Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

[Carbon Fiber] Would this bike scare you?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

[Carbon Fiber] Would this bike scare you?

Old 11-29-22, 04:38 PM
  #76  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
Were your statement true in the case of bicycle wheels, someone at R+D would be working on the steel, deep dish, aero rim even as I type this. They would be very fast downhill.
...and the marketing department would be trying to figure out how to walk back years of "lighter is better" propaganda.
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 11-29-22, 04:49 PM
  #77  
Koyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 6,558
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5969 Post(s)
Liked 9,034 Times in 3,907 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
Bicycling does not happen under laboratory conditions, there are uphills, and wind, and **** like that, which mean that on any given 112 mile ride, you will be compelled to bring those wheels up to speed more than a few times.
This.

For road riding on flat terrain, weight is no big deal. That's why I'm still happily riding 32h/3x alloy rims on my road bike. But I do a fair bit of gravel racing, which involves hills, changing terrain, etc -- i.e., LOTS of yo-yo'ing in the speed. So, when buying new race wheels for my gravel bike, I chose a 1410g wheelset with cf rims and lower spoke count.
Koyote is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 04:52 PM
  #78  
vespasianus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 621

Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 357 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times in 183 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
This is very misleading. The rolling weight argument is way overblown. Sure, less rolling weight will make you accelerate faster and therefore make you feel faster. However, once up to speed, weight is weight.
Another thing potentially to think about is your position on the bike and the clothing you wear, which can have a major aero impact.
vespasianus is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 05:07 PM
  #79  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote View Post
This.

For road riding on flat terrain, weight is no big deal. That's why I'm still happily riding 32h/3x alloy rims on my road bike. But I do a fair bit of gravel racing, which involves hills, changing terrain, etc -- i.e., LOTS of yo-yo'ing in the speed. So, when buying new race wheels for my gravel bike, I chose a 1410g wheelset with cf rims and lower spoke count.
What wheels did you get? Somewhere on my list of future upgrades for my gravel bike is new wheels.

My recent HT MTB purchase came with sub-1300g CF wheels (Stan's Podiums). I've been pretty impressed with them. It's too bad 29" tires are so heavy.
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 05:18 PM
  #80  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,226

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2747 Post(s)
Liked 4,816 Times in 1,935 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...the problem in me discussing this with most of the people here, is that they have never ridden on steel rims. The changes have been incremental, and a lot of the stuff you've read online about it has been comparisons between wheel sets with little tiny differences in weight. Thus it's not unusual at all for me to have people saying stuff like this to me.

Like I don't understand the physics or the numbers. I try not to personalize it, but it's very hurtful. Bicycling does not happen under laboratory conditions, there are uphills, and wind, and **** like that, which mean that on any given 112 mile ride, you will be compelled to bring those wheels up to speed more than a few times. Were your statement true in the case of bicycle wheels, someone at R+D would be working on the steel, deep dish, aero rim even as I type this. They would be very fast downhill.
Did you actually read the blog that you linked? Some excerpts:

Wheel inertia effects in all cases are so small that they are arguably insignificant.
Furthermore, the 0.3kg/0.66lb difference in wheels, even if this mass is out at the rim, is so small compared to your body mass that the differences in wheel inertia will be unperceivable. Any difference in acceleration due to bicycle wheels that is claimed by your riding buddies is primarily due to cognitive dissonance, or the placebo effect
In summary, wheels account for almost 10% of the total power required to race your bike and the dominant factor in wheel performance is aerodynamics. Wheel mass is a second order effect (nearly 10 times less significant) and wheel inertia is a third order effect (nearly 100 times less significant).
And, let's stick to the real world. No one competing in an Ironman is trying to decide between lightweight carbon wheels and a set of steel wheels, and they are not putting out massive accelerations in a race.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 11-29-22, 05:19 PM
  #81  
Koyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 6,558
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5969 Post(s)
Liked 9,034 Times in 3,907 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F View Post
What wheels did you get? Somewhere on my list of future upgrades for my gravel bike is new wheels.
These. They should be on the way soon, so no feedback for you.

I'm a bit old school, so when I got my gravel race bike, I had the shop build some alloy-rimmed 32h wheels for it, and they've been flawless. But I've thrashed them enough that I decided to get some dedicated race wheels. Still old school enough that I wanted hooked rims, though -- otherwise there are a bunch of great options for hookless rims.
Koyote is offline  
Likes For Koyote:
Old 11-29-22, 05:28 PM
  #82  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...while the forces we are discussing certainly are less than aerodynamics (probably by a factor of ten), that does not mean this statement you have just made is correct. Here is a long blog post about the subject. I'm not prepared or willing to argue it with you, because you give the impression that you are another true believer. I don't argue on Bike Forms with true believers, but I occasionally throw them a link. This is the same stuff that people argue endlessly, in road, about how wider tires are actually faster (even if they are heavier and run at lower pressures), and I realize that discussion of such topics simply wastes both your time and mine, You have misinterpreted some of the results coming out of the improvements with modern wheel aerodynamics as invalidating the established rotational weight dynamics, simply because they are a greater order of magnituce.

