So a lot of wheel talk lately.

We all agree that stock wheels are usually not the greatest. So we look at "better" wheels. But what's better?

In the "midrange" thread, the Boyd Rouleurs are brought up, but are they really any better than a wheelset at half the price? The rear hub is admittedly (by Boyd) "econo" and the rim is a traditional 19 width. Why bother?

And why bother with weight either? I mean, going from 2,000+ weights down to something around 1,600 (give or take) that's as light as anybody's gonna care about, no??? (We all probably care enough stool in our colons to make up for any weight gain in wheels)

And what about spokes? How in the world can some 20 spoke wheels handle Clydes, yet others think 32 spokes is the only want to handle heavy riders or rough roads??

Maybe we all should be riding some Shimano RS11's since there's no noticeable difference anyway?

(shrug)

You are totally ignoring the fact the weight of bikes and bicycle wheels affects the riding experience in ways that rider weight have no effect on. I'm not talking about acceleration or climbing efficiency or anything that would be affected by rider weight as well as bike weight. I am talking about how the bicycle feels when you ride it. If you have never ridden a bike weighing 13 lb or less, you don't have enough information to sensibly comment. And of course, the condition of one's colon will be what it is regardless of the condition of one's bike. The two are not in any way interdependent.

I ride 1,270 g clinchers, and I assure you it is not the same as riding a 2,000 wheelset. The nearly 2 lb difference makes for an amazing change in the feel of the ride, and that is not even counting any minor effects on speed that the lower weight would have. Compound that with similar weight savings throughout the construction of the whole bike, and you really have something special. Try it for yourself before you say it isn't so.

20/24 works well for me at 180#. Unless I'm building for a heavy person, what Clydesdales need is no concern of mine.

Wider hoops give a better ride, and can be very lightweight. Stan's Alpha 340s are as wide as Kinlin XC279 from bead to bead, give a wider tire profile, are over 100g lighter, and are tubeless compatible. Unless you are a fatty, how can you beat that?

lots of riders think spoke are your enemy. More spokes allow better build to get things even. More spokes allow for still riding if on breaks during a ride. I am much in favor of a traditional 28 or 32 rear 2x and 3x. Not going to be the lightest but you can build a 1600 gr wheel with 28 spokes that allows training and racing. Most of us smiply like to ride and not fool with wheels that do not hold up or need truing every few weeks or miles. Now I can build my own wheels so that helps but frankly the aero carbon wheels and upgrades really do not do all that much. Spend a bunch of cash on some carbon big name wheels and frankly I can ride a century just a quick with my alloy rim clinchers. Many will disagree but marginal gains for expensive name brand wheels.

Robert, how much do you weigh?

I have ballooned from a norm of about 160 lb up to 170 lb. But I build all my own wheels from cheap parts, so I don't mind if a wheel fails as long as I don't get stranded. And I frequently sell my lightly used wheels to build myself something new. That way I am almost always riding fairly new wheels. I'm not concerned about rider weight limitation. Now that is not to say I am not concerned about this weight increase I have experienced over the last couple of years. Something has got to be done about that.

There is an old saying in the men's clothing trade: "The best way to deal with added weight is to have a good tailor." I can buy into that, but I don't extend that line of thinking to my wheels. I may have to buy larger clothes, but I won't be riding heavier wheels. That is where I draw the line.

Well, I see it as a matter of local conditions, riding style and weight. I have mine built for that. I don't want to be truing my wheels every few rides or ever during a ride. I just knocked my rear out a bit, after 4000 miles... NYC looks like the remains of a giant artillery strike after this Winter.

Why do people insist on perpetuating the fallacy that only those with heavy wheels/frames/cranksets can take a **** before a ride?

Well, this isn't about 13lb bikes, it was simply about shaving a pound or so off with wheels. (again, made negligible by any number of things you eat, don't crap, carry in your pocket, on your bars, in your bottles, etc.)

And if all we do is climb, accelerate, and go at speed (whatever that speed may be). Then what in the world else is there to feel in a bike......eh eh....wait for it.....that would have to do with WEIGHT?

FWIW, I've ridden a 14lb carbon full-race beast that was (well, "felt") quick off the line, but so does my 25lb hybrid when I take off in 28/28.

And as has been proven ad nauseum here and virtually every other place on the internet.....it doesn't matter where the weight is added or taken away.....it *is* the same. Nobody likes to hear that and I'm about 99.9% sure it's the reason we're all looking to lighten our bikes by less than 10% despite that net result being probably less than 1% of the total weight package.

But I'm also still not hearing a good argument for what a lighter wheelset gains us.

It's all about rider style. I've you ride light in the saddle (lift before impacts, etc), you're going to be easy on wheels. I'd wager that there's a high overlap between people who needs 32 spokes wheels and people who think that Thudbuster/CG-R seatposts are a good idea.

