parts of bikes are wind tunnel tested when u start looking into higher end parts. A HED is asymmetrical in design like an aircraft wing unlike the 'spoke...

YES, i agree that most fg riders u see on the street with heds or spokes aren't riding at speeds which these aero advantages come into play, BUT one cannot deny that there is a BIG difference between heds and spokes...

Seconded, people need to quit comparing heds to aerospokes. Just because they're both spokeless doesn't mean they're comparable.

this is a dumb thread. you basically wanted someone to say that. you already knew what answer you were looking for, so why bother?:rolleyes:

No, I actually wanted someone to tell me that they were useful beyond aesthetics.
I just wondered why people use them. That is all. I think they look dumb, others don't, but SOMEONE out there must have a valid reason for using them.

Gyeswho had a reasonable response. Thanks.

Heds, Aerospokes, are a very old style of areodynamics. They were very popular in the 80's mid 90's. Beside looks, which I think ruin a bike as well, they do not increase speed or aerodynamics at all.

This man speeks troof. I have one on my bike and the reason i like it is because the hub is so much better than the formula i previously had. I do go with the gimmicks of a heavy wheel and rolling weight etc though.

People were saying they are bombproof? Or were those the deep vs?

People were saying they are bombproof? Or were those the deep vs?

It's a velocity aerohead rim glued into a composite (really heavy plastic) wheel-base. So yes they're very strong. I saw a video of some kid breaking his going down a 4 set though.

I like them, I'd get a set at a reasonable price. I think they look sick, and as performance, I'd welcome the softer ride to counteract the stiff riding track frame.

I like all carbon spokes, they look trick, and with a "fixie" thats all that matters, right?

I like them, I'd get a set at a reasonable price. I think they look sick, and as performance, I'd welcome the softer ride to counteract the stiff riding track frame.

I like all carbon spokes, they look trick, and with a "fixie" thats all that matters, right?

wrong.

the last sentence was sarcasm

I'd still rock a set of 'spokes, they're ill

I showed up at a time trial with a borrowed Aerospoke on the rear (early 90s). I remember the timing guy saying, "Hey look! A wagon wheel!"

Embarrassed even before the start.

I showed up at a time trial with a borrowed Aerospoke on the rear (early 90s). I remember the timing guy saying, "Hey look! A wagon wheel!"

Embarrassed even before the start.

Was it this dude?

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2756/timer4mj.gif

aaa the timing guy just adds onto the double irony for time for timer......

old tech?.... i guess that that's why people STILL use HEDs in the Tour..... i have YET to see a professional road/track rider use an arrospoke.....if that's an indication of anything.

dont increase speed or aerodynamics? .... u do realize that parts of bikes are wind tunnel tested when u start looking into higher end parts. A HED is asymmetrical in design like an aircraft wing unlike the 'spoke...

YES, i agree that most fg riders u see on the street with heds or spokes aren't riding at speeds which these aero advantages come into play, BUT one cannot deny that there is a BIG difference between heds and spokes...


It's true that went testing a bike inside with machinery they try to get the bike aserodynamic as possible. Those results are fine and dandy on paper, but mean absoultely nothing during the real deal in an outside environment in actual races. The rider is the machine not the bike.

It's true that went testing a bike inside with machinery they try to get the bike aserodynamic as possible. Those results are fine and dandy on paper, but mean absoultely nothing during the real deal in an outside environment in actual races. The rider is the machine not the bike.


to your argument..... of course if u put me on a cervelo t-t bike with hed 3 and rear disc and i race against fabian cancellara on a walmart bike...i would put money that he'd STILL beat me....

but saying that parts dont mean anything in the real world is plain ignorant. one name. greg lemond. won the tour by 8 seconds LARGELY due to his aero helmet, time trial bars (arms in a closed position), and lack of dual disc wheels that fignon was using....AND not to mention that lemond was an amazing rider as well....

when riders are nearly on the same level when on the pro circuit, anyone who can make gain a .5% advantage due to aero wheels or tech WILL take that. that small percentage can equal 1 second a mile....and in a 50-60 mile time trial etc.....that MAKES A BIG difference.

It's true that went testing a bike inside with machinery they try to get the bike aserodynamic as possible. Those results are fine and dandy on paper, but mean absoultely nothing during the real deal in an outside environment in actual races. The rider is the machine not the bike.

Oh okay, let me throw on some noodle drops, box section wheels, and round tubing frames together for the time trials.

Oh okay, let me throw on some noodle drops, box section wheels, and round tubing frames together for the time trials.

Don't forget you rack, light and herring bone tweed coat!

It's true that went testing a bike inside with machinery they try to get the bike aserodynamic as possible. Those results are fine and dandy on paper, but mean absoultely nothing during the real deal in an outside environment in actual races. The rider is the machine not the bike.