Fortunately, upgrading the wheels on an older bike to make it go faster is still OK advice, because the wheel upgrade will include both aspects. It's not a choice between one or the other.
Where are you coming up with this "true believers" stuff? My point was that reducing rotating weight only helps you on acceleration. Once up to speed, it doesn't matter where you reduce weight - whether it's the rims, the bike, the group set or the engine (rider).

As far as aero gains, what I said was that aero would be more important for a tri-bike. For someone like myself who rides an upright endurance bike and has shoulders like a sail, aero wheels would be of little value.
Lombard is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 05:29 PM
  #83  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote View Post
These. They should be on the way soon, so no feedback for you.

I'm a bit old school, so when I got my gravel race bike, I had the shop build some alloy-rimmed 32h wheels for it, and they've been flawless. But I've thrashed them enough that I decided to get some dedicated race wheels. Still old school enough that I wanted hooked rims, though -- otherwise there are a bunch of great options for hookless rims.
Those look like a solid choice!
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 11-29-22, 05:37 PM
  #84  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...the problem in me discussing this with most of the people here, is that they have never ridden on steel rims. The changes have been incremental, and a lot of the stuff you've read online about it has been comparisons between wheel sets with little tiny differences in weight. Thus it's not unusual at all for me to have people saying stuff like this to me.

Like I don't understand the physics or the numbers. I try not to personalize it, but it's very hurtful. Bicycling does not happen under laboratory conditions, there are uphills, and wind, and **** like that, which mean that on any given 112 mile ride, you will be compelled to bring those wheels up to speed more than a few times. Were your statement true in the case of bicycle wheels, someone at R+D would be working on the steel, deep dish, aero rim even as I type this. They would be very fast downhill.
This is laughable, really. Sounds like you enjoy playing the victim. There is a much bigger weight savings going from an old set of wheels with steel rims to modern alloy wheels in the 1600-1800g range than going from modern alloy wheels in the1600-1800g range to 1400g carbon wheels. I call false equivalency.

And wheels are not pizza. They are deep section rims, not deep dish rims.
Lombard is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 07:02 PM
  #85  
Pratt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 834
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked 330 Times in 205 Posts
Does the bike scare me?
No, not if you are riding it.
This question has come up before (more than once) and my answer is "If you have to ask..."
Pratt is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 10:17 PM
  #86  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 21,449

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 298 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24415 Post(s)
Liked 8,181 Times in 5,718 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
This is laughable, really. Sounds like you enjoy playing the victim. There is a much bigger weight savings going from an old set of wheels with steel rims to modern alloy wheels in the 1600-1800g range than going from modern alloy wheels in the1600-1800g range to 1400g carbon wheels. I call false equivalency.
...I am not a victim. Good luck in your quest to find one here. This statement was in response to a statement that it doesn't matter what wheels are made from. Once you get them up to speed, it's all the same. You seem to be looking for an argument, thus your non sequitur when I mentioned modern wheels and tires as the most bang for your buck. You're the one who immediately inserted the topic of "rolling weight", which term I have never heard before. Rotating weight is commonly discussed, so I asked if that was what you meant.

I don't know where you learned about this stuff, but you can call false equivalence, unfair advantage, or your mom. It won't change any of this conversation.

Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
And wheels are not pizza. They are deep section rims, not deep dish rims.
...says the guy who uses rolling weight to describe rotational mass. Go away, man.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 10:25 PM
  #87  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 21,449

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 298 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24415 Post(s)
Liked 8,181 Times in 5,718 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
Where are you coming up with this "true believers" stuff? My point was that reducing rotating weight only helps you on acceleration. Once up to speed, it doesn't matter where you reduce weight - whether it's the rims, the bike, the group set or the engine (rider).

....
...and mine is that in an average tri ride, you are going to be losing speed, then bringing your wheel back up to speed a number of times. The causes can be terrain, wind, traffic, or even rest stops. Bike riding is not an idealized wheel in a physics equation. You have proposed a steady state equation, where there are, in reality, many variables intruding on your argument. This is exactly what true believers do. They simplify arguments, possibly because it makes them feel better about themselves. I honestly do not know or care. Just stop already.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 11-29-22, 10:39 PM
  #88  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 21,449

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 298 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24415 Post(s)
Liked 8,181 Times in 5,718 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
Did you actually read the blog that you linked? Some excerpts:


...of course I read it. That is why I've been telling you stuff like, it really does matter how much your rims and tires weigh.
Aerodynamics is a greater improvement by a factor of maybe ten. But that doesn't mean all the stuff about rotational mass goes away.

