TP_Mantis

So I made a deal with myself, if i get down to 170lbs then i will get myself a new set of wheels. I am at 185 down from 195ish.

I am not asking this wheel or this, but more general. Should i go for the Super Light Wheels, Deep Dish or hybrid?

These will be my everyday wheels, i dont race so i dont need carbon.

Riding Style:
I will do 40-80 mile ride on the weekends and a few shorter ones during the week. I hate hills but I always seem to find them. Even thought my hatred for hills, i want to climb the local Mt here.

Average : 3.6 %
Length: 51.81 km
Height start: 783 m
Height top: 2784 m
Gradient: 1756 m
Maximum: 14.9 %

I do like the distance riding too and I do a couple centuries every year.

Thoughts?

merlinextraligh

This pretty much answers your question. If you're not going to carbon fiber rims, you're not going to get rims with a deep enough section to make much aerodynamic difference at an acceptable weight. So just get a moderately light wheel that will still be sturdy.

Now if you were willing to go Carbon Fiber, then the answer is that deep section (i.e. aerodynamic) trumps weight in almost every condition other than a pure hill climb time trial.

Seagull01

I would venture to say for you it will make little difference. Remember that ultra competitive cycling is a crazy world, where 5 or 10 watts is a lot - or at least enough to determine 1st and 2nd place.

Conventional wisdom is that light is better for climbing, deep/aero for speed - but as always I am sure there are all sorts of exceptions for various conditions, such as a strong side wind.

So I would split the difference. Aluminum semi deep rims, which will still be somewhat "light" although possibly not as light as wheels that cost more than my truck did new.

Then enjoy! As long as you are happy it matters not that Bike Forums says

sstorkel

I'd focus on weight, rather than aero... If you're not going to buy carbon, you're not going to get a very deep wheel no matter what you do. I have 27mm and 30mm deep aluminum wheelsets and they don't seem to provide much aero benefit. I suspect you'd need 40+mm depth which, Soul aside, puts you into carbon fiber. If you're not racing and you climb hills, you may find you get more wheel for your money by focusing on weight rather than aero.

bdcheung

Soul S4.0 is the a good compromise between light and aero.

veloboy971

Cosmic Carbone is the benefit of high profile carbon wheels, without the hassle of tubulars. They've got an alu braking surface, are clinchers, are sturdier than Zipps and can be used everyday, however still (relatively) light (most will say they aren't light, but they are light compared to some of the other alu/carbon wheels).

Gearhead65

I was in the same evaluation. Frankly, I'm an 18-20 mph ave rider when averaged over 40-60 miles. While I liked the 'aero' look, I was not going to benefit from the performance and would be taking a weight penalty.

I'm on the waiting list for a set of Soul S2.0SL's. Light clinchers.

Triguy

There is no "depth" necessary to be aero. Shimano's 24mm deep times actually test pretty well, on par with even some wheels deeper than 30mm. I don't know what kind of budget you are thinking but I've heard great reviews of Hed's 23mm wide rims and they are actually as aero as many wheels deeper with a 23mm tire. Tire choice can affect aerodynamics as much as wheel choice. Typically a wheel that is 19mm wide at the brake track is significantly less aero with a 23mm tire than a wheel that is 23mm wide at the brake track of the same depth.

All that aside, I would go for a set of Hed's C2 aluminum wheels. A little more aero, the wide rim bed has been reported to be more comfortable, corner better and they get overall good reviews.

ptle

Go with deep. Soul 4.0 are a good mix. Also Psimet with 30mm rims.

However you may want some good sturdy wheels if they're going to be your everyday wheels.

gregf83 

If you're not racing or competing it's not clear why you need new wheels. Why not just get ones that look the best with your bike.

kleinboogie

I've got 30mm RR1.2 rims and they definitely provide a benefit. I know this because on strong crosswinds I get pushed whereas on my boxy Mavic Equipes that doesn't happen. GL

Chris_F

How much do spokes (count and cross section) factor in to "aero"?

sbxx1985 

Psimet.

Homebrew01

For a .2 mph increase in average speed

TP_Mantis

Thanks for the input. I don't need new wheels. but I also didnt need a new bike. Technically none of you need your bike or wheels :-)
But working hard, its nice to have a reward for a goal.

I saw the Soul 4.0 but they are about 400g more than the 2.0SL. I will look a bit more into HED.

FlashBazbo

Unless appearance trumps performance, do some real research before investing in "aero" rims. Can you sustain 26 mph or higher running solo for an extended period of time? Only a tiny percentage of cyclists can. If your solo speed is similar to that of 99%+ of cyclists, "aero" wheels will offer no real benefit for you (except the poseur benefit, of course). You've got to be turning higher-than-enthusiast-level speeds before aero rims will have even that tiny 1st place vs. 2nd place benefit they claim. Light wheels benefit everyone. "Aero" wheels are for the already fast (and poseurs).

You will gain more weight AND aero advantage from losing the rest of your weight than you will gain from either set of wheels. The heaviest and least aero component, by far, on a bicycle, is the human body. Keep up the good work!

cc3chan

I suggest the new SRAM S30 clinchers, or for more money the Zipp 101 clinchers. Light and aero (purportedly more aero than Reynolds DV46). I'm deciding on which one to get in the mean time once the price and availability is better.

teterider

Well you didn't give budget, but if its big then how about the Reynolds Assault clinchers. At the price I've seen them such as PBK they hard hard to resist and you get light and aero. And they are everyday wheels.

gregf83 

Nothing wrong with that but as far as your selection criteria I think you should rate appearance first followed a distant second and third by aero and weight.

asgelle

Clearly you've never bothered to actually do the analysis. Run the numbers and you'll see that aero wheels provide the same benefit at all riding speeds while lower weight only helps under a fraction of riding conditions and hurts in many.

FlashBazbo

That may be the most complete BF non sequitur I've ever read. You are to be commended!

asgelle

I think that word you use does not mean what you think it means.

simonaway427

I personally went with Soul 3.0. A good comprimise between weight and aero (in my opinion).

Don't have them yet, I'm on the list.

Chris_F

Drag increases at the square of velocity so either wheels don't obey the laws of physics, or this isn't true. Will aero wheels reduce the same number of Watts lost to drag when I'm going 100mph as they do when I'm not moving? And are there conditions where heavy weight wheels are actually better than light weight wheels?