# 1280g aero clinchers (not carbon)



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I've used up my favors around the industry and finally got my "special project" wheels up and running. I figured that I should have a set of clinchers that are aero and worth keeping around for some time. There was by far more thought into this set of wheels than should be allowed. I mulled over ideas with Troy and Jeremy for months and waited patiently for everything to roll in for the build. The wait was well worth it. These bad boys look crazy!

Tune Mig 45 front hub
Tune Mag 190 rear hub (extensively worked over for weight savings and other optimizing)
American Classic 420 rims
Pillar ti titanium spokes
alloy nipples
18 front and 24 rear

I could have used Cadence aero rims (one of my favorites), but I had the chance to get these rims and I know they are impossible to find stateside without spokes and hubs attached to them.

The rear hub was laced in a triplet pattern that I was introduced to by Troy and Jeremy. The wheel has twice as many drive side spokes and non drive side (similar to Campa G3). The result is almost even tension and makes the balance of stiffness even too. 24 spokes laced to a 24 hole rim and 32 hole hub is the best way to make this work with stock parts. I recommend this type of build with Cadence Aero rims or similar and hubs with widely spaced flanges like Tune or White Industries.

The rear hub has not only been machined to move the geometry to a more favorable setup, but it is lighter (175g) than stock and all bearings are ceramic (not necessary, but hell I wanted them for this set). The front comes stock with ceramics and there is not much you can do to it. It's freakin' 49g! I do know someone that might "optimize" one of these as a special project, but that's another story.

Hope you like!









One stage of the front build. I thought it looked cool so I took a pic.










Front weight




















The set




















Side on shot of triplet pattern. Nice!










Side on of front.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Nice job Eric. One of these days I am going to get some Tune wheels.

I like those rims. But for my riding here, aero rims like that are a real pain in cross-winds that we have riding by the ocean and bay.

The Tune hubs are sick! I got some MTB Tune wheels a while back and liked them alot!


----------



## allons-y (Nov 15, 2006)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: 

those are......




sorry, my jaw is still on the floor.....


----------



## Karbon (Oct 13, 2005)

Nice build, although they could be lighter (as weight is what you are after). I've seen 30mm deep rims built up as a 1224gm set, those were sick....


----------



## omniviper (Sep 18, 2004)

how much was the total cost in the build?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Those look pretty sick. The way the ti shines makes the spokes look cool -- how do they work for stiffness and durability compared with steel and aluminum spokes?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Karbon said:


> Nice build, although they could be lighter (as weight is what you are after). I've seen 30mm deep rims built up as a 1224gm set, those were sick....


Could you describe the build? Any pics?

-Eric


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Karbon said:


> Nice build, although they could be lighter (as weight is what you are after). I've seen 30mm deep rims built up as a 1224gm set, those were sick....


Not aluminum clinchers I bet.

Unless you took out most of the spokes....


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Argentius said:


> Those look pretty sick. The way the ti shines makes the spokes look cool -- how do they work for stiffness and durability compared with steel and aluminum spokes?


Stiffness (and weight) is less than the lightest stainless spokes. There is no free lunch as far as stiffness is concerned when moving from stainless to titanium... if you save weight then you lose spoke stiffness by about the same amount. Where you may potentially gain is in the fatigue strength/weight ratio. These Pillar spokes haven't been out that long, but I haven't heard any bad news yet. Plus, from a wheel weight and strength standpoint it is better to have more light spokes rather than fewer heavy spokes.


----------



## roseyscot (Jan 30, 2005)

nice wheels. i thought about these as well. Though they aren't as aero, they are certainly 
lighter

http://www.amclassic.com/magnesium_clincher.html


----------



## Karbon (Oct 13, 2005)

rruff said:


> Not aluminum clinchers I bet.
> 
> Unless you took out most of the spokes....


Yes they were aluminum clinchers, it wouldn't be a valid comparison otherwise.

30mm Niobium rims
20x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes front
12x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes non drive side
12x Sapim silver CX-Ray spokes drive side
M5 Front hub
MAG145 rear hub

The M5 front hub is about 10g less than the MIG45, and the rims were both under 430gm each I was told. I'm guessing 25-30gm less on the rear hub. When I saw them my jaw was dropping big time.... I didn't bother asking how much...


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

Karbon said:


> Yes they were aluminum clinchers, it wouldn't be a valid comparison otherwise.
> 
> 30mm Niobium rims
> 20x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes front
> ...


There is no mag145 hub from Tune or mag140 only a mag150. So which one was it?

30mm Niobium rims- 430g (never seen any under 440g) x2 860 grams
20x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes front- 72 grams
12x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes non drive side- 42 grams
12x Sapim silver CX-Ray spokes drive side- 42 grams
M5 Front hub- 40 grams
MAG145 rear hub- 155g (mag150)
Total- 1171g

That pair you saw weighed to much for the parts used.


