It depends. Rotational mass figures into acceleration. But once up to speed, weight is weight.

Agreed and to elaborate.

There is NO ideal spoke tension. Instead think in terms of proper spoke tension as anything meeting 2 conditions.

1- high enough to ensure that it never reaches zero tension under conditions that slacken it. Plus some reserve for error.

2- low enough that it never reaches yield underthe most extreme loading. Less a reserve for error.

Within that range all tensions are functionally the same. One additional consideration is that fatigue life decreases as you cycle close to yield, so I try to max out at about 85% of yield.

Keep in mind, that working tensions will be in proportion to the cross section area, so thicker spokes will want more than thinner.

Here we go again. So how much extra power does rotational weight save over static weight?

EXACTLY double for weight at the tire's outermost diameter. EXACTLY no difference at the axle. Everything in between is on a sliding scale. Crapshoot rule of thumb for bike wheels, 1.85x.

To be clear, we're not talking about power, just inertia, so the issue is only meaningful for acceleration. Over the course of a long ride, most of which is at fairly constant speed, that 1.85x shrinks considerably. But heavier wheels do make a bike feel like crap.

Funny, I kind of like some heft on my wheels as I plod along mile upon mile of country road but if I had to endure the concrete jungles, a light wheel's acceleration might be nice.

Except when you turn. Or slow down, or accelerate again. In other words, actually riding your bicycle. Lighter wheels also mean better ride quality and handling by reducing what in the auto and motorcycle world is called "unsprung weight".

There's no doubt that if you're looking to start shaving weight, wheels are the first place to start and give you the most bang for your buck with regard to performance and handling.

Any bike frame can "asplode" if it's defective or you do something incredibly stupid with it.

For mountain biking, 1x is a marketing ploy.

If you're only taking steady-state power into consideration, not much. I gladly use my heavier wheels and tires on the trainer, for example.

But out on the road, where we accelerate and decelerate, turn and lean, and navigate over potentially uneven terrain, light wheels are faster, more nimble, and handle better than heavier ones.

Are we really debating this? It's kind of a fundamental truth - the exact opposite of a "myth".

fify.

You are not a cyclist unless you wear a $500 kit, and ride a $5000 kit as fast as you can.

IMO anyone of any age that pedals a 1, 2, 3, or 4 wheeled machine is cyclist, no matter the price of the machine or what they are wearing!!!!!
No use letting some self proclaimed egotist in a very tiny corner of cycling dictate what a "real" cyclist is!!!

0. Real cyclists only ride uprights

I agree with you that wheels should be the top priority when shaving weight. However, other than how it makes a bike feel faster, I dont believe that they make as much difference as many believe.

That said it brings up An irony of modern bikes. Wheels have seen the least weight reduction of all bike parts. And generally have gotten heavier.

Back in the Bronze Age, performance wheels were built using rims weighing LT 350 grams, as low as 260g, though I felt the sweet spot was nearer 300g. Spokes were typically 15/17g. Anything heavier was derided as a truck wheel. And yes, they held up fine.

When I started (loaded) touring I built a set of "bulletproof" wheels with 350g rims, and 36 14/17g spokes.

My racing wheels were GL330, 3x, 14/1532H with campy hubs but I would not call them bulletproof. The 36H GP4 were def beefy. Bulletproof touring wheels were Weinmann Concaves 40H/48H 4x, 14/15 on Phil solid axle bolt on hubs.

I have a set of 55mm 18H/24H carbon wheels that weigh 1400 grams and a new set of Zipp 303 Firecrests that also weigh 1400 grams. Both are light years more durable than my old GL330 wheels and probably only slightly heavier, I could climb up to the attic and measure

I just posted what I've heard here on bikeforums over the years.

Carbon fiber is much more likely to suffer catastrophic failure than steel or aluminum. That's not a myth, that's the truth.

A lot of people actually believe that. That's the main reason why they switch to thru axles, even though they never actually had a wheel come out of their drop outs.

Another myth ..... A $ 300 dollar helmet offers better protection than a $ 100 dollar helmet and helmets should be replaced every 3 years even if they've never been crashed.

Minimum insertion line is just a suggestion... :innocent:

Too bad we don't have an F1 Mechanical Engineer to give that some perspective.

I've had steel and aluminum parts break on my bike. My first carbon bike was in 1986 and have had 6 of them, none failed. So, your likelihood of failure does not mate up with my experience. Carbon parts do not fatigue and absent abuse should not fail in our lifetime

There is a chain lube better than NFS.

As Marvin Gaye Sang “People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear.”

Realistically, much less than 1.85x.

Myths >>>
Dutch IGH bikes can ONLY go for short flat miles.
SA Drum brakes are poor.
Rim brakes are NOT complicated and hard to set.
SA hubs are slow and inefficient.
Eyelets make a rim STRONGER. LOL hahahaha
Drop bars are more comfortable than swept COMFORT bars. LOL
Drop bars have more hand positions than swept comfort bars. LOL
"Flat" bars refers to ANYTHING. LOL
You can buy a good bike for $500. Anything more is a waste.
Rohloff14 hubs are TOO expensive. LOL
Defaileurs have thousands of iterations and levels, but they are NOT complicated and easy to adjust. hahahaha
=====
Yah CF DOES asplode in a collision.

A comment:

It's better for wheel durability that not only the spoke never goes to zero tension, but the spoke tension stays a considerable amount above zero tension. For a durable wheel, you don't want the rim going through a wide stress cycle. If it's going from almost zero to, say 60kgf, every rotation, that's a wide stress cycle that will shorten the life of the rim. It's also the reason why thinner spokes make a more durable wheel: the stress cycle is smaller.

Indy great to hear from you - hope you are progressing well

I used NFS on two bikes - lubricates well but the drivetrains were a mess ...

I don't understand this; can you explain it as if I'm a child?

That's a great article. So it's not that a stiffer rim doesnt make the wheel stiffer. It does. It's just that a stiffer rim actually causes more brake rub and hence feels like a flexi rim.

A lot of opinion in that list of non-myths. :thumb:

Are you serious? This has been debated and proven ridiculous every time it have been brought up. If the weight differences are within the normal range of +/- 500 grams the energy requirements are completely inconsequential.