I saw that. My discount is better, even with sales tax. It's not a huge difference, but enough to cover the 11sp cassette I'll need to buy to finish out the upgrade. (already snagged a new Red 22 crankset on ebay for pennies)

do you guys see the benefits of deep carbon wheels vs shallow aluminum wheels very much? I may have the opportunity to dump my carbon tubulars, and just race on aluminum rims. perhaps in the future, I'll get a disc road bike, where the carbon rim won't get marred by the brake pads. right now, rim brake carbon wheels just don't seem very future proof.

Sure, when I am in the wind they do make a difference in speed from my perspective (non-scientific testing of course). But they won't make or break your racing. Personally I wouldn't dump carbon rims and only have aluminum hoops. Are there circumstances that make you want to get rid of your carbon? Need money? Need to downsize? Bad braking performance? Etc?

I'm in the process of going back to aluminum due to braking performance, with the exception of my TT bike. I'd go with carbon wheels with disc brakes if I won the lottery. ;)

I saw a good solution this weekend on the road. There was one of those hitch mounted "basket" things (sides are only a few inches tall) that had a fork mount on one end. Could still strap down the back through the frame or over the rear wheel somehow.

For me tall carbon (tubular) wheels have advantages in weight and aero over my short aluminum (clincher) wheels.

The aero benefit isn't trivial. If a tall aero wheel is worth 2 mph in a sprint and you sprint for 10 seconds you're looking at 30 feet gain in just the sprint. Although on paper a wheel may not be worth 2 mph, in certain situations aero wheels are worth a lot. So a pure headwind sprint, aero isn't worth much, plus tactics become very significant. In a cross tailwind sprint aero wheels are huge, plus tactics are usually "whoever goes earliest fastest wins". I love jumping relatively early with big wheels in those situations. In very rough tests I've found significant differences in top speed between various wheels. The fastest wheels were wheels I didn't like (my "favorite" wheels did poorly in my test), but I begrudgingly used them for probably 10 years because based on my experience they were really fast.

Currently I have various permutations of aero/weight wheels. Carbon tall tubular (light, aero), alum rim tall clincher (heavy, aero), alum short clincher (light, not aero), and carbon short tubular (light, not aero). My favorite set of wheels are my tallest carbon tubulars. I just tried a shallower front tubular and for this year, for the lower cornering speeds I'm seeing, I like it. I think if the short carbons were wide I'd use them second. Instead I use the short alum wheels if I'm not using the tall carbons. If I really screwed up and packed the wrong wheelbag or something then I'll use the tall alum faired heavy wheels. I basically hate them, although in coast down stuff they're significantly faster. In crits the extra weight works against however I ride and the weight really penalizes me. I make minor accelerations frequently to sit close to wheels and the heavy wheels exhaust me quickly.

Based on what I've seen of your clips I'd say go even taller in the rear for slightly more aero in sail conditions. Not sure how windy it gets in your races, nor how much downhill stuff you do, but once you start coasting on descents at 45 mph or so a tall front wheel gets really scary. A tall rear wheel gives you some more sail effect in optimal conditions.

I don't know how the pros do it on descents, for me a 60mm front wheel at 45 mph means I have to budget about 3 feet for unexpected lateral movement in light wind. On a non-aero front wheel I don't budget much room at all, maybe 6 inches, maybe a foot, and that's for massive gusts. I'd have a shallow front wheel if I thought I'd go over 45 mph on a descent. If the only time I hit 45 mph is in a now-that's-way-too-fast-for-me sprint then I'd use a tall front wheel.

Brake track stuff. I do not change brake pads from alum to carbon (since 2010 used 2 sets Koolstop black, on 1st set of Koolstop black/salmon). As far as I can tell there's zero brake track damage to my carbon wheels. To be fair I've trained more and more indoors so I brake more on my carbon wheels than my aluminum ones. Also I don't do massive descents on the carbons so not a lot of braking on them, just regular emergency stuff in a crit. I also keep my wheels pretty clean and my alum rims aren't shredding themselves from what I can tell.

In terms of brake track durability 2010 I started using Stinger 6s for races. I did a lot of races that year, plus I did I think one experiment training ride with the Stinger 6s. I used those wheels exclusively in races, except for the odd race here and there plus some Tues Night races where I tried the heavy aero wheels, until 2014. At that time both my Stinger 6s developed cracks, one spoke hole area, one tire bed area. Brake tracks are (still) fine.

