Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-21-14, 06:17 AM   #26
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes: '15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, '76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée
Posts: 7,963
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoota View Post
You can tell a noticeable difference between two sets of wheels that are 83g apart and about the same depth?!? I find that very surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homebrew01 View Post
Placebo is a wonderful thing.

101 look pretty expensive for an aluminum rim.
First of all, shape determines aero performance, not weight. Second, last I looked, the WS19 is a shallow v-shape with a flat spoke bed center at 22mm height, whereas the 101 is a 30mm toroidal shape. Different shapes, one designed to be light, another optimized for aero.

I also think the OP misquoted the 19s weight, which Williams listed at 1353gm, so to the extent that the OP can feel spin-up differences and perhaps other attributes of feel/ride quality, a 170gm weight difference would certainly be part of the reason for that.
chaadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 06:51 AM   #27
shoota 
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,244
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaadster View Post
First of all, shape determines aero performance, not weight. Second, last I looked, the WS19 is a shallow v-shape with a flat spoke bed center at 22mm height, whereas the 101 is a 30mm toroidal shape. Different shapes, one designed to be light, another optimized for aero.

I also think the OP misquoted the 19s weight, which Williams listed at 1353gm, so to the extent that the OP can feel spin-up differences and perhaps other attributes of feel/ride quality, a 170gm weight difference would certainly be part of the reason for that.
First of all, where did I say weight determined aero performance? I still think there's a little placebo effect going on here.
__________________
1987 Trek 560
1989 Cannondale ST400
2005 Cannondale six13 frameset
2010 Cannondale CAAD8 Cyclocross 6
2013 Cannondale CAAD10
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
shoota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 07:12 AM   #28
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Bikes: '15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, '76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée
Posts: 7,963
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoota View Post
First of all, where did I say weight determined aero performance? I still think there's a little placebo effect going on here.
You didn't say that, and I didn't say you did. What you did suggest was that there was no discernible difference between wheel sets weighing nearly the same and of roughly the same depth, which totally ignores the single, most important factor in aero performance, rim shape.

Further, discernible differences between wheel sets can be felt (by riders paying attention, anyway) for reasons other than weight and rim depth, which you also ignored, e.g. hub characteristics like flange spacing, flange height, bearing placement, rim design, rim material, spoke type, lacing pattern, etc.

I'm not necessarily saying that any one of those features will definitely make the wheel feel different (although rim and spoke features can be profound), because that depends on not only build factors but how the wheel is ridden. Heavy, aggressive riders will elicit different responses from wheels than light, less powerful riders, for instance.

Of course, you're free to ignore all that and think what you want, too.
chaadster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 07:23 AM   #29
shoota 
Senior Member
 
shoota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Bikes:
Posts: 4,244
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Ok I can get on board with that.
__________________
1987 Trek 560
1989 Cannondale ST400
2005 Cannondale six13 frameset
2010 Cannondale CAAD8 Cyclocross 6
2013 Cannondale CAAD10
2014 Cannondale SuperSix EVO 2
shoota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 07:35 AM   #30
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,474
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaadster View Post
What do you mean? What does "essentially the same aerodynamically" mean? What does Zipp say?

I looked at the 101 (now 30C) before I bought my last set of wheels, and I believe the 101s are not Zipp's premier Firecrest rim profile. The Zipp site says only the 202,303,404 and 808 use the Firecrest, which is "more aerodynamic than any other rim design." What that means, exactly, is unclear in terms of aero efficiency, but I'd be surprised if Zipp means the 101 and 202 are "essentially the same aerodynamically," but perhaps you have some other insight?

Also, the 202 is wider overall, bead to bead, and 2mm deeper than 101, so if rim shape affects aero performance, well, there's some reason to expect difference between those two.
Essentially the same aerodynamically means zipp claims their drag is within a watt of one another http://www.zipp.com/media/pdfs/zipp_...e_flyer_11.pdf.

