streik

Hi everyone

I recently put a set of Shimano WH-R500 wheels on my black and red Colnago, and they look smoking hot on the bike. I know they're pretty low-end (on the road bike shimano scale) wheels, but they're brand new, with all the fancy stuff new wheels have (low spoke count, straight laced FW, bearings made from recycled spacecraft and whatnot...). Now after some riding, then switching back to my old campagnolo SR wheelset, then switching back again to the shimano wheels, I'm kinda confused.

Is it possible that the campy wheels still actually perform better than a modern wheelset after so many years? They feel like they roll so much nicer. The ride is much more precise and accurate than with the new wheels. I didn't repack the old wheels in a long time. Neither did the guy who owned them before.

Am i hallucinating because the campagnolo hubs are so nice to look at? Is their shiny blingy oldschoolness corrupting my brain? Anyone with similar experiences?

Thanks

Road Fan

"the magic of Campagnolo ..."

Just kidding! The fact is (IMO) there was nothing wrong with older wheel designs. Campy Super Record hubs had excellent bearings (yours could probably use an overhaul), loose bearings according to some are unmatched in free rolling, and they were the lightest thing available at least into the '70s. Granted rim weight is still more important than hub weight, but the bike is lighter. Older rims were lighter. Lighter rims were less rigid, but with the right number of butted stainless spokes tensioned well, those wheels became very durable and stable.

A lighter front wheel also has less moment of inertia around the steering axis - it should be easier to flick the bike.

Tire size could be in the story as well. My set of WH500s is on Mrs Road Fan's bike, a Cannondale Hybrid. They are a wide-ish rim running Maxxis 28c Detonators. Nice tire, almost as nice as a Conti 28 Gatorskin or the old GP3000, but very different from a 23 mm performance clincher or a 21 mm tubular, especially a fine vintage one. So tire behavior could be a factor, as well as width. But there's also a difference in diameter. The smaller (probably) tire on the original wheel has a smaller radius than the WH with a 28, if that's what it has. This results in less trail, and slightly faster steering response. It could be that the Colnago frame was developed and optimized for a smaller tire (tubular diameter about 670 mm versus 28c diameter around 680 mm, the difference in trail will be about 3 mm). The smaller tire also has higher tire pressure (105-110 psi), with less tire rub when the handlebars are turned.

So there are a number of small but real differences between the wheels, assuming you have old-style box section rims as well as the Super Record hubs.

One thing: Super Record hubs are usually not set up for more than 7-speeds with 126 mm OLD, though the mechanics of a change to 130 or down to 120 are not tricky. I think there were axle problems reported with many 7-speed hubs when people tried to go to 8-speed freewheels and 130 mm OLD axles, while they've proven to be robust in 6- and 7-speed setups. The WH550s are Shimano 9- or 10-speed and 130 mm OLD. I know from experience it takes a substantial pull to open up the rear triangle of some vintage Italian racing frames. How are you dealing with these differences when you swap out a wheel?

ldmataya 

Yes, what is the tire story. People sometimes tell me a certain frame is more comfortable than another and we determine the difference is tire pressure.

streik

My whr500 wheelset has a 7-speed cassette installed. No pullling exercises on that frame... I run the SR hubs with martano professional rims and some cheap vittoria tubulars. Many thanks for your answer, helped me understand a lot of things!

streik

The whr500 wheels run with Schwalbe stelvios, one of the nicest (and most expensive) tires i ever used. They are used though. I Thought i'd make this colnago my performance bike with all the best things i have lying around. Seems there's some C&V ghost haunting me, whispering "caaaampaagnooollooooooo...uuuuuuhhhuuuuuu" in my ears

miamijim

There're too many variables in play to make determination as to the why one may ride better than another.

Keep in mind that you comparing apples to oranges. A true comparison would be to be to compare the old Campy setup to modern Dura Ace wheels.

SJX426 

If that is a fair comparison then it says alot about Vintage Campy hubs! Not to mention the trickle down theory.

JunkYardBike

It's your Colnago telling you not to run Shimano wheels on it.

Road Fan

Campy hubs with Martano tubular rims were supplied for several performance bikes, California Masi probably first in my mind. In real general terms you're evaluating the absolute top of the 1970's market against the solid middle of 2010's market.

A 1980's Ferrari is still going to show it's excellent characteristics compared to say, today's Lexus sports sedan, at least in fairly intangible subjective characteristics.

Enjoy the experience. You can enhance it by springing for some of the better Vittoria tubulars, or even a pair by Dugast, Challenger, or FMB. At least two of them offer road silks. Consider it a $200 trip in a time machine!

Road Fan

It's really a topic needing it's own thread, but IMO comfort is based on correct fitting, frame characteristics, tire pressure and tire design. Specific items like saddle and handlebar choice are there, but we could lump those into fitting. If you modify one of these variables, comfort will change in some way. Within limits, softer tires are more comfortable than harder. But I don't think it's true that all bikes with "soft" tires are more comfortable than all bikes with "hard" tires.

Road Fan

I really believe it's not just the hubs. Rims, spokes, tires, perhaps even the build characteristics of the wheels.

Road Fan

yeah, stop aggravating that poor old Italian guy!!!

streik

Funny how the bike seemed to purr when I installed french simplex retrofriction shifters and Dura Ace 7400 brake levers... seems like it wants me to use the high-end vintage stuff