# Campy Bullet 50 wheels



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

It's time for new wheels for my Colnago Dream HP. The Bullet 50 Ultra looks like a nice wheel to me. Does anyone have any experience with ththese wheels? What do you think of them?

Thank you!


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I bought a set of the standard (non Ultra) Bullets and have rode them around a dozen times since. They handle well in most conditions and are very good value. That said I generally use a mid-profile wheel (2-way Zondas with tubeless tires) for a lot more of my riding. The Bullets are definitely faster, but I feel like a big goof riding them around in recovery mode! On a less windy day when my legs feel good, I'll put them on.

With the Ultra model you would have a somewhat lighter wheel (alloy axles and nips) but weight will also vary according to your bearing option. Standard steel bearings will add 40+ grams to the advertised weight over USB (as I found with my 1795 gm/pair Bullet 50s), and for Bullet Ultra, the stated 1590 gram weight would be with the CULT option, otherwise you're probably getting something around 1630 gm/pair or somewhat more with the steel bearing option.

If you ride on roads with traffic, and a lot of technical descending you will be glad for having an alloy braking track. The Standard Bullets are a really solid wheel design, a bit more aero and about 250 grams lighter than the deep alloy Mavic Cosmics I used to race on back in the 90s. Ultra would not be much different in terms of rotational mass (alloy nips are a marginal advantage, alloy axles make your bike lighter but won't affect ride quality), but you do get an even better (CULT) bearing option if that is important.

I've fit Vredestein Fortezza comps on them with no difficulty (some tires are a tight fit on Campy rims). Campagnolo recommend no more than 135 psi for these wheels, although the Vreds are rated a bit higher than that.

I got mine cheap in the off-season (last January) IMO you'd have to spend about double to get something appreciably better. And these look built to stand up to a lot of hard use.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

A friend has them (unsure of which version) and they are nice, solid, all around wheels with an aero benefit at higher speeds >20mph (or if you just like the "look").

However, they are on the heavy side for mid-depth wheels, nowadays.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

tom_h said:


> However, they are on the heavy side for mid-depth wheels, nowadays.


1,590g for a 50mm deep clincher is on the heavy side?


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

Compared to the Shimano and Mavic offerings for this class of wheel (alloy braking track) the standard Bullet is around the same weight. Ultra options weigh somewhat less than those. There are plenty of somewhat heavier 50mm carbon clinchers as well, Profile Altair, Oval Concepts,etc. but for all these comparisons, it is probably more useful to consider how the weight is distributed in different parts, and in different radial zones, of the rotating wheel. Comparing different models of the Bullet, and interpolating the weights for the different depths of wheel available in standard or ultra option, it is clear that the weight savings of the more expensive models is not in the rim(s) itself. Nobody's ever going to win a Mountain TT with this type of wheel anyway, and if rotational weight is going to be minimized, selecting special-event tires and latex inner tubes will make more difference than anything else. 

Not sure how the Bullet's undrilled alloy rim (which will in any case be stronger) versus the drilled rim of most other semi-carbon/alloy 50mm wheels might effect rotational weight. On the other hand it might allow for a thinner extrusion for the tire bed.

Bottom line for me was the net price during a sale from an overseas (UK) dealer, came to CDN $738 for a pair of the standard Bullets. Call it ~$900 after shipping and taxes at delivery are factored (I had also ordered tires with them). I think I'd have to upgrade to Zipp Firecrests at well over double that to get much more 'bought speed' below my knees.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Notvintage said:


> 1,590g for a 50mm deep clincher is on the heavy side?


I was thinking of the "1795 gm/pair Bullet 50s" referenced above by aa.mclaren .


----------



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

I'm replacing Zipp 404's that weigh in around 1780, are 58 mm. Zipp 60's weigh about the same and cost $1500. Flow 60's weigh enough to tie down the Hindenburgh and cost around $1000. I want the alu brake surface for high speed downhills. I don't think I can find another aero wheel at this weight at this price. I will probably be ordering them next week.


----------



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

Also, Campy wheels will look great on the Colnago!


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

Footnote: You apparently get slightly nicer QRs with the Ultra version of the Bullets. But do be aware of what bearing option is on offer when you pull the trigger (an unavoidable bad pun with these wheels, sorry). If you are price-shopping as I did, you will likely find the stainless steel bearing model is going to be significantly cheaper, and USB or CULT versions not as likely to be heavily discounted.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Sweeney said:


> I'm replacing Zipp 404's that weigh in around 1780, are 58 mm. Zipp 60's weigh about the same and cost $1500. Flow 60's weigh enough to tie down the Hindenburgh and cost around $1000. I want the alu brake surface for high speed downhills. I don't think I can find another aero wheel at this weight at this price. I will probably be ordering them next week.


The newer, all-carbon clinchers from Zipp, Reynolds, and I think Enve, supposedly are able to tolerate the heat buildup. Tubular rims were _almost _never a problem.

Some older design, aluminum-track-bonded-over-carbon clinchers, had serious reliability & safety issues. The alum surface would delaminate & warp. Easton wheels were a notable problem, judging from the number of threads posted.

