Yeah, I'm good with tools. I've built all 3 of my mountain bikes and my CX bike from a bare frame, built all 10 of my wheels from hubs/spokes/nipples/rims, etc.

My last question, given budgetary constraints:

I have friends selling wheels of various vintages, and some options from eBay. Some first-edition, paired spoke Bonty Aeolus, some Reynolds DV46s, some Easton EC90s. None of them are super aero, current generation, U-shaped rims.

Do you think any of those would give much to a modern, U-shaped open mold rim on DA or DT Swiss hubs? Leaning towards that option vs. used, old model wheels. Aero seems more important than weight, to me, if it's 100-150g difference.

I'm building this bike under $2500; aiming for 7kg or less. I'm small, and small bikes are light.

No. The old stuff is OK - not much difference. But sometimes older wheels have fatigued holes/nipples/spoke heads. Aero to a degree is more important than weight. 50mm are a sweet spot. The EC90s are good. We found deeper took more effort to control. I would not go deeper than around 50. Then, depending on roads and riding (pace, or solo, flats/hill/wind)you need the right mix.
Don't underestimate the physiological value of light. If it feels faster to you (light feels more than does aero) you will likely make it go faster.

One drawback of older wheels is that the freehubs are limited to ten speed. I got a nice set of Reynolds 66s cheap because the previous owner went to 11 speed. IMO, if you're going with Shimano, going with 11 speed is worth it; don't know about SRAM or Campy.

100-150g difference isn't much at all. However, weight does matter at some point - my 3+ lbs difference between my Jets and my Stinger 6s made me ditch the Jets for the local Tuesday Night Worlds on a 1k 3-corner flat course.

I think there's a small difference between the DV46 (raced/trained on them for a couple years) and the not-quite-U shaped Stingers (2010, before U shaped, but they are 28mm wide). However I don't have any power/objective data to back it up. I also have cognitive dissonance working against me as I replaced my DV46 clinchers and tubulars with 3 (and now 4.5) sets of wider HED wheels (Stinger 4 front, pair 6s, 7 front U shaped, 9 rear U shaped, Jet 6 front, Jet 9 rear, Bastogne/Ardennes). Therefore I'd be stupid if I concluded that the Stingers aren't better, therefore cognitive dissonance :)

I basically gave my DV46s to a teammate who just returned them as he's not racing anymore, and I got to use them twice in races, when I flatted my front wheel (Stinger 6 both times). The DV46 felt slow back to back with the Stinger 6 (not-U-shaped), but again, no data to back it up.

A sort of friend who tolerates my questions and who often worked with companies and pros in a wind tunnel doing bike data told me that technically a narrow wheel will be faster but you have to use a narrower tire, with all a narrow tire's disadvantages. The wide rims come into play when you want to use wider tires.

A few other points.

First, a tall wheel is faster in a cross/tailwind kind of situation, where it can sail. Shape isn't as critical. I don't use tall wheels for the headwinds, where everyone is going slow. I use them for the cross tailwind bits where I pick up noticeable speed. On windy courses tall wheels can make a big difference in top speed, and that's what concerns me. For a long time I favored my Specialized TriSpokes, aka HED3, and a rear disc wheel, especially in the really windy flat courses. In less windy but super technical courses I'd use my lightest wheels, not really aero (Zipp 340s), but super jumpy. I had Zipp 440s (58mm tall) but usually put the TriSpokes on instead. For road races, which I still did back then, I'd use a super light front non-aero (280g Campy rim or 330g FiR rim wheel) with a 440 rear (for the sail effect after I got shelled on whatever hill).

Second, the differences between an older narrow V shape wheel set and a newer U shape rim is not as much as a non-aero wheel to an aero wheel. If I was to try to do a bike for less money I'd use my DV46s. If I could I'd get a set of 66s and a whatever the 32mm tall front Reynolds wheel was called (KOM?). Short front wheel for courses where it's super windy or I'm descending fast, 66s for everything else. 66 rear is good for most everything, I'd even go taller if I could without gaining much weight.

Third, tires. I've only used 19 and 21 mm tires on narrow tubular rims. I don't know how they'd fare with a 23 or 25mm tire. I use 23mm tires with my Stingers, used 21mm initially with the 6s (first set I got). I think the 21mm are supposed to be faster than 23mm due to aero profile but they made me nervous in hard corners as the carbon stuck out so much.

Gotta go help Junior with his train tracks.

It's not a matter of whether you are good with tools, it's whether you can deal with the hassle, especially during crunch time in a race when you need to swap wheels quickly.

10/11 is a consideration with older wheels. Profile is another. My first set of carbon wheels were deep-v. Super fast but absolute hell in crosswinds at 50mm depth. All of my current wheels have a Firecrest shape, and are much easier to handle in a crosswind, and some are deeper. I am also small and pretty aero, and get blown around a lot. The new wheels still catch the crosswinds but it's a more gradual movement that gives you more time to react.

Good point. For ~$70/hub on some hubs (Easton EC90s, PowerTap), we bought new freewheels that were 11 speed, but others (Zipp 900) I could not find that option.

Freehub swaps are hit or miss. Do your research.

Just committed to buying an older set of Zipp 303 tubulars. I'm thinking about mounting a set of 25mm tires on them. Good/bad idea? Recommendations?

