Originally Posted by
Skewer
That sounds good, but do you have any aerodynamic studies/tests you can point to that support this statement? I have an open mind and like to see data, but I just haven't seen many tests. The 2008 Roues aerodynamic tests included the 16 paired spoke, 46mm deep Bontrager Race X Lite Carbon Aero wheel in their tests for aerodynamic drag. It absorbed 23.4 watts of power. There are two other wheels in the list of identical, or near identical, rim depth with
16 evenly spaced spokes---the Lew Racing Pro VT-1 at 46mm deep/16 spokes, and the Tune Olympic Gold at 45mm deep/16 spokes. The power absorbed by the Lew Racing Pro VT-1 is identical to the Bontrager, at 23.4 watts, and the power absorbed by the Tune Olympic Gold is slightly higher than the Bontrager at 24.1 watts. In addition, the Tune Olympic Gold uses the same DT Aerolite spokes that the Bontrager wheel uses. So from looking at a few data points from the Roues tests, I cannot see any demonstrable, aerodynamic penalty for paired spokes over an equal number of evenly spaced spokes. I welcome seeing more data to suggest otherwise.
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
Hed is putting his name on this new Bontrager/Hed paired spoke wheel below, and for what it is worth, (maybe worth something, maybe not), this wheel is marketed as "aerodynamics by Hed".
http://www.bontrager.com/Road/Wheelw...909_popup.0_AC
Interesting info. I can't remember where I read about paird turbulence, but it wasn't a study. It might be that the rim makes all the difference anyway. You'd really need to take the same rim profile and lace it both ways. This would be possible with Velocity, since they'll do custom drillings, but I'm not gonna pay for it
So if you take the aero argument out, it's a wash for performance, but there are still the implications of higher spoke tension on maintenance and what happens when you break a spoke.
My real point is that there's no advantage to pairing, and there are disadvantages, so why go to the trouble? I guess perceived obsolescence for marketing purposes?