Best climbing wheels?
07-27-13, 11:52 AM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Reynolds Thirty-Two would be my favorite! They aren't cheap, but worth every penny IMO.
I bought a set for races that have a lot of climbing, liked them so much that I've done all my races this year on them. My 404's haven't gotten any use since buying them.
I bought a set for races that have a lot of climbing, liked them so much that I've done all my races this year on them. My 404's haven't gotten any use since buying them.
07-27-13, 12:03 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: ?
Posts: 2,300
Bikes: i may have bike(s)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
jsut: That is ridiculous. You are a beast on the bike and you ride that crap wheel...
chapeau!
chapeau!
07-27-13, 01:00 PM
#53
Senior Member
Less weight won't make you any better at climbing. Your skill and fitness are completely independent of you equipment.
07-27-13, 03:22 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 693
Bikes: CAAD 10, Cervelo P2 SL, Focus RG-700, Quintana Roo #101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks robabeatle!
07-27-13, 04:12 PM
#55
An Average Joe
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 646
Bikes: '13 Orbea Orca
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would say try what the tour riders are using to get better pedal power through a osymetric chainring which supposedly helps with climbs. Not sure yet myself but would love to try this out to see what the hype is. Wheels...........yes I understand what you mean by much stiff so it does not flex too much laterally but if your not a strong climber (just average) then the wheel upgrade will not make a huge difference.
Reminds me of golf (cycling that is)................You can take a $150 set of clubs from K-Mart and put them in the hands of a Tiger Woods and he will still simply out play you with a $2000 set of clubs custom fit to just you and your a maybe 10 handicap or less. Just what it is............but if you have the bottom of the bottom wheels I could see a upgrade for other reasons.
Good Luck!
Reminds me of golf (cycling that is)................You can take a $150 set of clubs from K-Mart and put them in the hands of a Tiger Woods and he will still simply out play you with a $2000 set of clubs custom fit to just you and your a maybe 10 handicap or less. Just what it is............but if you have the bottom of the bottom wheels I could see a upgrade for other reasons.
Good Luck!
07-27-13, 04:21 PM
#56
Rubber side down
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Teh Quickie Mart
Posts: 1,769
Bikes: are fun! :-)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 225 Times
in
105 Posts
I have actually been planning something like this "What makes a good climbing wheel" as a blog entry. . .maybe now I'll have to write it.
We get the question all the time, and people think that basically going to a lighter wheel will make for better climbing. But there's a lot of other factors. Climbing means you are usually in one of your easiest gears, and when you do that you are putting the most amount of torque on the rear wheel (when you are in the biggest gears the torque is going to your chainrings). Radial spokes can not transfer torque, a spoke has to leave the hub in a backwards direction to "pull" the rim around. So, for a good climbing wheel I would make sure you have crossed spokes on both sides of the rear wheel. Some wheels do 2X on ds and radial nds. But the nds accounts for about 15% of the torque going to the rim, so by double crossing both sides you are making for a much better responding wheel.
The lateral stresses will also be a lot more when climbing. So a very laterally stiff wheel is important. This is where you may start adding a bit of weight, but it's worth it. If you have a crazy light but weak rim that is flexing all over the place, it's not going to be fast. There are lots of options for rims that are in the low 200 gram and below range but going up a hill they feel like a wet noodle. Adding some strength and a little bit of weight will technically make you slower (if you put out the same wattage on an hour long climb you may be slower by 0.5-1.0 seconds). This is also where having a decent spoke count for your weight is beneficial, extra spokes adds extra weight, but it also adds strength and durability. Wide flange spacing on the hubs is key for this as well as that helps a ton to increase lateral stiffness.
What goes up must come down and also on the flats (most of the time). The first time I did the Assault on Mt. Mitchell I was using a set of 1000 gram 20mm deep carbon tubulars. The first 75 miles of this event are fairly flat to rolling and the last 27 miles climb. When we were at speeds I found I was having to do so much extra work that by the time we got to the climbing I had expended a lot more energy. I felt great climbing but bonked before the finish. On the flat to rolling I was having to pedal a lot more than usual and when I did stop pedaling I lost the wheel in front of me much quicker. The next year I went to a slightly heavier, but more aero, stiffer, stronger wheel. The first section felt much better and I was able to climb much faster even though I was on a heavier wheel. I still bonked but 27 miles of climbing will do that (and I didn't eat enough). Nowadays for almost all of my hilly races I go with semi aero because the vast majority of time you are not climbing, it's a lot of flat to rolling stuff in between the climbs.