----------



## Karbon (Oct 13, 2005)

Ligero said:


> There is no mag145 hub from Tune or mag140 only a mag150. So which one was it?
> 
> 30mm Niobium rims- 430g (never seen any under 440g) x2 860 grams
> 20x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes front- 72 grams
> ...


The one with the regular flange on the drive side, straight pull on the non drive side.

You forgot nipples...


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

ergott said:


> I've used up my favors around the industry and finally got my "special project" wheels up and running. I figured that I should have a set of clinchers that are aero and worth keeping around for some time. There was by far more thought into this set of wheels than should be allowed. I mulled over ideas with Troy and Jeremy for months and waited patiently for everything to roll in for the build. The wait was well worth it. These bad boys look crazy!
> 
> Tune Mig 45 front hub
> Tune Mag 190 rear hub (extensively worked over for weight savings and other optimizing)
> ...


 Very nice build. When I glanced at the pictures I thought, 'OK, that's it, a six spoke wheel is pushing it a bit too far.' 

On a serious note, I didn't think you could make titanium spokes. I was always told that titanium is light and super strong, but also brittle and subject to metal fatigue. Give us a longevity report after a few thousand miles.


----------



## ROGER79 (Dec 29, 2005)

*????????????*

OK, OK, OK....
How much $$$$ for 1280 grams of wheelset??????
Just curious, thanks!!!


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

All I can say is that you would be surprised what these would cost to have built compared to some of the prebuilts out there. There are a few builders I can think of that regularly work with all of these components.

-Eric


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2007)

To do the same type of build with a box style or low profile aluminium tubular rim - what would you be able to do for weight??

I ask for a reason, I have been asked to run some new Reynolds carbon wheels for a while - the MV32T, they are a mid profile and rated at about 1150 gms for the set.

FRankly would prefer low profile or box rim - so the ??


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

toomanybikes said:



> To do the same type of build with a box style or low profile aluminium tubular rim - what would you be able to do for weight??


Under 1200g.

I have a pair coming next week under 1200g as mine are clinchers.
20mm Semi-Aero Aluminum Rims
 20h M5 Front Hub 
24h Rear Primavera 205 Rear
 Sapim CX-Ray w/ Internal Aluminum nipples.


I will have pics and weights posted here when they arrive late next week.
These won't break the bank either and will be resonably priced.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Under 1200g.
> 
> I have a pair coming next week under 1200g as mine are clinchers.
> 20mm Semi-Aero Aluminum Rims
> ...


I will have to talk to the man, next week methinks.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Troy has already built wheels under 1200g. I know this can be done with the following:

Tune mig 45/Mag 160
Alex Crostini R3.1 rims
Piller ti spokes
alloy nipples
24/28

-Eric


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Sorry, but I didn't see the tubular part. Alloy tubulars can be built under 1100g easily.

-Eric


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

After the opening description and then looking at the first photo my thought was uh...wow! It looks really aero. The extra spoke version looks even better.


----------



## UPcyclist (Nov 14, 2006)

Karbon said:


> Yes they were aluminum clinchers, it wouldn't be a valid comparison otherwise.
> 
> 30mm Niobium rims
> 20x Pillar 1422 titanium spokes front
> ...


Actually the AM CR420 rims are the lightest aluminum aero rims on the market. 420 stands for 420 grams, and they are more aero, at 34mm. 

And if you want a light hub, BTP (Bavarian Tuning Parts) makes a 38 gram carbon front hub. www.b-t-p.de


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

UPcyclist said:


> Actually the AM CR420 rims are the lightest aluminum aero rims on the market. 420 stands for 420 grams, and they are more aero, at 34mm.
> 
> And if you want a light hub, BTP (Bavarian Tuning Parts) makes a 38 gram carbon front hub. www.b-t-p.de


The days of them weighing 420g have been over for a while. Mine weighed in at 452g each and they were on the light side of what you could expect them to weigh now.

-Eric


----------



## scorpionking (Mar 10, 2002)

rruff said:


> Not aluminum clinchers I bet.
> 
> Unless you took out most of the spokes....



Most of the weight savings these guys are getting on their claimed wheel weights are the result of 

1) using extremely light weight weight weenie type hubs which have virtually zero effect on real riding performance. The hub weight reduction is for all intensive purposes effectively minor static weight savings.

2) not counting skewer weight whereas many other hubs listed weights include skewers provided like Campy, etc. Never seen anyone yet who could mount wheels without skewers, lol.