Question for everbody. I am currently riding a Cervelo S5 and like it but just want to move to non aero road, was looking at Supersix evo or Caad 10 to go a little more budget friendly. If I go with a aluminium bike am I going to be majorly disappointed??I don't race much anymore if I do its just a occasional road race? Thanks

I'll echo that while you might get moved a bit by having a deep front, I haven't much issue keeping it within 6 inches in windy or high speed situations. I think it really depends on the shape of your rim. The newer tech seems to push you rather than turn the wheel which is awesome. Also Aki you're a smaller dude with a pretty unconventional geometry, think that could be affecting you more?

I can heartily recommend Jet 6s for all around everything except super duper long climbs if you're a weight weenie. And if you shed the wheels, you better have the lightest kit, shoes, helmet you can possibly have beforehand. The braking is superb. I'm not a fan of carbon braking.

Depending on which S5 you have, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised by the ride quality of modern aluminum (plenty of bad reviews of the older S5s right?). My Emonda ALR rides better than my Cervelo SLC.

That being said, if it's 54cm, let me know. I promised my wife a new frame once she upgraded and she got 4 more points over the weekend.

To add to that I'll say that my goal would be to have all my wheels be carbon rimmed wheels. I'd gladly sell off my Jets and Ardennes/Bastognes to get a set of carbon clinchers.

Ok thanks for the reply. And yes its a 54 its a 2013 model. Its a great fast bike but I just want something more traditional looking now that im not racing crits. If your interested in my bike let me know I can send you some pictures or info and make ya a deal.

I had problems with aero front wheels from the beginning. At first I had regular small bike front end geometry - shallow head tube (70-72 deg) which is great for wheel flop and puts the front wheel way out there. An aero front wheel bike will get steered by wind and speed - a shopping cart caster set up would be better in high wind/speed situations I think, which is why derny bikes have backward fork set ups.

Now with more normal geometry (73 deg HT, 43mm rake) I find it's still the same. The bike is long - wheelbase is something like 102 cm - so bike should be more stable.

I've experimented with different positions on the bike also. Forward and low (like Lemond/Hinault), back (Pantani), crouched (Taylor Phinney and now Sagan/Froome). I feel more stable forward and low but crouched is generally faster I think. For me it may not be that much faster because I'm so short that I'm not really taller forward and low, unlike a Taylor or Froome.

When I rode with another BF member in 2015 I had massive problems on some long, straight descents, with a 60 mm front. I think he too had some issues with stability (he had 50mm wheels I think) and asked me about it. I told him that I had the same issues.

Now it may be that I just don't know or am too scared. I know for mountain bike descents I'm more cautious than others (aka scared). On the road bike I've exceeded 65 mph on a box front wheel and Trispoke rear, a set up I specifically put on to optimize chasing back on after getting shelled. I felt okay in that situation although I never caught back on. But 50 mph with a Jet 6 front and truck passing me, scary. 55 mph with a DV46 front (46mm), with trucks passing me, even scarier. I don't think I've broken 50 mph since 2011 or so.

Sizzle, I don't think you'll be disappointed at all. I have two bikes, an Argon 18 Gallium Pro (my first full carbon bike) and a Caad 10. I mostly race the Caad, as it has a better geometry for crit racing than the Argon. From a ride quality perspective, they are very comparable. In fact, since I have them set up to fit the same, I hardly notice which one I'm on.

My only complaint about the Caad is that the TT is quite wide. I like to ride way behind the BB - set back post with saddle far back, and I find that I often rub the rear brake cable on my left leg. Of course, I have an older Caad 10 with external cable routing. The newer versions had internal routing and the rear brake cable exited behind the seatpost. That would have eliminated my issue.

That said, I still think my favorite aluminum frame was my 03 S-Works E5. I'd still be riding that had I not cracked it. That raises another point - modern aluminum frames are awesome and inexpensive, compared to carbon, but they are no more durable. Aluminum will dent, and some of the newer frames have super thin walls to keep the weight down, meaning it doesn't take much to dent them. And if you dent it good enough and in the right spot, the frame will crack. Once it cracks, it cannot be repaired. I've broken three frames over the years - Cannondale Six-13 and System 6 and that S-Works. None could be repaired. (The Cannondales broke at the junction of the carbon and aluminum.)