The exceptions are pure uphill time trials, but even then when you add 100-150 grams it's the difference of a couple seconds for an hour long climb. An empty water bottle weighs about 95 grams, and none of us can notice that vs. no water bottle when climbing.
We get the question all the time, and people think that basically going to a lighter wheel will make for better climbing. But there's a lot of other factors. Climbing means you are usually in one of your easiest gears, and when you do that you are putting the most amount of torque on the rear wheel (when you are in the biggest gears the torque is going to your chainrings). Radial spokes can not transfer torque, a spoke has to leave the hub in a backwards direction to "pull" the rim around. So, for a good climbing wheel I would make sure you have crossed spokes on both sides of the rear wheel. Some wheels do 2X on ds and radial nds. But the nds accounts for about 15% of the torque going to the rim, so by double crossing both sides you are making for a much better responding wheel.
The lateral stresses will also be a lot more when climbing. So a very laterally stiff wheel is important. This is where you may start adding a bit of weight, but it's worth it. If you have a crazy light but weak rim that is flexing all over the place, it's not going to be fast. There are lots of options for rims that are in the low 200 gram and below range but going up a hill they feel like a wet noodle. Adding some strength and a little bit of weight will technically make you slower (if you put out the same wattage on an hour long climb you may be slower by 0.5-1.0 seconds). This is also where having a decent spoke count for your weight is beneficial, extra spokes adds extra weight, but it also adds strength and durability. Wide flange spacing on the hubs is key for this as well as that helps a ton to increase lateral stiffness.
What goes up must come down and also on the flats (most of the time). The first time I did the Assault on Mt. Mitchell I was using a set of 1000 gram 20mm deep carbon tubulars. The first 75 miles of this event are fairly flat to rolling and the last 27 miles climb. When we were at speeds I found I was having to do so much extra work that by the time we got to the climbing I had expended a lot more energy. I felt great climbing but bonked before the finish. On the flat to rolling I was having to pedal a lot more than usual and when I did stop pedaling I lost the wheel in front of me much quicker. The next year I went to a slightly heavier, but more aero, stiffer, stronger wheel. The first section felt much better and I was able to climb much faster even though I was on a heavier wheel. I still bonked but 27 miles of climbing will do that (and I didn't eat enough). Nowadays for almost all of my hilly races I go with semi aero because the vast majority of time you are not climbing, it's a lot of flat to rolling stuff in between the climbs.
The exceptions are pure uphill time trials, but even then when you add 100-150 grams it's the difference of a couple seconds for an hour long climb. An empty water bottle weighs about 95 grams, and none of us can notice that vs. no water bottle when climbing.
07-27-13, 05:13 PM
#57
Falls Downalot
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 3,103
Bikes: Now I Got Two
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So, Coachboyd...based on your analysis/comments below, is it safe to assume that (properly built) lightweight carbon "semi-aero" wheels are the best of both worlds for someone who wants a "do everything" wheelset, especially for someone who doesn't race?
I have actually been planning something like this "What makes a good climbing wheel" as a blog entry. . .maybe now I'll have to write it.
We get the question all the time, and people think that basically going to a lighter wheel will make for better climbing. But there's a lot of other factors. Climbing means you are usually in one of your easiest gears, and when you do that you are putting the most amount of torque on the rear wheel (when you are in the biggest gears the torque is going to your chainrings). Radial spokes can not transfer torque, a spoke has to leave the hub in a backwards direction to "pull" the rim around. So, for a good climbing wheel I would make sure you have crossed spokes on both sides of the rear wheel. Some wheels do 2X on ds and radial nds. But the nds accounts for about 15% of the torque going to the rim, so by double crossing both sides you are making for a much better responding wheel.
The lateral stresses will also be a lot more when climbing. So a very laterally stiff wheel is important. This is where you may start adding a bit of weight, but it's worth it. If you have a crazy light but weak rim that is flexing all over the place, it's not going to be fast. There are lots of options for rims that are in the low 200 gram and below range but going up a hill they feel like a wet noodle. Adding some strength and a little bit of weight will technically make you slower (if you put out the same wattage on an hour long climb you may be slower by 0.5-1.0 seconds). This is also where having a decent spoke count for your weight is beneficial, extra spokes adds extra weight, but it also adds strength and durability. Wide flange spacing on the hubs is key for this as well as that helps a ton to increase lateral stiffness.