3) using minimalist spoke count designs which often sacrafice lateral stiffness and likely long term durability. A 30 mm clincher rim with a few less spokes is gonna make you more aero to the point you'll notice it under 30mph??????? LMFAO

Talk to anyone in the know regarding aerodynamics and they'll laugh if you propose to them that a 20 or 24 spoke count front wheel on a clincher rim will result in any meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30 mph. 

The reduced spoke count designs are almost all for show, for marketing, for looks and for the reduction of a few grams of weight which is meaningless performancewise to almost all riders. 

Build a sensible 28/32 design on a low profile rim like an RR 1.1 or Open Pro and you'll have a wheel which responds as well if not better, lasts longer, is as laterally stiff if not stiffer and under 30 mph will have no meaningful difference from an aero performance standpoint. Hub weight doesn't mean crap from a performance standpoint except to wheel marketeers and gram clounting clowns. Are you telling me if I build the same wheel with Centaur hubs and a reeeel heavy skewer that other than a couple hundred gram weight difference from a Tune hub I'll notice any difference in my riding performance? LOL, dream on.

Guys like Joe Young laugh at these idiotic low spoke count designs which are made more to market a look and a gram scale reading yahoo factor than they are made to deliver any meaningful performance edge. And the buying public buys into this crapola marketing hype hook, line and sinker, lol.

Yep, that 75 gram Tune hub and a weight weenig Tune rear hub along with some ti spokes is gonna make me zoom zoom zoom lots faster. Hahahaha


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

I was kind of thinking the same thing as Scorpion. Not that the wheels aren't really nice, they are. But when most people gawk at light wheels, it is because of the light rotating mass (ie. carbon rim). Building a lightweight wheel and saving the weight in the hub area really isn't any different than shaving some weight off your handlebars/stem/seatpost/gut/ etc.
Again, really nice wheels ergott, but I don't think its the type of lightweight that people would normally associate with wheels. Just my .02....

Now if someone is on a 'weight weenie' mission to save weight at all costs, then I'd think these are great wheels! 

Cheers


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

gibson00 said:


> Building a lightweight wheel and saving the weight in the hub area really isn't any different than shaving some weight off your handlebars/stem/seatpost/gut/ etc.
> A


See from some of us it's an art form and a hobby. For some it's a challange to build light weight bikes, part and wheels. You migh be shocoked on how some light weight wheels are acutally stiff and very durable if built right.

So what's wrong with shaving weight at the hub, seatpost, bars, etc if DURABILITY is not sacraficed?

Does my 13.5lb bike makes my faster than my 22lb ride? Probaly not. But it's a lot more fun to ride. If I ever decided to go on a big mountain climb it will be easier... Hell I will need all the help I can!


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

scorpionking said:


> 2) not counting skewer weight whereas many other hubs listed weights include skewers provided like Campy, etc. Never seen anyone yet who could mount wheels without skewers, lol.


 Ok, so add 40-65g for a set? Does that make it much heavier?



> 3) using minimalist spoke count designs which often sacrafice lateral stiffness and likely long term durability.


 What's worg with having good looking wheels? Lower spoke count wheels CAN be made to be laterally stiff and durable. You just need to build according to the riders weight and terrain. Would you count a 20/24 or 24/28 a low count? These can be made right to be as stiff as most of us truly need.


> The reduced spoke count designs are almost all for show, for marketing, for looks and for the reduction of a few grams of weight which is meaningless performancewise to almost all riders.


 Sometimes it about looks! Some only need som much performance. If it's built to YOUR needs and performs well, what else can you ask for?



> Build a sensible 28/32 design on a low profile rim like an RR 1.1 or Open Pro and you'll have a wheel which responds as well if not better, lasts longer, is as laterally stiff if not stiffer and under 30 mph will have no meaningful difference from an aero performance standpoint.


There are plenty of build with slighty lower spoke counts that CAN compete stiffness wise and last just as long! It's all about the builder and carefully chosing the build for YOUR NEEDS!

How can you make any comment on these wheels unlessd you've ridden these or know someone that has. These might be the best that egrott needs or thery might be crap like you said. But until you ride that build that's built for you then it's pointless.
Would a 220+lb Clyde on a rough streets survive on these? Probaly no.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Meaningful aerodynamics*



scorpionking said:


> Talk to anyone in the know regarding aerodynamics and they'll laugh if you propose to them that a 20 or 24 spoke count front wheel on a clincher rim will result in any meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30 mph.


If that person who says that a 20/24 spoke wheels (clinchers or tubulars) can't make a meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30mph, then that person can't be said to be in the know regarding aerodynamics. A good set of 20/24 deep rim wheels can knock up to 30 seconds off a typical rider's 10 mile TT time (said typical rider riding in the 20-25 mph range). For many people, that is not meaningless.