The Campy Bullet wheels use aluminum tire bed & sidewalls, with a carbon fairing/spoke support bonded on, to add the depth. So they should be very robust and capable, just like all other Campy wheels.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

aa.mclaren said:


> Footnote: You apparently get slightly nicer QRs with the Ultra version of the Bullets. But do be aware of what bearing option is on offer when you pull the trigger (an unavoidable bad pun with these wheels, sorry). If you are price-shopping as I did, you will likely find the stainless steel bearing model is going to be significantly cheaper, and USB or CULT versions not as likely to be heavily discounted.


The entire Bullet line seems so confusing to me. 
There are versions with "plain", USB, and CULT ceramic bearings.
Versions with clincher-only and 2-Way clincher/tubeless rims.
Versions with "Bright" and "Dark" labels.
And of course, 3 different rim depths (50, 80, 105 mm)

Campy doesn't offer all possible combinations -- else it would be a crazy 21 different products!! But it still seems too many variations. 

Reminds me of Microsoft and all the various versions they have marketed over the years: "Professional", "Home, "Ultimate", "Premium", 32bit, 64bit, etc etc -- each with its separate shrink-wrapped package.

Maybe it's copying the "corn flakes" strategy in supermarkets -- if you sell 20 different variations, you can occupy most of the available shelf space, and a consumer is most likely to choose your product ;-)


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

I think the 2-way fit versions were all early production, from what I gather, Campy had problems making a reliable tubeless valve for these depths of rim, and discontinued or suspended that option. Still see a few (very few) advertised but you're mostly seeing clincher-only rims available.

As far as I can see the rims are identical between standard and ultra versions at each depth, also the spoke gauges and hub shells (although the deeper ones have less spokes). It's too bad they don't sell them as individual wheels though, as some riders would prefer a deeper wheel on the back with a shallower profile up front. I'm not convinced that a "Bullet 35" would make much sense though, it would have the benefits of alu braking, but not really have much advantage aero- or weight-wise over a well-designed full alloy rim at that depth.


----------



## daniel007 (Mar 13, 2013)

Just to add to the conversation, just got myself a pair of Bullet Ultra from Wiggle at a great price last week and rode close to 200km on them and yes they do improve your ride and yes they do look good.........:thumbsup:

My 2 cents!


----------



## JMac (Oct 23, 2005)

I've been looking at these, and also considering HED Jet 6. The Jet has published aero data, and a toroidal fairing, and a wide rim, if those features are important to you. Curious what others here think about comparing the two.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

The Jet 6 seems fairly competitive on recommended price (USD $1600) although weighing a bit heavier at 1851 g/pair (perhaps accounting for slightly deeper rims and slightly more/longer spokes). According to current wheel design trends, it is quite likely, marginally more aerodynamic than 50mm Bullets as well.

I don't think either wheel leaves the other "in the dust" though. In the real world slightly different wheel designs will better suit one set of conditions better than another anyway (the perennial weight v. aero, stiffness, comfort and variable winds/gradients). Some will be perhaps a bit more versatile than others. A long term test of both Bullets and HEDs would be interesting!

HEDs description of the Jet 6 cites a test where a rider used 1320 gram lower-profile wheels, and a 1620 g wheelset "with the drag of" Jet 6s (perhaps testing a tubular model?), finding that the lighter wheel only had an advantage over 7.5% uphill gradients. 

HED Cycling - Jet 6

It's not the most accurate comparison considering the extra 230 g of the actual wheelset in question though.


----------



## JMac (Oct 23, 2005)

The HED wheel does not have any structural carbon, it's just a fairing. The spokes are anchored to the aluminum rim. The Campy is structural carbon. Not sure it makes much of a difference, but possibly the HED would be stronger. I have a set of record hubs on Ambrosio rims and the hubs are suuuuuper smooth. Never tested the HEDs, but I do love Campy hubs!


----------



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

I got a great deal on the Hed Jet 5 Express from Discount Tri Supply. 

HED Jet 5 Express Carbon Wheelset: Discount Tri Supply

They won't look as good on the Colnago, but I think they are a better wheel


----------



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

Well, this is becoming a pain in the butt. I got the Hed wheels and cracked the flimsey carban fiber fairing just putting the tires on. Shipped them back. Now I'm looking for a good deal on Zipp 60's, pretty much the same as the 404's I sold. At least I'll know what I'm getting.


----------



## aa.mclaren (Jun 25, 2008)

Sorry to hear you got a bad wheel. I thought HED had better quality control than that. The old light-strong-cheap dilemma (or I guess that's a trilemma) continues to apply I guess.


----------



## JMac (Oct 23, 2005)

Sweeney said:


> Well, this is becoming a pain in the butt. I got the Hed wheels and cracked the flimsey carban fiber fairing just putting the tires on. Shipped them back. Now I'm looking for a good deal on Zipp 60's, pretty much the same as the 404's I sold. At least I'll know what I'm getting.


How flimsy was the fairing?


----------



## Sweeney (Apr 29, 2007)

How flimsy is it? It's soft and mushy to touch and when I stretched on a used tire, I cracked it at the spoke hole. I don't think they would last a year of riding

I ended up getting a used set of Zipp 60's that are in excellent condition. I got a lot of use out of my 404's so I know that I'll get good service out of these.


----------