What goes up must come down and also on the flats (most of the time). The first time I did the Assault on Mt. Mitchell I was using a set of 1000 gram 20mm deep carbon tubulars. The first 75 miles of this event are fairly flat to rolling and the last 27 miles climb. When we were at speeds I found I was having to do so much extra work that by the time we got to the climbing I had expended a lot more energy. I felt great climbing but bonked before the finish. On the flat to rolling I was having to pedal a lot more than usual and when I did stop pedaling I lost the wheel in front of me much quicker. The next year I went to a slightly heavier, but more aero, stiffer, stronger wheel. The first section felt much better and I was able to climb much faster even though I was on a heavier wheel. I still bonked but 27 miles of climbing will do that (and I didn't eat enough). Nowadays for almost all of my hilly races I go with semi aero because the vast majority of time you are not climbing, it's a lot of flat to rolling stuff in between the climbs.
The exceptions are pure uphill time trials, but even then when you add 100-150 grams it's the difference of a couple seconds for an hour long climb. An empty water bottle weighs about 95 grams, and none of us can notice that vs. no water bottle when climbing.
We get the question all the time, and people think that basically going to a lighter wheel will make for better climbing. But there's a lot of other factors. Climbing means you are usually in one of your easiest gears, and when you do that you are putting the most amount of torque on the rear wheel (when you are in the biggest gears the torque is going to your chainrings). Radial spokes can not transfer torque, a spoke has to leave the hub in a backwards direction to "pull" the rim around. So, for a good climbing wheel I would make sure you have crossed spokes on both sides of the rear wheel. Some wheels do 2X on ds and radial nds. But the nds accounts for about 15% of the torque going to the rim, so by double crossing both sides you are making for a much better responding wheel.
The lateral stresses will also be a lot more when climbing. So a very laterally stiff wheel is important. This is where you may start adding a bit of weight, but it's worth it. If you have a crazy light but weak rim that is flexing all over the place, it's not going to be fast. There are lots of options for rims that are in the low 200 gram and below range but going up a hill they feel like a wet noodle. Adding some strength and a little bit of weight will technically make you slower (if you put out the same wattage on an hour long climb you may be slower by 0.5-1.0 seconds). This is also where having a decent spoke count for your weight is beneficial, extra spokes adds extra weight, but it also adds strength and durability. Wide flange spacing on the hubs is key for this as well as that helps a ton to increase lateral stiffness.
What goes up must come down and also on the flats (most of the time). The first time I did the Assault on Mt. Mitchell I was using a set of 1000 gram 20mm deep carbon tubulars. The first 75 miles of this event are fairly flat to rolling and the last 27 miles climb. When we were at speeds I found I was having to do so much extra work that by the time we got to the climbing I had expended a lot more energy. I felt great climbing but bonked before the finish. On the flat to rolling I was having to pedal a lot more than usual and when I did stop pedaling I lost the wheel in front of me much quicker. The next year I went to a slightly heavier, but more aero, stiffer, stronger wheel. The first section felt much better and I was able to climb much faster even though I was on a heavier wheel. I still bonked but 27 miles of climbing will do that (and I didn't eat enough). Nowadays for almost all of my hilly races I go with semi aero because the vast majority of time you are not climbing, it's a lot of flat to rolling stuff in between the climbs.
The exceptions are pure uphill time trials, but even then when you add 100-150 grams it's the difference of a couple seconds for an hour long climb. An empty water bottle weighs about 95 grams, and none of us can notice that vs. no water bottle when climbing.
07-27-13, 05:42 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,435
Bikes: Colnago, Cervelo, Scott
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Seriously, though, my next set will be R-sys without the exalith braking surface. The reason why is that I do race, and am a really heavy guy. 230 lb. Most of my energy is used yoyo-ing around, and accelerating all the time. I think a stiffer wheel is better for that, and for cornering, especially since I'm a heavy guy to begin with. Most courses are relatively flat, but I'm in a draft most of the time anyway. I have a set of 303 clinchers that flex to the point that they're rubbing a groove into my chainstay. For the most part, you can pick 2 of light, stiff, cheap and aero. I've got aero and stiff (404/808 tubulars), aero and light (303s), now it's time for light and stiff. Riding carbon wheels in the rain chews up the braking surface too.