Aerodynamic savings are not an either/or matter - you don't have to ride at 30 mph for aerodynamics to make a difference, and you don't have to have rims at least 50mm deep to make an aerdynamic difference. At slower speeds, and at with shallower rims, the differences might not be as large, but they are still real.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

Mark McM said:


> If that person who says that a 20/24 spoke wheels (clinchers or tubulars) can't make a meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30mph, then that person can't be said to be in the know regarding aerodynamics. A good set of 20/24 deep rim wheels can knock up to 30 seconds off a typical rider's 10 mile TT time (said typical rider riding in the 20-25 mph range). For many people, that is not meaningless.
> 
> Aerodynamic savings are not an either/or matter - you don't have to ride at 30 mph for aerodynamics to make a difference, and you don't have to have rims at least 50mm deep to make an aerdynamic difference. At slower speeds, and at with shallower rims, the differences might not be as large, but they are still real.


At 25 mph I'd believe the wheels can make a difference. But less than that I believe the benefits taper off dramatically. Isn't that why wheel manufacturers always test at 25+ mph?? Because they know at speeds under that, their results won't show much difference between the high and low priced wheels.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people on this forum do not typically ride at 40km/hr on average. I'm talking everything, road racing, training, time trialing. And for those that do TT at or above 40, chances are they've already graduated to a real aero wheelset for tt'ing (disk/trispoke, etc.). For those road racing at over 40km/hr, they spend a lot of time in a pack where aerodynaics do not play the same role.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

gibson00 said:


> At 25 mph I'd believe the wheels can make a difference. But less than that I believe the benefits taper off dramatically. Isn't that why wheel manufacturers always test at 25+ mph??


No it isn't. They test at high speeds because the drag force goes up with V^2, and it makes it easier to measure more accurately.

Drag is the main force to be overcome whether you are going 20mph or 30mph. As an example lets say that aero drag is 80% of your resistance at 20mph, but 90% at 30mph. So what happens if they both get wheels that reduce their total aero drag coefficient by 5%? The slow rider's total drag is now (.95*.8+.2)x100= 96% of what it was before... a 4% improvement. The faster riders total drag is (.95*.9+.1)x100= 95.5% for a 4.5% improvement. So sure... it helps the fast guy a little more, but everyone benefits.

Even on a climb the weight penalty of of deep rims is usually less than the aero benefit.


----------



## gibson00 (Aug 7, 2006)

So why do guys with plain box rimmed wheels keep kicking my arse???


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

scorpionking said:


> Most of the weight savings these guys are getting on their claimed wheel weights are the result of
> 
> 1) using extremely light weight weight weenie type hubs which have virtually zero effect on real riding performance. The hub weight reduction is for all intensive purposes effectively minor static weight savings.
> 
> ...



Different strokes...

I am never one to tramp on solid 28/32 or more builds. In fact the majority of my builds fall in that category. That doesn't mean that all wheels have to be the same.

I did this project for a few reasons.

1) surprisingly enough, those hubs you laugh at are very strong. They also have better flange dimensions than any stock hub out there.

2) I initially had this idea for a 20/24 combination. I landed an 18/24 pair of rims and wouldn't turn them away.

3) Once I saw where the overall weigh was going, I went all out with the ti spokes. Yes there is some bragging rights for the WW crowd, but as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, I could have made them lighter.

4)I had and still have every intension of riding a lot of miles on them to see what they will feel like and if they will even hold up.


Here is my report.
Keep in mind that my other road wheels are all 32 3X (4+ sets) with one 28 2X front and two that are tied and soldered. I'm no noobie to traditional wheels. In fact the only spokes that I have broken were in one rear wheel that was 32 3X, but that is another story (bad batch of spokes).

They have a couple of hundred miles so far and living in the NE that's not bad!
I weigh 175 with about 10lbs of winter clothing on. They do pretty well. While I will not suggest that they are as stiff as my tied and soldered, 32 spoke, 3 cross Reflex wheels, they are not that bad. I notice the lack of stiffness only when cornering over rough roads. Out of the saddle they hold up well. They felt real good (or was it just me) on a false flat at 20+.

These are all subjective observations that have no backing in science except they haven't broke down so they are solid so far. Way too few miles to conclude that. What isn't subjective is that they are more aerodynamic than most aluminium wheels out there. The data is there for similar wheels to these. The differences are enough for people who like competitive riding to think about. The same aerodynamic advantage can be found with similar 30mm rims that are easy to find (niobium found in several outlets and the ever popular Deep V). Adding 4 spokes to each wheel and/or using heavier gauge spokes will go a long way to stiffening up the wheels without much of an aero penalty.

There was a time when you could only ride 36 spoked wheels. Modern advancements in metallurgy has seen big advancements in rims, hubs, and spokes. The spokes today are significantly better than the spokes of a few decades ago (better steel). People would have laughed at you for thinking of 28/32 wheels were solid not too long ago. Time moves on.