You can get the same aero performance as the 101,202 from Flo's 30mm aluminum clincher for less than $600.
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 07:43 AM   #31
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Bikes:
Posts: 7,474
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaadster View Post
First of all, shape determines aero performance, not weight. Second, last I looked, the WS19 is a shallow v-shape with a flat spoke bed center at 22mm height, whereas the 101 is a 30mm toroidal shape. Different shapes, one designed to be light, another optimized for aero.

I also think the OP misquoted the 19s weight, which Williams listed at 1353gm, so to the extent that the OP can feel spin-up differences and perhaps other attributes of feel/ride quality, a 170gm weight difference would certainly be part of the reason for that.
Have you ever 'spun up' a wheel with your little finger from 0 to 30mph? It takes very little power, so for the OP to claim one wheel vs another was 'definitely' faster to spin up is most likely due to placebo. You might feel some difference between wheels but it's unlikely to be related to speed. Same applies to aero effects. The 13W difference (@30mph) zipp measured between 101s and a standard alum clincher requires very careful measurements in a controlled setting. It's much more difficult to measure a difference, let alone 'feel' a difference in the real world with changing wind, cars driving by etc.
gregf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 08:36 AM   #32
Homebrew01
Super Moderator
 
Homebrew01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Posts: 20,039
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
Have you ever 'spun up' a wheel with your little finger from 0 to 30mph? It takes very little power, so for the OP to claim one wheel vs another was 'definitely' faster to spin up is most likely due to placebo. You might feel some difference between wheels but it's unlikely to be related to speed. Same applies to aero effects. The 13W difference (@30mph) zipp measured between 101s and a standard alum clincher requires very careful measurements in a controlled setting. It's much more difficult to measure a difference, let alone 'feel' a difference in the real world with changing wind, cars driving by etc.
Yup, I can't tell any difference between my various aluminum rims. Any difference is probably due to different tires and/or pressure. I can only tell a difference when switching to my carbon race tubulars. Even then it's not huge.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike
Homebrew01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 10:00 AM   #33
w0lffian
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My williams 19's are an older set with bladed spokes thus the slightly heavier weight.

the 101 rims are slightly different ie. curved braking surface, than the newer 30's

Zipp is vague (jeez what a shocker) about what constitutes "firecrest" but I would think

it's the combination of shape, material as well as the dimples.. so I can buy there IS a

difference in earodynamics and they didn't 'dimple' the aluminum.

I'm not going to argue the legitamacy of the ablility of a rider to detect diffrences in

weight, quaility, aeroness, or spinup..

As for the ability to "detect or dicerne" a diffence in equipment..

it's not for me to say you should feel a difference any more than it is for you to say someone shouldn't

the difference it noticable for me. and I'm past the "placebo phase" of these wheels

It's nothing new to hear riders say they can or can't tell the difference between tires, wheels,

and even bikes.. each to the consternation of the other

I wouldn't have paid ful price for the 101's and I didn't pay near that..

and I would never pay near retail for 202's either.. Just wondering if I was missing out

I'm glad to hear with similar bikes that the difference "can" be neglible..

I'm certainly not a watt monster, but at my wieght, I don't need to be.

I think all these little equipment issues become alittle more significant to a lighter rider
w0lffian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 11:42 AM   #34
Darth Steele
Senior Member
 
Darth Steele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Bikes: 2013 SuperSix Ultegra
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoota View Post
You can tell a noticeable difference between two sets of wheels that are 83g apart and about the same depth?!? I find that very surprising.


Maybe he is a CAT 1 and getting his bike ready for the TDF? He could be planning some break-aways in the mountains to drop Chris Froome ..every gram counts
Darth Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 11:43 AM   #35
Darth Steele
Senior Member
 
Darth Steele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Bikes: 2013 SuperSix Ultegra
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I really really don't understand why do wheel cost that much. As for weekend warriors (like myself) you will not see any noticeable performance gains. Yes, your bike will look better.
Darth Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-14, 11:45 AM   #36
Darth Steele
Senior Member
 
Darth Steele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Bikes: 2013 SuperSix Ultegra
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I really really don't understand why do wheel cost that much. As for weekend warriors (like myself) you will not see any noticeable performance gains. Yes, your bike will look better.


go with the 404s
Darth Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:41 AM.