The rider is the engine, the machine is still the machine. You get two riders of fairly equal skill together and it's the bike that will determine the winner.

If you are on the absolute top of your game, why would you use a sub-par bicycle? Yes, it makes no sense for someone who's packing an extra 20-30 lbs and cycling to get in better shape to be shaving ounces off his bike, but it makes perfect sense for someone in good physical shape and often racing to be concerned with weight savings and aerodynamics.

to the OP: YES, aerospokes are lame and only used for looks, even though people claim to use them for their aerodynamic advantage on public roads on their track bikes. just like a huge wing on the back of a FRONT wheel drive car... Is that enough reassurance for you? now close this damn thread.

Gyeswho I weigh 140 and I thought they were pretty heavy, to give you a comparison of weight to thoughts on Aerospokes.

i rock one because i guess i'm one of the few who thinks they look cool. do i think it's a bit steep in price? of course. do i realize there is absolutely no performance gain from them? yep. but bikes are my hobby and purely for enjoyment (and staying in shape i guess). plus they remind me of the good old days....i.e. skyway mags.

they look cool when I see people riding down the street, but look ugly in photographs or when not being ridden.

The rider is the engine, the machine is still the machine. You get two riders of fairly equal skill together and it's the bike that will determine the winner.

If you are on the absolute top of your game, why would you use a sub-par bicycle? Yes, it makes no sense for someone who's packing an extra 20-30 lbs and cycling to get in better shape to be shaving ounces off his bike, but it makes perfect sense for someone in good physical shape and often racing to be concerned with weight savings and aerodynamics.

There are some videos of Lance Armstrong working in a wind tunnel to configure not only the bike, but also Lance's position on the bike. After finding the most aero position, they try it on a real track for real life power output and then make the best of all compromises. Pretty informative, from a scientific perspective.

Oh and check out his wheels...

wind tunnel test (http://www.livestrong.com/lance-armstrong/video/5192-lance-wind-tunnel-nov/5192/)

i ride one because it is aerodynamic, light and hipsters hate them

it is aerodynamic

elle

oh

elle

Was it this dude?

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2756/timer4mj.gif


boy, I'm really hankerin' for hunk'a cheese.

i ride one because it is aerodynamic, light and hipsters hate them

opposite day!!

i ride one because it is NOT aerodynamic, NOT light and hipsters USE them

....

....

I'm trying to populate the forum with bad information!

Honestly, I ride one because it is aesthetically pleasing to me and I know it will hold up to some hard riding. It is heavier than most wheels and it really doesn't offer any performance advantages other than strength

I ride a lot (city not track) and I've never thought that the additional 300 grams was ruining my cycling experience. As most people have said it really just comes down to whether or not you like the look of them on your bike.

they look cool when I see people riding down the street, but look ugly in photographs or when not being ridden.

that is very true. pictures never do them justice but i also think they look great when rolling. just curious, are there any fake or knock off rims that look just like an aerospoke?

that is very true. pictures never do them justice but i also think they look great when rolling. just curious, are there any fake or knock off rims that look just like an aerospoke?

bmx mag wheels

:thumb:Because this car will ever go fast enough to require the added down force generated by the spoiler...perfect example.:thumb:
second to that. and a rear wing on a front-engined-front-wheel-drive car? the downforce will be useless and no added traction.
brilliant example. style first, function later.

second to that. and a rear wing on a front-engined-front-wheel-drive car? the downforce will be useless and no added traction.
brilliant example. style first, function later.

um is this your assumption? because keeping all 4 wheels on the ground is QUITE useful... plenty of racecars feature spoilers although being fwd...

Except that your average civic tuner isn't gonna put a splitter on their car, which is what a FWD really would benefit from. Not that they should ever be going fast enough to get benefit from it anyway.

As far as aerospokes go, they seem like the giant spoiler on that civic. Pointless unless you like the style.

Except that your average civic tuner isn't gonna put a splitter on their car, which is what a FWD really would benefit from. Not that they should ever be going fast enough to get benefit from it anyway.

As far as aerospokes go, they seem like the giant spoiler on that civic. Pointless unless you like the style.

with spoiler that big, you'll lost a bit of traction on the front wheel, which is no good because FWD cars are, well, front wheel driven.

okay, I'll stop the ricecar talk.

with spoiler that big, you'll lost a bit of traction on the front wheel, which is no good because FWD cars are, well, front wheel driven.

okay, I'll stop the ricecar talk.

You would have to have downforce in the 1000's of pounds to make a loss of traction on the front wheels.

FWD race cars use wings for the same reason RWD and AWD cars (and by cars I mean touring style not purpose built race vehicles such as CanAM/LeMans/F1/Etc) do, to counter rear aerodynamic lift.

Everyone honestly needs to shut up about the whole automotive aerodynamics stuff and read more before they can say ANYTHING.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/ Start reading here.