The hubs are lighter and still have objective durability. People have been riding plenty of miles on Tune, White Industries and other high end hubs with great results. Even the stock Shimano and Campagnolo hubs are lighter and still durable. I've seen plenty of older hubs with shattered flanges.

The rims today are heavier, but more aerodynamic and stiffer. Many were designed with lower spoke counts in mind. Why not build some that way?

There are plenty of reasons to push the envelope on a wheel build. How better to know what can and can't be done than to do it. It they fail miserably, then I won't do it again, but if they are getting the job done, what's to laugh at?

-Eric


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Less powerful (slower) riders get greater time savings with aero wheels*



gibson00 said:


> At 25 mph I'd believe the wheels can make a difference. But less than that I believe the benefits taper off dramatically. Isn't that why wheel manufacturers always test at 25+ mph?? Because they know at speeds under that, their results won't show much difference between the high and low priced wheels.


I think you are reading too much into the test speed. For direct comparison between wheels, they have to test them all at the same speed. It is too expensive to test all the wheels over a range of speeds, so they simply pick one representative speed, knowing that values will scale at higher and lower speeds. 25 mph is certainly a good, typical racing speed.

I think it is more telling what they _don't_ show. And that is how much drag reduction the wheels provide _as a percentage of total drag_. If they did that, then they'd have show that even the very best aero wheels can only provide a fraction of a mile per hour increase (at 25 mph nominal speed). A typical aero wheel might only increase steady state speed by 1/4 mph or so - how much do you think consumers would spend if they found out that the maximum speed increase they should expect to see with their expensive new wheels was only a fraction of a mile per hour?




gibson00 said:


> I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the people on this forum do not typically ride at 40km/hr on average. I'm talking everything, road racing, training, time trialing. And for those that do TT at or above 40, chances are they've already graduated to a real aero wheelset for tt'ing (disk/trispoke, etc.). For those road racing at over 40km/hr, they spend a lot of time in a pack where aerodynaics do not play the same role.


As mentioned before, you don't have to ride at 40 kph for there to be real (and meaningful) decreases in aerodynamic drag. If aerowheels only increase speed by 2% (say, from 20 mph to 20.4 mph, or from 25 mph to 25.5 mph), and your nearest competitor was 1% slower than you, than the drag savings from the aerowheels could be meaningful.

Let's take a look at a typical case: Rider A and Rider B both regularly do their club's weekly 10 mile time trial. Rider A usually rides a time of 24 minutes (25 mph avg.) and Rider B rides a time of 30 minutes (20 mph avg.). Both riders go out and buy the best available aerowheels, which can increase their speed by 2%. Now rider A can ride the 10 mile TT at 25.5 mph (23 min. 32 sec.) and Rider B can ride the TT at 20.4 mph (29 min. 25 sec.). Are these time savings meaningful? That's up to the riders to decide, but both riders saved about 30 seconds off their times. But here's the real zinger - even though Rider B had a smaller speed increase, he actually saved more time than Rider A - some would argue that the drag savings was therefore even more meaningful for the slower rider!


----------



## Jack Hammer (Mar 31, 2007)

*What about wind?*

I don't recall reading anyone mention wind in their aero discussions. Wouldn't that factor in as well? If you are riding at 15mph into a 10mph headwind would that be the same, aero-wise as riding at 25mph? Shouldn't windspeed, not just bike speed, be part of the discussion on the benefits of aero anything?

Jack

ps, I have no background in engineering, aerodynamics, science, etc . I'm just curious.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Jack Hammer said:


> I don't recall reading anyone mention wind in their aero discussions. Wouldn't that factor in as well? If you are riding at 15mph into a 10mph headwind would that be the same, aero-wise as riding at 25mph? Shouldn't windspeed, not just bike speed, be part of the discussion on the benefits of aero anything?
> 
> Jack
> 
> ps, I have no background in engineering, aerodynamics, science, etc . I'm just curious.



Yes. If you are going 15 into a 10 headwind, you will get the same benefit as a rider doing 25 in no wind.

-Eric


----------



## JTP (Feb 13, 2005)

*my experience*

i like this kind of new stuff more for the fact that its cutting edge and looks cool. High tech bike stuff is just fun to have. but i do notice performance improvements. 3 years ago i went from ultegra hubs laced to mavic cxp 33 rims with 32 straight gauge DT spokes (hand built) to Dave Thomas built wheels w/ White Industry hubs, Velocity Fusion rims with sapim CX rays and lower spoke count. these wheels are much lighter, look better, are very durable, and the improvement in ride quality is as obvious as a slap in the face.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ergott said:


> Yes. If you are going 15 into a 10 headwind, you will get the same benefit as a rider doing 25 in no wind.