Thanks for all the info I've always like the cannondales but always thought I might be disappointed in the performance of the aluminum bikes coming from riding carbon. I want a cannondale but the supersix is out of my budget at this point. If anybody knows of a 54cm caad for sale let me know.

I saw one on the Paceline forums or Slowtwitch. It might have been both, actually.

Carbon wheels... Check out Fast Forward. Here is a link to their spiel on braking and technology. I own F3 and F4 (clincher) road wheels and a 5 spoke, front disc and rear disc (tubular) track wheels.

IMO, the braking on the F3 and F4 is comparable to aluminum. I rode the F4s locally in the mountains and in Tuscany. Braking is excellent even in heavy fog. I like the 45mm and 30mm versions for the road.

all of the above. I have chinese tubulars that I got for $500, and can sell them for around that much still, while they're still new. I only use them for racing, because they're tubular, have racing tires, and I don't want to train on them, at the risk of being SOL on the side of the road with a gashed tire. And it's not so easy to change tires on those. the basalt stuff they put on the rims don't brake very well. I'm worried about long descents, which are somewhat common around here. Sometimes, I have slight trouble stopping at some of the intersections just on alu rims. this is why I mentioned disc brakes, because that seems like the only way to go when it comes to carbon rims. why over engineer the rim surface when you can put a rotor in there that's replaceable and stops well? so my intent is to get rid of it, and in the future, get a disc brake bike as my main bike, once the public has warmed up to the disc rotors.

yea, they're still kind of new. but i think people will come around... eventually. right now, it's a matter of where the axle spacing will fall. I hope it stays at 135, and no go to the 142 thru axle stuff, which will invariably lead to 12 speed madness and beyond...

all valid points. I suppose one can't ask for much more than this, other than real world quantitative data, which to my knowledge, doesn't really exist. i mean they have the wind tunnel stuff, that demonstrate what you say, that at non zero yaw angles, the drag for deep section wheels decrease dramatically by ### grams. but then again, how significant is that in a draft? how many watts do you really save? 2mph is a little high imo. if people were 2mph in a sprint, everyone would have them.

for a $2+k wheelset, they had better stop my bike, and not only that.. cook my meals, feed my cat, and paint my front porch.

I suppose it's inherently flawed for me to ask the question based upon people's experience. an expensive wheel will feel faster. those who have expensive wheels will attempt to justify the decision. it's psychology. i think it's kind of hard to get a totally subjective opinion from all of this.

Riding nice carbon wheels vs low profile box rims feels about the same as switching between training and race tires. It's a marginal gain, you stack marginal gains one on top of each other and that's when you really start to notice things.

Regarding aero/carbon vs aluminum. This is by no means scientific, but I can share my recent experiences with both.

I bought a set of November RFSC58s (58mm) with a PT hub a few years ago. They were to 'replace' my Williams System 30s. I say 'replace' because I didn't get rid of the Williams, but it was obvious that I'd ride them a whole lot less. In reality, that turned out to be more true than I thought. I rode those carbon wheels for everything except a few really wet/rainy races/rides with some decent downhill sections. And to be honest, I only did that because everyone said carbon brakes like crap in the wet. I've ridden them in the rain and as long as you are sane and are thinking ahead, you can stop just fine in just about all circumstances. Sudden/unexpected braking in wet conditions are probably another story.

I eventually sold the Williams to replace them with a custom/home built set of Stans wheels with a PT hub. The intent was to use them primarily for CX, but also have them available if there is an issue with my carbon wheels and/or the conditions were really wet/rainy. Since I built them, they've only got used once when the PT hub bearings were shot in my carbon wheel. For what I was doing during that time, I didn't notice much of a difference. Heavy aluminum wheels aren't much different than slightly lighter deep carbon wheels when I'm climbing like a rock.

