Lazyass

I like lightweight, non aero wheels because they ride smoother, handle better, brake quicker and don't blow me around during crosswinds. Heavier aero wheels may climb a minuscule amount better, but I don't care. I don't exactly live in the Alps.

Bunyanderman

Why not both?

frisbie17

BoSoxYacht You are correct.

carpediemracing 

I totally agree with the aero wheels helping even in the draft.

And with all due respect because I've seen your other posts etc and you definitely have a level head.

However when taking weight into account then it's better, for me, to have lighter wheels even if they're less aero. I exhaust myself accelerating heavier aero wheels. Although I may be a low threshold type of rider, the fact remains that it takes more energy/reserves to accelerate those heavy wheels, and it would affect even those that have more threshold power than me. It may not be as obvious but the effect would still be there.

I have HED Jet 6/9s, HED Bastognes (2010 Ardennes type rim wheels from HED, they dropped the non-Ardennes names for clarity I think), and HED Stinger 6/6 and 7/9. The Jets, Bastognes, and the Stinger 6/6 have identical model hubs and spokes, from 2010. The Jets/Bastognes give up 50g on the rear skewer - I leave the steel trainer skewer in them, the Stingers have the OEM HED Ti skewers, so technically the clinchers are 50g or about 0.1 lbs heavier than they should be.

I bought the Jets to use in training races, Bastognes for training, and the Stingers for races (the 6/6 at the same time as the Jet/Bastognes, the 7/9 later).

What I found was that in the same Tuesday races, against essentially the same racers, I couldn't go more than about 20 minutes with the Jets. I could finish the same races (and won a rain shortened one) on the Bastognes. I could go the full distance with the Stingers and contend for the win. This was over about 12-14 races on Tuesday Nights on a dead flat and very windy course (Tuesday The Rents, I have a bunch of videos up on YouTube if you search SprinterDellaCasa and Tuesday).

I realized that I was using all my reserves accelerating the Jets, which are about 3 lbs heavier (1500+ grams) than the Stingers, on an otherwise identical bike. When I started using the Bastognes I could handle the repeated accelerations, although I gave up some top end, like during the big bridge moves at 30-35 mph. With the Stingers the acceleration numbers were lower by a significant amount (to me), I could make the big bridge moves, and I could contest the finishes. Until last year I used the 6/6 since that's all I had, starting in 2013 and all of 2014 I used the 7/9 as they're more aero for about the same weight as the 6/6.

I don't have data across all the different wheels when I first got them. I had various issues back in 2010 (sensors, batteries, forgot the head, etc) and ended up racing without power data for much of the year. That's the year where I used the Jets/Bastognes/Stingers. I actually shelved the Jets by June or so because they were unusable in virtually all situations except solo rides. I've been training on the Jets since some time last year.

At some point I want to do some numbers analysis to see what kind of power I need to accelerate with the various wheels. The Jets are a good test because they weigh so much more than the Stingers. I was even thinking of sacrificing a few Tuesday Night races to stop and change wheels mid race, do a few laps on each set, so I'd have similar conditions for the different wheel sets. A more controlled experiment would be better, of course, but that would require even more planning/time. I have ideas on how to capture acceleration + drafting + wheel aero in one straightforward experiment but it would require a moto of some kind, a second person to drive it, and a pretty isolated and controlled section of road (ideally a wind sheltered flat road).

Weight data for my wheel sets and bike in a post here. You'll notice that the Bastogne front wheel is close to the weight of the Stingers, even though it has a heavier tire. The Jets weigh about 8 lbs, the Bastognes 6 lbs, the Stinger 5 lbs, give or take, but those are the rough numbers.

Some people will point out that 3 pounds is a lot of excess extra weight, for just rims/tires. It is, but it makes it easier to measure the effect of wheel weight on performance. If I had super light aero carbon clinchers the difference would be much less and the performance effects a bit more subtle. At 3 pounds the weight is noticeable when accelerating.