Thats close. The drag force is a little lower because the wheel is spinning slower... ie the upper spokes are seeing double the apparent wind speed when there is zero wind (50mph), but in this case they are only seeing 15+25= 40mph. The lower spokes will be seeing a higher wind than before, but the two don't cancel out because force is proportional to V^2. It's a small effect, though. 

Also, since power= force x velocity the power requirements to overcome the wind drag will be ~15/25= 0.6 times as much.


----------



## jsmst32 (Sep 29, 2004)

Ergott,
Back to the most important question. How much did those wheels cost? Give us something please...an estimate would even do:cornut:


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

jsmst32 said:


> Ergott,
> Back to the most important question. How much did those wheels cost? Give us something please...an estimate would even do:cornut:


I won't talk money on the forum. All the extra tuning done on the hub won't be available. I had the weight shaved and wouldn't do it for a customer. I can however get the rear hub optimized for even better flange geometry than stock (Mag 190 only). I cannot get those rims again. Some people have purchased them retail from oversees, but I will not make a business practice of doing that. This was truely a one off prototype for those reasons. I want to put them through their paces and see if similar builds can stand up to normal riding conditions. The rest of my wheels are quite normal.

Niobium 30mm rims can be substituted for similar results. A Tune Mag 160 can be substituted for the rear hub. The rest can be had stock.

Sorry I didn't answer your question. I hope you understand and if you must know more contact me offline (check my profile).

-Eric


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ergott said:


> I can however get the rear hub optimized for even better flange geometry than stock (Mag 190 only).


Do you mean that you can get a wider flange spacing?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

rruff said:


> Do you mean that you can get a wider flange spacing?


No. Modifications are made to shift the shell to the right a little (very simplistic explanation). Spacing is also reworked to 132.5mm. Center to right result was 18.3mm for Campy (to center of flange).

-Eric


----------



## scorpionking (Mar 10, 2002)

Mark McM said:


> If that person who says that a 20/24 spoke wheels (clinchers or tubulars) can't make a meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30mph, then that person can't be said to be in the know regarding aerodynamics. A good set of 20/24 deep rim wheels can knock up to 30 seconds off a typical rider's 10 mile TT time (said typical rider riding in the 20-25 mph range). For many people, that is not meaningless.
> 
> Aerodynamic savings are not an either/or matter - you don't have to ride at 30 mph for aerodynamics to make a difference, and you don't have to have rims at least 50mm deep to make an aerdynamic difference. At slower speeds, and at with shallower rims, the differences might not be as large, but they are still real.



How deep of a rim are you talking about??????? The 1200 gram wheels these guys are building using 24 spokes up front are often using a Velocity Aerohead rim or a Niobium 19mm rim!!! No sane person would call that a deep rim! If I run 28 spokes up front on a Velocity Aerohead rim and you run 24, you're telling me that 4 spoke reduction is gonna make you 30 seconds faster??? BS! No way. Maybe 30 seconds faster if you run a 2000 km timetial, not in any normal timetrial distance. And the person who made the comment about aerodynamics and the meaningless differences between 24 spoke versus 28 spoke front wheels under 30 mph was Joe Young who has probably forgotten more about wheel poerformance than most in here will ever know combined.

Saving weight at the hub so you can advertise a 1200 gram wheelset isn't about obtaining a meaningful performance advantage, its about marketing a $500 higher margin pair of weight weenie Tune hubs to a gram scale obsessor so that the builder can make higher margins on their wheels. There is no more artisanship that goes into a properly made 1200 gram clincher using ultralight hubs and spokes than there is a 1600 gram wheelset using heavier hubs and spokes. Encorporating a $500 set of ultralight hubs into a wheelset does not make one any more of an artist than say a guy like Peter White or Joe Young, etc etc. 

If I have JY for example build me a 28/32 clincher wheel using the same low profile clincher rim as that 1200 gram weight weenie delight and my wheelset ends up weighing 1600 grams. If I then run the same tire, tube and rim strip, from the rims on out our wheels are IDENTICAL, not similiar, IDENTICAZL! Same rim profile, same exact weight! There is no way that saving a couple grams because of minor spoke count reduction or using ultralight hubs is suddenly gonna make your wheels perform loads better or even perform moderately better to the point that anything other than your overactive imagination will ever notice. When everything from the rim on out is identical. No way! And anyone who thinks they are going to climb lots faster because of thier Tune hubs is kidding themselves. Those hubs have virtually zero effective roatational weight benefits and the overall weight reduction is tiny when you consider the toal rider/bike weight package. Way less than 1% of total static weight. 