For climbing too, same thing, I would imagine. Any real climb, and I'm not going more than 20 mph. I think especially for someone as heavy as me, stiffer and lighter, the better, and aero wouldn't matter as much. I'm talking about things 7% or more in grade.
Last edited by Silvercivic27; 07-27-13 at 06:29 PM.
07-27-13, 09:12 PM
#59
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Merry Land
Posts: 433
Bikes: Guru Evolo R, Colnago Pista, Look AL 464P SS, various frankenbikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
07-27-13, 10:25 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 519
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix - Soma Double Cross Disc - Pivot Mach 429SL - Canfield Brothers Yelli Screamy - Specialized Carve SL - Trek Farley 7 - GT Dyno VFR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
here is my experience as a fat guy on a little bike. I was riding some lighter weight(1430g), low spoke count wheels(18/20). I switched to some H Plus Son Archtypes laced to BHS hubs 24R front and 28 2x rear. These are still respectable in the weight department, but the added stiffness and compliance of the wider rim makes me feel completely different climbing. This could be placebo, but I certainly feel like I am climbing hills much faster and have more energy at the top than before.
07-27-13, 11:02 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange, CA
Posts: 2,201
Bikes: Roubaix / Shiv
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
In almost every case a 404 or 808 will be the winner. For a PRO it's pretty much always going to be the 808 - altho you'll see them riding all sorts of stuff. Old habits are hard to break. Josh @ Zipp has mentioned several times that they give their sponsored teams pretty clear data about the beneifts of their deeper wheel, and yet they still insist on incorrectly using something like a 202 on a mountain stage.
For the OP who regarded his climbs as "hills" I'd say a nice deep wheel that is still light would certainly be the best climbing wheel.
Light wheels feel faster, aero wheels are faster.
For the OP who regarded his climbs as "hills" I'd say a nice deep wheel that is still light would certainly be the best climbing wheel.
Light wheels feel faster, aero wheels are faster.
07-27-13, 11:35 PM
#62
Reasonably Slow...
07-28-13, 09:25 AM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
In almost every case a 404 or 808 will be the winner. For a PRO it's pretty much always going to be the 808 - altho you'll see them riding all sorts of stuff. Old habits are hard to break. Josh @ Zipp has mentioned several times that they give their sponsored teams pretty clear data about the beneifts of their deeper wheel, and yet they still insist on incorrectly using something like a 202 on a mountain stage.
07-29-13, 06:56 AM
#67
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,303
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times
in
372 Posts
If you don't race, it doesn't matter.
Seriously, though, my next set will be R-sys without the exalith braking surface. The reason why is that I do race, and am a really heavy guy. 230 lb. Most of my energy is used yoyo-ing around, and accelerating all the time. I think a stiffer wheel is better for that, and for cornering, especially since I'm a heavy guy to begin with. Most courses are relatively flat, but I'm in a draft most of the time anyway. I have a set of 303 clinchers that flex to the point that they're rubbing a groove into my chainstay. For the most part, you can pick 2 of light, stiff, cheap and aero. I've got aero and stiff (404/808 tubulars), aero and light (303s), now it's time for light and stiff. Riding carbon wheels in the rain chews up the braking surface too.
For climbing too, same thing, I would imagine. Any real climb, and I'm not going more than 20 mph. I think especially for someone as heavy as me, stiffer and lighter, the better, and aero wouldn't matter as much. I'm talking about things 7% or more in grade.
Seriously, though, my next set will be R-sys without the exalith braking surface. The reason why is that I do race, and am a really heavy guy. 230 lb. Most of my energy is used yoyo-ing around, and accelerating all the time. I think a stiffer wheel is better for that, and for cornering, especially since I'm a heavy guy to begin with. Most courses are relatively flat, but I'm in a draft most of the time anyway. I have a set of 303 clinchers that flex to the point that they're rubbing a groove into my chainstay. For the most part, you can pick 2 of light, stiff, cheap and aero. I've got aero and stiff (404/808 tubulars), aero and light (303s), now it's time for light and stiff. Riding carbon wheels in the rain chews up the braking surface too.
For climbing too, same thing, I would imagine. Any real climb, and I'm not going more than 20 mph. I think especially for someone as heavy as me, stiffer and lighter, the better, and aero wouldn't matter as much. I'm talking about things 7% or more in grade.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
07-29-13, 07:28 AM
#68
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
In almost every case a 404 or 808 will be the winner. For a PRO it's pretty much always going to be the 808 - altho you'll see them riding all sorts of stuff. Old habits are hard to break. Josh @ Zipp has mentioned several times that they give their sponsored teams pretty clear data about the beneifts of their deeper wheel, and yet they still insist on incorrectly using something like a 202 on a mountain stage.