Finally, to state again, the Jets are faster on the solo rides I do than the Bastognes. Better aero and more weight is better for flatter routes with very few accelerations. However to state that aero is always better than low weight isn't accurate, and in fact I'd argue that in any kind of group ride situation, it's more important to stay in the draft. Given the choice of heavy/aero or light/non-aero I'd choose the non-aero for races. For group rides, the better I am relative to the others, the more I'd choose the non-aero. If I'm weaker than the others then I'll be chasing a lot, probably on descents, so I'd want aero as I know the Jets, for example, are significantly faster than the Bastognes on descents.

Lazyass

Group hug, everyone. It's only the internet, not real life.

cellery

Was anyone else jarred by the use of first person in a supposedly scientific article?

colnago62

I have a pair of 808 Zipp wheels. Any climbing under 10 mph, they are boat anchors. Also, stability trumps areo. Descending with deep carbon wheels can be nerve wracking if the wind is up or gusting.

frisbie17

Thanks for your honest opinion. I found it a good read!

frisbie17

If your conducting an experiment what is wrong with the use of first person. I did this. I found that.

Just curious. Not attacking. Just was not jarred by it.

BoSoxYacht

I completely agree, and have crashed on a 48mph descent due to an unexpected heavy gust. The results of the wreck were enough to keep me out of work for 6 months.

Aero wheels are are great for some people, but I'll use lightweight non-aero wheels for most of the riding I do.

Mark Stone

Not being a "road" cyclist, some of the subtle nuances you all are talking about may escape me. (Well, actually, the DO escape me ) But in my world (flat bar urban bombing, commuting, etc.) the weights of the rims/spokes/tires make a BIG difference in acceleration, handling, "crispness", etc. I didn't even look at the links in the first three posts because even the concept of wheel weight being irrelevant is against personal experience. Maybe on a road bike doing what you guys do, the differences of a few ounces may not mean much - but even the title of this thread made me laugh

cb400bill

OK guys. Chill out. Personal attacks aren't tolerated here.

I'm going to reopen this thread, and keep it open, as long as the posts stay on topic.

Thank you for your cooperation.

frisbie17

After your accident... I can't say that I would not have the same opinion.

I loved my Zipp 303/404 Combo and Zipp 404s and am having a set of Enve 6.7s built as we speak. Both on Chris Kings. I really enjoyed both sets of wheels. I have not had a extremely light set of non-aero wheels to try. Was trying to get others opinions and looking for data on lightweight vs aero wheels. All the articles I have found clearly show Aero is better. Are there any others out there that state the opposite. Thanks

frisbie17

The title was to grab the intention of others. It really seemed to worked. Thanks for posting. Have you tried Aero wheels and did you read any of my original post? Thanks for your "expertise". So I was looking for research to discuss the difference and was shocked to find all the test have showed Aero is many times more important in wheels then the small differences in weight.

BoSoxYacht

i still use aero wheel for TTs, but not for most training or hillclimb TTs.

Mark Stone

Again, we are from different cycling worlds so I can't disagree with your aero-vs-weight conclusions with any authority but the idea that it's a large misconception that wheel weight matters at all certainly is an eye-catcher

Bob Ross

Especially if you are standing holding your bike over your head!

gregf83 

I don't have any of your data but I exported a recent crit race to a spreadsheet and looked at the power required to accelerate. This excludes the power to maintain a particular speed and is basically the rate of change of kinetic energy. The data isn't very smooth because I don't think the speed data is perfect but I see power spikes in the 500-800W range when accelerating hard from say 36 to 50kph (avg race speed ~43kph).

I think it depends somewhat on the type of rider you are. From my reading you are about as pure a sprinter as you can get and if you can hang in to the end of the race you can be competitive. Because your FTP is relatively low you are at risk of being dropped during the race if things don't go well.

Myself on the other hand, in the races I do, seldom feel pressure of being dropped during the race but don't have a finishing sprint like you so I'm better off trying to get into breaks. An extra pound or two is going to change the power required to accelerate by a percent or two which isn't going to make a difference to me during the race as I'm not running that close to the edge. When I happen to get in a break with strong riders I am hanging on by a thread and any extra watts I can save is crucial. Breaks tend to be relatively smooth so accelerations and the power require to accelerate are less significant. For me aero is more important than weight.