This isn't a situation where we are talking about a super light 50mm deep carbon Lightweight rimmed wheelset or the like - which provides both a significant drag reduction, a significant lift and a significant rotational weight advantage versus a conventional wheel. These 1200 gram clinchers are standard low profile clinchers being built with nothing more than weight weenie hubs and spokes. Nothing more. Are they lighter than a conventional low profile clincher build, sure they are. You can measure them on a gram scale and get all giddy if that floats your boat. Are they gonna accelerate loads differently from the 1600 gram low profile clincher with heavier hubs? No friggin way! Will they be different in any "meaningful" aerodynamic manner or climb in any meaningfully different manner from the 1600 gram low profile clincher? No, they won't. 

If you fall off the back of the pack using a 105 hub on a climb, you'll fall off the back of the smae pack using a Tune hub. Yes, the lighter weight hub theoretically helps you climb better, but for all intensive purposes it is for the most part basically very minor effective static weight savings and will have no real outcome on you staying with a pack or dropping off it. Getting dropped on climbs happens real quick, you don't lose contact inch by inch over a huge long span. At some point you simply can't keep up and yuou fall off quickly. No minor hub weight savings or a couple of spokes reduced is gonna keep you on the back of any pack you couldn't hold onto with a 1600 gram clincher wheelset. I don't care if the weight weenie clincher wheelset weighs 900 grams and uses a hub made from Kryptonite. 

Build a 24 spoke front wheel with an Aerohead clincher rim and come back in here and tell me that will make you 30 seconds faster than using the same rim with 28 spokes in any time trial or Iron Man event you run in????? LOL, let me know what planet this mystical event occurs on where a 4 spoke count reduction on a low profile clincher rim suddenly makes you 30 seconds faster in any time trial?? If I run a TT in about an hour, 4 spokes more is gonna cost me almost a 1% time penalty on the same rim and same tire and same bike setup?????? LOL


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

scorpionking said:


> How deep of a rim are you talking about??????? The 1200 gram wheels these guys are building using 24 spokes up front are often using a Velocity Aerohead rim or a Niobium 19mm rim!!! No sane person would call that a deep rim! If I run 28 spokes up front on a Velocity Aerohead rim and you run 24, you're telling me that 4 spoke reduction is gonna make you 30 seconds faster??? BS! No way. Maybe 30 seconds faster if you run a 2000 km timetial, not in any normal timetrial distance. And the person who made the comment about aerodynamics and the meaningless differences between 24 spoke versus 28 spoke front wheels under 30 mph was Joe Young who has probably forgotten more about wheel poerformance than most in here will ever know combined.
> 
> Saving weight at the hub so you can advertise a 1200 gram wheelset isn't about obtaining a meaningful performance advantage, its about marketing a $500 higher margin pair of weight weenie Tune hubs to a gram scale obsessor so that the builder can make higher margins on their wheels. There is no more artisanship that goes into a properly made 1200 gram clincher using ultralight hubs and spokes than there is a 1600 gram wheelset using heavier hubs and spokes. Encorporating a $500 set of ultralight hubs into a wheelset does not make one any more of an artist than say a guy like Peter White or Joe Young, etc etc.
> 
> ...



You are basing you entire argument on one major flaw. These are not Aeroheads. They are 34mm American Classic 420 rims. There is empirical data demonstrating the advantages of large profile rims. You can choose to ignore this all you want. The reduction of 4 spokes does not yield significant aerodynamic benefits. You are missing the bigger picture. Wheels with lower spoke counts usually have higher profile rims as well. The overall package is more aerodynamic and will be faster whether you believe it or not. If you think that the .1 or .4mph difference isn't much then you don't race. If people want to be faster in any situation that leaves them exposed to the wind (solo effort, TT, tri, simply riding alone), high profile, aerodynamic wheels will be a benefit. If none of that matters to you then go on riding any wheels you want. Different strokes for different folks. We all don't have to use the same equipment.

Let's forget that the Tune hubs are lighter than DT. Even if they weighed more than DT they are better. They offer far better flange geometry which results in stronger. stiffer wheel builds given the rest of the components are the same. This is another fact that you choose to ignore (or didn't bother to find out before you go shotting off you mouth). Here are the dimensions.

DT rear hub
center to center of flange measurements
16.8mm - center to right flange
32.4mm center to left flange
flange width 49mm


Tune rear hub (stock Shimano)
*17.7mm* - center to right
*38.6mm* - center to left
*56.3mm* - flange width

Resultant spoke angle for rear wheel built with DT RR 1.1 rim, 28 spokes, cross 2.
DT
6.5 deg left
3.4 deg right

Tune Shimano
7.7deg left
3.6deg right

Before you go touting the wonderful "optimized" flange geometry of DT (sure doesn't look like it to me), it is far better to have better spoke bracing angles than, slightly more equal spoke tension in the rear wheel left to right. The tension difference for Tune is about 46% and DT is about 52%. So long as spokes are not going slack (they aren't for me) wheel integrity is independent of spoke tension.