I'm now faced with you and this Lombard guy (who probably isn't really a resident of Lombardy anyway) going back and forth, telling me that my proposing we go back to making wheels from steel is ridiculous, when that's the very reason I brought it up. It's been so long since you've had to think about rotational mass as something to consider, because this change in materials and weight (both in wheel rims and in tires) has been accomplished to the point where, in your world view, you can make ridiculous statements like:


Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
It doesn't matter what the wheels are made of. It takes very little extra power to keep a heavier set of wheels rotating at a given speed than a lighter set of wheels. That's physics.
and not expect any pushback. Because you have a limited experience with bicycle wheels, which has occurred in the modern era when changes were much less drastic. Then I simply state the obvious, that at the extreme, your claim would mean steel rims are fine on bikes, and the two of you have a hissy fit. Spare me. I don't know why I bother, so I'll stop bothering now.







Originally Posted by tomato coupe View Post
And, let's stick to the real world. No one competing in an Ironman is trying to decide between lightweight carbon wheels and a set of steel wheels, and they are not putting out massive accelerations in a race.


...your arguments here are not based on real world conditions. Nobody rides a bike 112 miles over varied terrain without slowing and accelerating a number of times.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 11-29-22, 11:18 PM
  #89  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,226

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2747 Post(s)
Liked 4,816 Times in 1,935 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...of course I read it. That is why I've been telling you stuff like, it really does matter how much your rims and tires weigh.
Aerodynamics is a greater improvement by a factor of maybe ten. But that doesn't mean all the stuff about rotational mass goes away.
You may have read the blog, but I don't think you understand it.
Wheel inertia effects in all cases are so small that they are arguably insignificant.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 11-30-22, 06:50 AM
  #90  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
This statement was in response to a statement that it doesn't matter what wheels are made from. Once you get them up to speed, it's all the same.
This is exactly what I was saying. You were the one trying to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
I don't know where you learned about this stuff, but you can call false equivalence, unfair advantage, or your mom.........
Oh, so now we're getting personal. Is this some sort of bait to get me to lash insults?

Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...says the guy who uses rolling weight to describe rotational mass. Go away, man.
I stand corrected on rotating weight. Now take a pill.
Lombard is offline  
Old 11-30-22, 06:58 AM
  #91  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...of course I read it. That is why I've been telling you stuff like, it really does matter how much your rims and tires weigh.
Aerodynamics is a greater improvement by a factor of maybe ten. But that doesn't mean all the stuff about rotational mass goes away.

I'm now faced with you and this Lombard guy (who probably isn't really a resident of Lombardy anyway) going back and forth, telling me that my proposing we go back to making wheels from steel is ridiculous, when that's the very reason I brought it up. It's been so long since you've had to think about rotational mass as something to consider, because this change in materials and weight (both in wheel rims and in tires) has been accomplished to the point where, in your world view, you can make ridiculous statements like:

and not expect any pushback. Because you have a limited experience with bicycle wheels, which has occurred in the modern era when changes were much less drastic. Then I simply state the obvious, that at the extreme, your claim would mean steel rims are fine on bikes, and the two of you have a hissy fit. Spare me. I don't know why I bother, so I'll stop bothering now.

...your arguments here are not based on real world conditions. Nobody rides a bike 112 miles over varied terrain without slowing and accelerating a number of times.
Lombard is offline  
Likes For Lombard:
Old 11-30-22, 10:45 AM
  #92  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 21,449