79pmooney

I raced back when everything aero had wings. That said, I was made very aware in more than a few races that the constant accelerations were the biggest hurdle for this slow twitch climber and that there would be one acceleration for all the marbles. Those who made it were in the break, those who weren't finished with the field many minutes later. There would be about 10 pedal revolutions that defined the whole race. Could you grab that wheel? Or was it almost?

For that moment, I rode 290 gram rims, 17 gage spokes, and 220 or 250 gram silk tires. My accelerations still were not awe inspiring, but I got myself into the breaks a few times and took the field by surprise once a half mile from the finish. That last time, aero would have meant zero. Once I was gone, the field slowed and I was good. It was the speed I went past the lead rider that made all the difference. I made my move sitting about 5 riders behind him (going in a glass strewn breakdown lane; everyone was looking to the left for the attack).

Riding 100 miles on non-aero wheels to have light rims and tires for that 5 seconds probably was a 10-15 place difference in that race. (Yeah, if everyone was riding aero stuff that was still 20 years away and I wasn't, it would have been different. But everyone else on full aero and me on semi aero but light? For that race? Probably the right call. Still.

Ben

Burnette

The problem with trying to find definitive performance numbers by changing just bike gear is that the conditions in which they are used and who they are used by varies so greatly. There isn’t a one for one formula you can use that would be accurate in the real world, i.e. x pounds/aero less/more equals finishing thirty yards ahead of yourself with the more x pounds and less aero over a certain distance. In that scenario, after a real ride with other riders, or a solo ride, things like poor hydration/nutrition, good amount of sleep and less head winds, favorable terrain to your current physical state, going solo you’re pushing way too hard too soon, in a group you stay in the draft all day, your position on the bike is spot on but you’re mashing too low a cadence today, all those positive and negative variables stack up.
Then take into account you, the rider, versus the guy/gal next to you. Are you 6’ 5” and 160 lbs? Is the guy next to you 5’ 3” and 129 lbs (that’s me at my best climbing form)? What about the 5’ 8” guy at 250 lbs who hasn’t been riding as much as you? What about the 5’ 7” woman at 140 lbs who races professionally and is using your group ride as training? Whatever piece of gear you change for all of us, the end result will vary wildly and the reasons will also vary due to many, many different reasons.
My personal observations will run counter to another’s results and that’s OK with me because I know that their situation, though different than mine, could really of have happened just as they felt it did.
I can’t quantify my observations anymore than another, but I would like to share them with you all and welcome any thoughts you have about them. Or, juts share what you have personally experienced on the road.
For me, a group of eight or more in a draft negates much of the aero need right there. Why? Three things, first, a friend, Mike, rode a Trek Fuel full suspension MTB with slicks in the 2007 Tour To Tanglewood fifty mile route with us and he averaged 22 mph like everybody else over a hilly route. No doubt he was a strong rider. Would he have finished faster with a road bike? No, he still would have finished in the group, but it would have been easier for sure though.
For me, when I do group rides, I ride my 2005 Redline Conquest Disc. They fast guys/gals who belonged to a club pulled me to an average of 21 mph average at a bike shop ride at Clemmons bike shop in 2006.
I took pulls and hung in there, but the horses did most of the work. At the time my solo best was 18 mph. And this is on a cyclo specific mech disc bike from 2006.
Is aero a non issue in for group rides? I cannot say so for another, but I “feel” that in my current state it is a non issue for me. I’m humble and open enough to see that if I were racing and strong enough and could maintain a high rate of speed to make a lasting break off the front, aero would be a valid and important consideration. So it’s not a definitive thing for me, it’s a situational thing.
As I get older, group rides and their risk of crashes holds less appeal to me. I rode more solo rides this year than ever before. So as I look at new bikes, guess what, aero bikes look like fun. Solo, it’s just about the ride and at times, personal best along certain routes. The beauty of where I'm heading is that with adequate fitness I can hang with the group or just enjoy beating myself up and ride a new Cervelo S5 or a custom steel/carbon forked dream bike.