Since then I've used the Stans wheels a bit more. Reason is (as I've posted here) I'm currently waiting/hoping to get eTap for my main/race bike. To prepare for this, I've pieced together a decent SRAM 22 component set via ebay for my backup bike. Since this is a 10->11sp conversion, I need to convert at least one wheelset to 11sp. I decided to do my Stans set. Both wheelsets are PT hubs that can be converted to 11sp with a different freehub, but I left the carbon set alone since I wasn't sure when exactly when I'd get eTap.

Once I had the full SRAM Red/Force 22 set, I tore apart the backup bike and rebuilt it. I did a short shakedown ride and then decided 'why not take it to the Wednesday hammerfest?' If there's a ride that will show the difference between deep carbon and shallow aluminum, this is it. Central Illinois, winds, flat, fast. My fitness isn't where it usually is due to recently becoming a father, but I can still hang in the group long enough to compare drafting/sprinting/solo/etc efforts. Since this first Wednesday Hammerfest, I've ridden this bike exclusively. Solo rides, group rides, etc. So I have a decent amount of miles in on the Aluminum wheels to compare to the previous few months this year on carbon.

Rather than make this post longer than it already is, here's what I noticed to be different. Sustained (high) speed is more difficult with shallow wheels. (At least for me.) I've found that neither wheel set is faster in any considerable way except for during high speed (27+mph) tail/side wind sections. I think this is that 'sail' effect mentioned above.

I'd love to say the carbon wheels are way faster, but if I'm being honest, my fitness (and likely most of us here) isn't good enough to really tell the difference in most conditions. Braking performance will likely vary widely between rider/pads/wheels/conditions. I never have any problems with being blown around with a 58mm front wheel. I'm 160lbs/5'7" so somewhere in the fat to too fat range for cyclists, but still light enough to be blown around by the sustained 20+mph central Illinois winds.

I think that wheels are worth 2 mph in a sprint for sure. 38->40 mph? More when it's faster, like a downhill sprint. If you're doing 1000-1200w then you should be hitting 40 mph in sprints. If I jump at 1200w and hold 1000w in a sprint I'm just around 39-40 mph. At 40 mph aero wheels are worth something. Even 1 mph is 15 feet for a 10 second sprint. That's a huge, huge margin in a field sprint.

Consider also the situation. I know that in a headwind sprint my wheels are not very helpful. However in a cross-tailwind the wheels absolutely fly. Those numbers aren't measured in wind tunnel tests, but for me I feel like I'm on a motorized bike in cross-tailwinds. I use my wheels to move up in the easier parts of the course, the downhills (higher speeds = more benefit to aero wheels), and in cross-tailwinds.

You should go do some jumps and sprints. With a power meter you should be able to get some decent data. Try to find a place where there's a slight downhill followed by a flat bit, hopefully wind protected (around here that usually means shrouded by trees). The idea is you want to start your sprint at minimum 30-32 mph without having to work hard to get to that speed, sort of real world leadout.

I'd even say try faster leadouts. A fast leadout for me would be in the 35-38 mph if a slight downhill. This will bump up your sprint speed even faster, amplifying aero benefits. If you're sheltered at 38 mph you're going to easily hit 42 mph. In most of my sprints I spend probably 7-8 seconds, my peak power, accelerating up to about 37-39 mph. If I start at that speed I'd be able to go much faster because my initial punch wouldn't be to accelerate through 10-15 mph but instead to accelerate just, say, 4 mph.

I spent a bit more for my HED Stinger 7/9 but with tires I think I paid $1100 for the pair, used. I've used the tires for 2 seasons now, this is my third season. My Stinger 4 is a used wheel, $400? with tire. I don't remember the price.

A friend got PlanetX carbon tubulars. The brake tracks looked wrecked pretty quickly.

best racing tire: vittoria corsa cx? with latex inner tube?

i've read latex can save you 5W. that's a pretty sweet deal..

choice of tire is personal as there are some material trade-offs, but, yes, latex no matter what....tubular or tubes.

Here is a recent VeloNews comparison test.

FWIW, done with a Ksyrium which I assume is not wide at all.

they did a nice job, could've done better if they had kept all the inner tubes and widths consistent, and just go with a few experimental samples that outline the difference between 23/24 vs 25/26, and butyl and latex....

what's interesting to me is that the gp4000 has lower drag than the corsa cx, which is softer. I suppose the advantage of the corsa is better grip from the greater flex of the tire. and again, it would've nice if they had kept the width the same.