Originally Posted by
carpediemracing
Your analysis makes sense. I'm definitely a peaky kind of rider that has nothing below the anaerobic stuff. Therefore I rely on short, peak power to stay on wheels. I have to draft most of a race and only see the wind when I absolutely have to see it.
Because I'm not the one dictating the pace I have to respond and respond immediately. Therefore weight becomes an issue.
In addition I also have no headroom in terms of FTP so doing, say, 280w for 20 minutes will get me shelled every day of the week. Doing 200w, I can handle it, barely. 170-180w and I'm comfortable. I've done 175w average in a pretty fast race (
Tour of Somerville, Cat 2, 27.5 mph); obviously drafting was a major factor in my ability to hang in the race, and my lack of headroom is the reason why I waited to move up and ended up getting slowed down by a crash.
One thing I didn't emphasize but I should is that my lightest wheels also happen to be my most aero, generally speaking. The two sets of Stingers are lighter than any of my clinchers. I run a 75/90mm set of rims given the choice, even on windy days, because I absolutely believe in aero. The 60/60mm set are now my spares - I won't use them unless I have to. However I won't run the Jet 60/90mm because the 3 lbs penalty is just too much for me to overcome in a crit.
And in terms of handling I bought a Stinger 4 (45mm?) for windy days. I haven't even test ridden the thing, I haven't felt the need to use it. I'd want something 45mm or more shallow on a descent where I'll hit 50 mph in still air or 45 mph in gusty air (gusty = being passed by an 18 wheeler that's going 55-60 mph while I'm going 45, or something very gusty like that). For any ride where I'll hit wind like that on a descent like that I want the lowest height rim.
A three pound
difference in wheel weight?!?!?
Lordy, the difference in accelerating an extra three pounds of wheels has got to be a real-world 20W or more. And if your lightweight wheels are 75/90mm aero wheels...
What are those boat anchors made out of?
These wheels - the entire wheelset - are about 3.3 lbs. Realistic, real-world "climbing" wheels are only 200-300g lighter than those November Rails.
I wonder how light can you realistically go even if cost is no object? Reynolds RZR 46s are what? 950g for a wheelset? And they're pretty much one piece of CF without real hubs. That's got to be hard to beat. The lightest rims around are probably about 250g or more - lightweight CF tubulars. 250g for a set of hubs is probably about as light as you can go. That's 750g without spokes and nipples. 10-12g for nipples is absolute minimum, and if you can find 3g spokes and use only 36 of them for front and rear, that's another 110g. 870g or so seems to be about an optimistically low limit on wheel weight, and that would be 16/20 spokes with really lightweight rims, very light spokes, and alloy nipples. How robust would those be? Could you even get rims that light in 16/20 drillings - Enve's 25 tubulars only come in 24/28. Would rims that light even be safe with only 16 or 20 spokes?
And even if you get wheels like that, you saved only 600g over a set of November Rails, just to pick one of many newer aero wheels.
OK, yeah, the Reynolds RZR 46s are probably somewhat close to being as aero as the Rails, but they're what? $4000 real-world price? And since they've been around a few years, I'd bet they're not as aero as the newer offerings from Zipp, November, and a whole lot of other wheel makers today.
No wonder Mad Fiber went out of business.