For the OP who regarded his climbs as "hills" I'd say a nice deep wheel that is still light would certainly be the best climbing wheel.
Light wheels feel faster, aero wheels are faster.
For the OP who regarded his climbs as "hills" I'd say a nice deep wheel that is still light would certainly be the best climbing wheel.
Light wheels feel faster, aero wheels are faster.
07-29-13, 07:29 AM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,159
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
In reading Coach Boyd's post, a 2x spoke pattern on drive and non drive side is laterally stiffer for the rear wheel. I'm wondering why my Kysriums are built radial on NDS and 2x on the drive side (or why weren't they built 2x on both sides).
07-29-13, 07:34 AM
#70
serious cyclist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 21,147
Bikes: S1, R2, P2
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9334 Post(s)
Liked 3,679 Times
in
2,026 Posts
Marketing ruling over engineering, most likely. I still can't figure out why 101s are radial DS and 1x NDS.
07-29-13, 07:43 AM
#71
Boyd Cycling owner
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
The way I like to explain torque is by using a shower curtain example. When you pull a shower curtain closed, it's not until you have an angle on the curtain to where it will pull the top of the curtain across the bar.
Hubs are like this. If you built a rear wheel with only radial spokes and put pressure on the hub, the spokes would slightly change angle until the rim reacted. By crossing the spokes it rim reacts immediately without needing the angle of spoke to change. This is much better for the transfer of torque from the hub to the rim, which is better for sprinting and climbing.
07-29-13, 11:08 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Triangle, NC
Posts: 1,480
Bikes: S-Works Tarmac
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The vast majority of torque on a rear wheel is on the "driven" side (which can be either depending on the hub design). When you see radial spokes on a rear wheel (Dura Ace C24 wheel for example), its only on the non-drive side. The driven side is virtually always a crossed pattern.
Climbing at a given speed (and weight) will put the same torque on the drive side of the rear wheel regardless of whether you're spinning in a low gear or mashing in a higher gear.
Climbing at a given speed (and weight) will put the same torque on the drive side of the rear wheel regardless of whether you're spinning in a low gear or mashing in a higher gear.
07-29-13, 11:36 AM
#73
Boyd Cycling owner
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
1 Post
Correct, with hub strength nowadays it's about 85% of the torque gets delivered from the drive side. But I don't know why would would want to ignore that 15% and not bother crossing the non-drive side. At least that's what we like to think.
07-29-13, 12:14 PM
#74
Senior Member
I have been recently riding some Fast Forward carbon tubulars with a 38mm profile. Great all-round wheels.
BTW: Based on spending a lot of time on a lot of wheels, I cannot see a performance overlap between tubulars and clinchers. That is, all the best wheels are tubulars. Then there is a gap. Then there are all of the clinchers. This is due to the design of the rims themselves - clinchers have a basic inherent disadvantage that makes them heavier.
I do have a set of 1,300g alu clinchers. But the spoking and rims are so lighweight that they are wobbly, sketchy descenders. In contrast, I can pull any of a number of vintage alu tubular wheels off of the rack and they come in at the same weight, but are bombproof.
BTW: Based on spending a lot of time on a lot of wheels, I cannot see a performance overlap between tubulars and clinchers. That is, all the best wheels are tubulars. Then there is a gap. Then there are all of the clinchers. This is due to the design of the rims themselves - clinchers have a basic inherent disadvantage that makes them heavier.
I do have a set of 1,300g alu clinchers. But the spoking and rims are so lighweight that they are wobbly, sketchy descenders. In contrast, I can pull any of a number of vintage alu tubular wheels off of the rack and they come in at the same weight, but are bombproof.
07-29-13, 01:47 PM
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Perth, Australia and sometimes Penang Malaysia
Posts: 1,916
Bikes: Litespeed L1r, Litespeed Ghisallo 07, TCR Advanced Team SL 0 ISP, Giant TCR Advanced SL, Giant TCR Advanced Team - T-Mobile, Giant Propel Advanced SL
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
it would help to know your budget ? tubular or clincher preferences ?
if it was me I'd look at Reynolds 32's or 46's, with the 46's being the stiffer rim
if it was me I'd look at Reynolds 32's or 46's, with the 46's being the stiffer rim