The slower cyclist will save more time over the same route from the aerodynamics. Watts at his same speed - a higher percentage perhaps if not more watts absolute. And a pound is a pound, slow rider or fast.

Either way, Drew Eckhardt has it right in this thread that rotational mass doesn't matter much. In a race, if you need six inches in a sudden charge, or need to stay inches close to wheel in front, yes. I can't say I've ever wanted that, not racing. He's also dead on that more aerodynamic wheels will improve speed, but not so much that you'd notice.

The efficiency of a standard traditional hub (inexpensive) is so high that gains from ceramic bearings and exotic materials is by definition trivial. Because of the availability of parts and ease of repair, I think I'd prefer something like a decent shimano hub to an exotic expensive one even at the same price.

I kind of agree that if the shop noted that OP's bike was anything but a high end race bike (forget about the comfort saddle type depictions, anything but top of the line racing) they'd know he would be disappointed in thousand dollar wheels. I can't fault the shop on this one.

It wouldn't be much different than climbing with the Zipp set and carrying a 1000 gram weight. The extra energy you put into heavier wheels to get them moving is still in the the wheels when you stop pedaling and they will coast that much longer unless you apply the brakes but on a continuous climb that shouldn't be an issue. The effect is just more noticeable when you are accelerating.

Take a look at this: https://www.training4cyclists.com/how...on-alpe-dhuez/ It didn't change much moving the weight from the wheels to the bike. He was 30 seconds faster, but he also put in slightly more power.

While not technically correct, it is accurate. Luckily silly roadies will argue the "advantages" to the death...

Ah-ha! But few cyclists would spring for the more expensive, lighter, wheels and then carry a 1,000 gram weight.

It's not like climbing on a road bike is all that difficult. You have minimal weight and never see a very steep hill. They just don't lay pavement over anything terribly steep except in rare cases. Roadies consider a ride "hilly" if it gains 100 feet per mile; hiking trails here are "average" when they gain 1,000 feet per mile. Mountain bikers aren't limited to the tame pavement, and most of them don't tell themselves they need $2,000 wheels to make it to the top. The last glacier I climbed started at a 30 degree angle and kicked up to about 55 degrees.

.....riiiiiiiigghhhhtt.... um...yeah.....


Can you link the trail, or path, you road? I'd love to look it up.

I think he meant hiking although it's not very clear

As soon as the mountain bikes start coming with 12-25 cassettes and standard double cranks I'll start thinking that comparison makes sense.

Just get on any glacier. It gets steeper with frozen waterfall.

Exactly. And I have quite a bit of experience with mountain bikes, living in a hilly town. Cheapo mountain bike wheelsets/tires can easily reach 5000 grams total weight. I had one of these on one of my first bikes. Switched to a sub-2000 gram wheelset with light tires, dropping weight close to 4 pounds. What a difference climbing made. I imagine road wheelsets might not be quite that different.