Old 07-25-17 | 03:26 PM
  #36  
chaadster
Thread Killer
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 13,140
Likes: 2,162
From: Ann Arbor, MI

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada

Originally Posted by JohnJ80
Actually, if more, it's only slightly more. And if you go tubular alloy vs clincher carbon, it's pretty much the same.

For example:
HED Belgium tubular alloy rim, 20/24, DT Swiss 240s, Sapim CX-ray spokes, DT Swiss pro lock nipples: 1402g. Done in clincher Belgium + is 1462g. Both will be around $1000 give or take.

Enve SES 3.4 wheel set, 20/24, DT Swiss hubs. Clincher 1492g (i.e. heavier), Tubular 1372g (marginally lighter). $2900.

Enve SES 4.5 wheel set, 20/24, DT Swiss hubs. Clincher 1526g, Tubular 1328g. $2900


You're right, it depends on the motor but it also depends on much the "motor" is willing to spend in optimization. For me, I'm questioning the value proposition of 2-3X the cost for marginal benefits. I think there is a lot of marginal benefit in that $1900 difference.

J.
I'm not sure I totally follow what your saying, but if you're suggesting that paying 2x to 3x the cost of Belgiums for carbon aero section rims is of marginal benefit, I'd agree. My point, however, was that there are wheelsets, like the aforementioned AC Argents, which are both lighter and more aero than Belgium for the same money, a situation which makes the Belgium look like a poor choice for the rider in question. There are definitely riders for whom paying $2k for marginal gains is a sound, if not reasonable, proposition.
chaadster is offline  
Reply