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 298 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24415 Post(s)
Liked 8,181 Times in 5,718 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
...good example of rolling weight and inertial mass. Kudos.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 11-30-22, 12:13 PM
  #93  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 996
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 676 Post(s)
Liked 787 Times in 383 Posts
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
Atlas Shrugged is online now  
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
Old 11-30-22, 12:21 PM
  #94  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like is bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
Fixed.
Lombard is offline  
Likes For Lombard:
Old 11-30-22, 12:38 PM
  #95  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
I would definitely be curious to see some accurate scientific data on that comparison. Lighter wheels/tires certainly feel easier/quicker to accelerate (to me), but I don't really notice a difference between empty and full bottles, or an extra pound on my ass.
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-30-22, 12:40 PM
  #96  
Trakhak
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 3,629
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1410 Post(s)
Liked 1,413 Times in 821 Posts
Originally Posted by Atlas Shrugged View Post
The usual mud-slinging fest aside, it would be interesting to see an actual study or accurate mathematical model on the effects of a 500-gram lighter wheelset acceleration from 0 to 30kph. Then run the same test with 500 gram weight placed on the bike. My guess the difference is negligible. This myth that weight at the wheels is somehow much more relevant seems like bs. That said the gyroscopic forces would be stronger giving the bike a different feel thus the perception it is slower.
Different feel: I had an incredibly light set of aluminum Hi-E wheels (with rims that consisted of sheets of aluminum folded over and riveted) fitted with very light tubular/sewup tires. They accelerated fast, all right, but they always felt as if they were too light to maintain momentum from one pedal stroke to the next. Might have been in my head, but I'd swear that I could feel my cadence was more uneven with those wheels.

Ondrej Sosenka set the human-powered (i.e., Merckx-style) hour record in 2005 using an unusually heavy bike and heavy wheels. Quoting from The UCI Hour Record: Ondrej Sosenka:

"In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it."
Trakhak is offline  
Old 11-30-22, 12:46 PM
  #97  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by Trakhak View Post
Different feel: I had an incredibly light set of aluminum Hi-E wheels (with rims that consisted of sheets of aluminum folded over and riveted) fitted with very light tubular/sewup tires. They accelerated fast, all right, but they always felt as if they were too light to maintain momentum from one pedal stroke to the next. Might have been in my head, but I'd swear that I could feel my cadence was more uneven with those wheels.

Ondrej Sosenka set the human-powered (i.e., Merckx-style) hour record in 2005 using an unusually heavy bike and heavy wheels. Quoting from The UCI Hour Record: Ondrej Sosenka:

"In his attempt, Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks, with his bike weighing a total of 9.8 kg. The reason for the heavy wheel was that although it was harder to get up to speed, it was easy to maintain it."
This matches up with my own experience with heavy aero wheels. Once they were up to speed (30+ mph), it felt like they were almost pulling me along - flywheel effect.
Eric F is offline  
Old 11-30-22, 12:46 PM
  #98  
Koyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 6,558
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5969 Post(s)
Liked 9,034 Times in 3,907 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F View Post
I would definitely be curious to see some accurate scientific data on that comparison. Lighter wheels/tires certainly feel easier/quicker to accelerate (to me), but I don't really notice a difference between empty and full bottles, or an extra pound on my ass.
There are several calculators like this one that allow you to quantify the effects of weight on speed, rolling time on a given course, etc...though they make no distinction between wheel weight vs static weight.

The posters who are arguing over the relevance of weight (and of different types of weight -- rotating vs static) are probably each correct, to some degree. The effects may be present, but small.

I don't see anyone arguing that bike weight (or wheel weight, more specifically) is more important than fitness and rider weight. But then, those are not mutually exclusive: when I was road racing many years ago, I did some big climbing events. I did have a relatively light set of race wheels, and I also dieted down to the low 160-lb range (lowest was 163 lbs) at 6'2" tall. I can't really say whether the low weight made me faster, because I got to that weight partly by training a lot -- which made me faster.
Koyote is offline  
Likes For Koyote:
Old 11-30-22, 12:51 PM
  #99  
Eric F
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 3,909

Bikes: 2019 Trek Procliber 9.9 SL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2017 Bear Big Rock 1, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2375 Post(s)
Liked 3,690 Times in 1,762 Posts
Originally Posted by Koyote View Post
There are several calculators like this one that allow you to quantify the effects of weight on speed, rolling time on a given course, etc...though they make no distinction between wheel weight vs static weight.

The posters who are arguing over the relevance of weight (and of different types of weight -- rotating vs static) are probably each correct, to some degree. The effects may be present, but small.

I don't see anyone arguing that bike weight (or wheel weight, more specifically) is more important than fitness and rider weight. But then, those are not mutually exclusive: when I was road racing many years ago, I did some big climbing events. I did have a relatively light set of race wheels, and I also dieted down to the low 160-lb range (lowest was 163 lbs) at 6'2" tall. I can't really say whether the low weight made me faster, because I got to that weight partly by training a lot -- which made me faster.
Similar to your experience, my best climbing performances were when I was my lightest, but it also coincided with more training, so I can't draw a specific conclusion. Probably some of both.
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 11-30-22, 01:05 PM
  #100  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 947

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked 482 Times in 330 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...good example of rolling weight and inertial mass. Kudos.
Now the question is would a reduction in rotational weight of its wheels have helped that train roll of the cliff sooner?
Lombard is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.