UnfilteredDregs

BoSox...how much do you weigh? the reason I ask is that I have a totally unfounded idea that maybe heavier riders have an advantage versus crosswinds... Just curious.

BoSoxYacht

i'm 6'2" but weigh only 170lbs. Gusty crosswinds definitely toss me around more than heavier & smaller riders.

One of my friends is 6'3" and 240lbs, and the gusts definitely cause less problems for him. I can crush him on climbs, but when riding flats into a headwind, he has a huge advantage.

Drew Eckhardt 

Weight changes of the magnitude seen in differences between road wheels don't matter unless you're racing in the mountains, have body morphology conducive to climbing (about two pounds per inch is good), and are good enough to win.

Consider a hypothetical 140 pound rider atop a 15 pound UCI minimum weight bike totaling 70.3kg. Dropping 100 grams will make him up to 0.14% faster, providing a five second margin over the chasing peleton for each hour he spends off the front getting to a mountain top finish.

Rotating weight where the rubber meets the road does count double for acceleration; although the 0.28% change in total inertia still isn't significant.

hueyhoolihan

why would one be jarred?

CaliBuckShaver 

Hey everybody,

Here's a few things to consider in this discussion: Gravity and the resulting acceleration therefrom is the thing that takes our energy when we're pedaling like mad or just cruising. Conservation of energy pretty much says that a body at rest tends to stay at rest and a body in motion tends to stay in motion. It requires energy to change those states and, obviously, the more mass an object has the more energy is required to change that state. These Newtonian physical laws are inescapable unless we're very, very far away from the planet or dead, which of course cancels out the enjoyment of a bicycle ride of any kind.

So, once you accelerate to whatever speed you want to ride, you want to stay at that speed at all costs, especially if you're riding an individual time trial or Tri. There's where all the aero comes in real handy and the extra weight can actually help you. When you're full tilt boogie against the clock, aero saves you precious grams of energy reserves for the final kick. You're trying to stay at as fast a constant speed as you can. It's just the rider, the bike and the wind...and what you had for breakfast. The extra mass of the aero wheels helps a bit to keep you at your chosen speed and the aero helps a lot to cut that wind resistance. Just hope you don't that strong cross-wind that could potentially take you off the bike. Ever watch the TDF individual or team time trial? Aerodynamic poetry in motion for sure!! It's all about aero, conservation of energy and 100ths of seconds!

Head out on the road in the peloton or by yourself and you have a whole different ride. Same physics apply, but the needs in applying those physics are very different. As pointed out by others, one needs to be able to accelerate quickly and, sometimes often, especially for that final sprint to the line. Less mass is better for the same conservation of energy reasons. You use less energy accelerating less mass. Then when the road turns up, gravity really takes over. The steeper the climb, the harder you have to work because gravity is trying to make you fall back down the hill. I don't need the vector math to explain that or what you know will happen when you go over the top and start to descend. Cross winds are your enemy and your enemy takes you out with cross sectional area. Cross winds can be almost as bad going up, although not as deadly. If you're going up a mountain and you climb say 1200 m in less than 10 km, wouldn't you want to be as light as possible to maximize your energy use? Add to that the fact that you will be repeating that "little" climb 3 or 5 more times before the end of the ride and you have everyone in the group wanting to be first over the top.

Competitive cyclists want to maximize everything for the race. Do you see TDF, Vuelta, Giro riders riding aero anywhere but the time trials? No, because you need stability, agility, comfort, response and strength for all other race conditions. Imagine being in a tight group at 30mph+ and you're feeling it with your aero wheels. Suddenly gusty cross winds come up, you get pushed to your left or right and take out whatever part of the group is right behind you. How about the cobbles or other really rough road? You won't get far on those incredibly stiff wheels. They'll break or you'll break and your done.

As others have said, drafting is the way to conserve energy in the group. Aero is the way to go if you're racing the clock. Otherwise, it's all about the coolness factor and how much money you spent or saved.

Anyway, it's sunny and mild in L.A., so I think I'll go ride!!!

Cheers!