Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
the point is if you’re balancing a wheel, it’s a pretty small aomount of weight. Look at your car wheels/tires. The combination of the wheel and tire on a car is ,20, pounds or more. The little lead balancing weights are a tiny fraction of that.
The nut and cap on your bike wheel are at least as large a percentage of the total wheel weight as the balancing weights on your car wheel.
if it actually made a difference, the cap and nut should be perceptible and they aren’t
The weight I needed to balance my wheels was almost 13g per wheel or almost 10 times the amount of the cap and nut weight.
I know from my weight finding exercise that the 1.5g of the cap and nut would indeed be enough to get the wheel out of balance enough for it to fall to the heavy spot, however, obviously not as drastically as before.
But I never made an argument that one could feel the difference even between 13g unbalanced and perfectly balanced - or that there is any significant amount of energy to be saved in the scheme of things - so the cap and nut obviously will not register. It is more about principle and the assumption that there could indeed be a reduction in system imbalance on high speed descents with no discernible downsides to something that is easy to modify.
Seeing the difference of a bouncy bike vs a smooth running wheel on the stand is the most significant impact one will actually see and feel. People spend so much time and money optimising their bikes to the highest degree in so many areas but a $3 and 15minute wheel balancing is too far out even though the small amount of weight added does not matter due to it's rotational energy being conserved and it's arguably one of the most important parts of the bike that can only benefit and not be harmed by a bit of optimisation?