Good idea. For racing, hard to beat the durability and good performance of the Veloflex. FMB for a bit more money are not as durable, will not mount as well, and are better performance. If you don't race in rain - go silks.

303's are great wheels, a standard for cyclocross where 25mm tires would be narrow. Tubulars aren't the same as clinchers when it comes to matching tire width to rim width. I like Vittoria Corsa CX at $50 each, hard to beat. You can save $15 and go with the Corsa Elite. If you can spend more then the Veloflex Carbon and Continental Competition are nice upgrades.

Thanks, guys. Most of my experience is with clinchers where rim width vs. tire width is an issue. I'm getting these wheels cheap from a guy who maintains his stuff like Hermes. :)

I think you have me confused with [MENTION=46977]Cleave[/MENTION]. His stuff looks like new every time he rides it.

I have the, this is pretty funny, "older" technology i.e. narrower rims. What Zipp says is that one should match the tire width to the rim width. I run the 22 mm tires on my tubular rims and for the road conditions that seems to work. In selecting tires for racing, I go for the tubulars with latex tubes.

I use DZ Nuts. Seems to work fine for me.

I generally don't use any at all... but on longer ride 3+ hours I will opt for DZ Nutz as well ..just in case.

I've wanted to try it but it's pretty expensive for ass cream. I use Chamois Butt'r Euro Style, which is very similar to Assos (my previous go-to), and half the price of DZ Nutz. I have to use it for every ride (and I still end up with saddle sores on occasion), so my cost requirements may differ from yours.

Do you go to U of I?

If so, are you jerseys still white and bibs navy?

I designed those...

I don't. Used to work there. A few of the U of I guys show up to our rides every now and then.
I do think they're still using that kit. There's talk of a redesign.

Do they still have Wednesday Worlds like 15mi NE of town? 1mi x 1mi square circuit? Old man Stone still show up?

Just picked up a SRM spider for Hollowgrams with SRAM rings and PC V for $297, shipped. I have the arms, bolts, and spider installation tool, now I just have to track down an SRM specific 104mm axle and lockring.

One problem: I don't think it will mount on my bars. I got a smokin' deal on the Cervelo S5 bars before I found the SRM. Any ideas?

i'm an H3 fan, but the funny thing is that big wind is not where they do best. 404s, 808s, jet 6s/9s.....they all sail more at high yaw (but also stall at a point).

don't worry about weight. seriously. if the differences are 100-150g, that is nothing and is easily overcome with aero. of course, 150g here, 100g there adds up, but sacrificing aero in wheels in favor of weight is generally a bad call (unless a pure HC at >6%....or more).

all else equal, though, go light.


not going to question the value of belief in oneself/one's gear, but i can think of so many situations where no amount of belief in oneself overcomes an aero disadvantage.

i've got some SUPER light wheels i built up. they are great (uphill), but i'm not going to beat my clone riding 404s on most terrain...and that's with what would be considered an extreme weight difference for a whilst. i won't write more as this is pretty obvious for anyone who's done a test.

I know of no road cyclist riding the most aero stuff they can get. They give up aero for other things. Didn't we just do pages on this?

how long to carbon brake tracks tend to last? one of the reasons why I kind of look forward to disc brake road bikes, is because I don't have to worry about hard braking melting the resin in my carbon rims. the circuit race I did yesterday had some turns where you could smell the rubber every lap. it sucked.

You must not know that many road cyclists. :) "that they can get" is pretty ambiguous.

Anyway, the context is a wheel around 50, 60mm deep and duke asked about a 150g difference. You told him if it feels lighter the rider will make it go faster. I disagree in this and many cases.....including using the wheel we are talking about (~404) vs about as light a wheel as one can build. Go seek out the writings of poertner on the testing done for light v aero....including some blind testing. Based on what you are writing it doesn't sound like you did that from when it was brought up earlier.

I I was on the fence but am starting to believe what others are writing about trolling.

The TriSpokes sit in the basement now, mainly because of weight (they don't have carbon rims and all the fancy stuff the latest HEDs have, just the shape), but back in the day they were probably the fastest wheels. Doesn't help that it has the weird DA freehub body that's incompatible with all the other Shimano freehub bodies, so I can't change the body even to a fixed gear (there's a conversion kit for the rest of the Shimano hubs from that generation).

Zipp 340, 440, they wren't the same shapes as even the narrower 404. I actually still have a 404 (rebuilt to a front hub) and a couple 340s (one just a rim, one a rear wheel). The other wheels I had and tested for myself were Spinergys, the original Campy aero wheels (only had 16 spoke Ventos, not the 12 spoke Shamals), a prototype tapered? disk wheel (not lenticular, it was a straight line from the hub to the rim) with an ultra light rim, and then some non-aero wheels.

Nowadays, for weight and aero, I like the HED S7/S9 combo for virtually everything. I have a non-U shaped S4 front, used it just once until I flatted. I also have non-U shaped S6s but rarely use them, prefer the U shape for control up front and I want the tallest rear wheel I can deal with.

Goal is to replace my 23mm wide clinchers (Jet 6/9, Bastognes) with some 25-28mm wide clinchers, hopefully carbon. Then no more adjusting the brakes and also more consistent braking between training and racing.