As for spoke drilling, unless you have disc brakes, 2:1 spoke ratios make a lot more sense. You get more balanced tension and a better wheel build.

Of course, all of the accumulated wisdom goes out the window when you get to disc brakes. Clearly a mountain wheel is over-built for a typical road application, but just how over-built is an open question.

I would never repudiate any rider's God-given right to take a dump before a ride if no other sake than self-gratification!

In the running community the talk of human bowels knows NO bounds. (No joke!)

Is a heavier flywheel not more resistant to changes in orientation than a lighter flywheel? I can't say that I've seen a 'rotational weight debunking' that has addressed this - they usually only address negligible differences in power needed to 'spin-up' - but I don't see why this wouldn't provide an explanation for why people routinely report the impression that lighter wheels feel faster and more agile.

It is the same as far as speed is concerned, but not riding enjoyment. Apparently you don't agree. Okay.

It's not that I don't agree, I'm just not hearing a good argument for it once we rule out...

1.) acceleration
2.) climbing
3.) speed

I could say "feel" but that's probably more a carbon vs alloy thing. (tubular vs clincher?) So I guess I'm after the *how* in regards to "riding enjoyment".

Heck, I was going to argue *for* lighter wheels being able to "spin up" faster but you quite emphatically shot that idea down in another thread. (Possibly netting better climbing, though admittedly I think speed is more aero-related than weight)

In the automotive world, everything that rotates has an effective weight which is quite often considered. "Flywheels" (as WhyFi mentioned) and I'd also mention consideration at the wheels, including rims, tires and even rotors. They all need to be carefully considered in acceleration and braking. (rotating mass)

And as such in the automotive realm....I'd ultimately love to hear an argument *in favor* of any benefit in the three aspects above as it pertains to lighter wheels so I could justify some lighter wheels for *myself* but my best efforts only result in an answer that says a quality 1,600g alloy wheelset is about 99% of the best wheels you can buy.

My limited knowledge on the matter is that it does. Back in my drag racing days we went lighter & lighter on flywheels til we realized we netted little benefit except to unbalance the front & back of the crankshaft and negligible difference on acceleration. (Especially on 60ft times which was what we were fighting for)

In the end, we returned to "moderate" weight flywheels to keep a better load balance on the crank itself and started experimenting with rod lengths & gearing to adjust power band preference & net better 60ft. (shrug)

Today, however, I know a lot of folks take the inertia of wheels, tires and brakes in the aftermarket community in everything from tuner import racers up to monster trucks. Rotating mass weight matters there significantly which is why I'd love to hear that I should probably buy some ZIPP 303's and not Ksyrium Elites.

But again, I'd probably be best suited with a $300 set of Ultegra 6800 wheels as they're 99% as good as any wheelset on the planet.....including anything of the multi-thousand dollar variety.

I can't say why, but I like the lighter wheels better. It is for sure not speed difference. There is none in my case. Neither for light wheels or the light bike. But I sure do feel a difference. Go figure.

Why would anyone rule out the 3 primary advantages of lighter wheels when trying to make an argument for the advantages of lighter wheels?

This thread makes no sense.

Because those advantages are real but extremely small.

Are they really? You're saying that a sub 1500g wheelset has only a marginal advantage over a 2000g wheelset in those respects?

And for the sake of argument, if those advantages (which I have personally found to be substantive) are excluded, what else is there? Subjective 'feel'?

Why would anyone ride lighter wheels then? The psychological satisfaction?

My curiosity is sincerely piqued. Have I been thinking about wheels all wrong?

Seriously, I take a dump before my rides and have lightweight components. I win.

Compared to aerodynamics, the differences are very small

Just to be clear: I love light wheels...BUT I weigh 170 lb, with bike and add ons, 190 lb. 1 lb difference is 0.5%. Okay, with a a bonus for rotating weight, call it 1%. Not enough to make much of a difference at any but the outermost extreme of performance.

You bring up an interesting point. On rough roads heavier hoops seem to give a better ride. Gyrosoptic effect helps keep one on line more than lightweight hoops. I've noticed this a few times when riding on very rough pavement. The opposite is true when riding on smooth twisty roads, or when trying to avoid potholes.

IMO, rim&tire weight effects handling significantly.

why would lightweight riders ride wheels that are overbuilt?

Um do you mean "why would scrawny riders ride non-flimsy wheels?"



because little people lack the power to make use of deep aero wheels, and when they come out of hiding behind a draft they have to use what little power they have to accelerate.



now, the question is, acceleration vs aero benefit, what would a powerful rider benefit from? Both. But favor aero over light. A paper weight box section always loses to heavier aero.

But unqualified heavy never wins.