If you would like to dispute any of this, then you or anyone else for that matter must have failed HS math and physics. These numbers do not lie. Tune hubs also use the highest quality bearings (so does DT to be fair). There is no difference in the quality of seals in the hubs as the bearings are responsible for that anyway. Neither has had problems with ratcheting mechanisms so the "star" ratchet (wait, there have been issues with the star ratchet) offers no benefit. Oh, yeah, DT flanges have been known to fracture even with normal crossed spoke builds.

Parroting the thoughts of a well respected wheel builder doesn't make you smarter. Joe Young makes excellent wheels, but clearly there are other viable options out there.


-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> Let's forget that the Tune hubs are lighter than DT. Even if they weighed more than DT they are better. They offer far better flange geometry which results in stronger. stiffer wheel builds given the rest of the components are the same. This is another fact that you choose to ignore (or didn't bother to find out before you go shotting off you mouth). Here are the dimensions.
> 
> DT rear hub
> center to center of flange measurements
> ...


Putting the whole flange stuff aside, I also thought DT internal were a little more higher quality and seald than Tune. I know both in overall quality are equal and both are excellent hubs. Part of the reason why I went DT over Tune on my last wheels. Ok, DT was cheaper but not really.
If Tune is that GOOD inside and with better building capabilities, I know what my next hubs are .

Do do know from what I hear Tune has really improved over the years!


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> Putting the whole flange stuff aside, I also thought DT internal were a little more higher quality and seald than Tune. I know both in overall quality are equal and both are excellent hubs. Part of the reason why I went DT over Tune on my last wheels. Ok, DT was cheaper but not really.
> If Tune is that GOOD inside and with better building capabilities, I know what my next hubs are .
> 
> Do do know from what I hear Tune has really improved over the years!


Both hubs have very high quality internals. Neither is sealed better than the other. There is no mechanical seal other than the seals on the bearings themselves.

-Eric


----------



## tone12 (Feb 4, 2007)

Scorpion, talk about a man crush! Jeesh, you've dropped Joe's name around 10 times in two posts.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

gibson00 said:


> I was kind of thinking the same thing as Scorpion. Not that the wheels aren't really nice, they are. But when most people gawk at light wheels, it is because of the light rotating mass (ie. carbon rim). Building a lightweight wheel and saving the weight in the hub area really isn't any different than shaving some weight off your handlebars/stem/seatpost/gut/ etc.
> Again, really nice wheels ergott, but I don't think its the type of lightweight that people would normally associate with wheels. Just my .02....
> 
> Now if someone is on a 'weight weenie' mission to save weight at all costs, then I'd think these are great wheels!
> ...


The rims weigh 452g each. Compare that to Carbon clinchers of similar dimensions.

-Eric


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ergott said:


> The rims weigh 452g each. Compare that to Carbon clinchers of similar dimensions.
> 
> -Eric


Yep, very similar if not heavier at times (CF/alu).


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

scorpionking said:


> And the person who made the comment about aerodynamics and the meaningless differences between 24 spoke versus 28 spoke front wheels under 30 mph was Joe Young who has probably forgotten more about wheel poerformance than most in here will ever know combined.


Joe Young obviously knows how to build wheels, but I doubt he has much knowledge of aerodynamics. And if he (and you) believe in being conservative about equipment, that is fine. But there is no reason to turn that into a religion. 

Last time I checked we still have enough freedom to choose the kind of cycling equipment we ride. You favor durable equipment and you claim that the performance penalty of heavier hubs or added spokes is small... and you are absolutely correct! For the vast majority of the cycling population there is no *good* reason to push the envelope... except that they simply want to. 

A couple days ago I talked to a guy who was interested in ordering some wheels. He mentioned early on that he wanted the wheels to "last forever", so I advised Dura Ace hubs, heavy rims, plenty of spokes, brass nipples, etc. But then it came out that he wanted the weight to be in the "low 1400g" range, and he prefered an aero rim like the Niobium 30. I told him what the real performance benefit would be (ie quite small and not noticeable... he doesn't race). But that is still what he wanted... so that is what he's going to get! It doesn't matter if it makes sense to *you* or not. Plenty of people like to have light and aero equipment, and they enjoy putting a bike together that is as fast as it can be... even if most of the benefit will be in their heads. And frankly I like to built wheels that are pushing the envelope, too. 

So that's the challenge. Eric has put together a *very* light wheelset considering that it has such deep rims. He isn't a light guy and he has been thrashing them for awhile now and they've held up fine... evidence of a good build. It's also evidence that they aren't "stupid light". Will they last as long as your wheels? Probably not... but if the user is fairly light on his equipment, they should last a long time. Different strokes...


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

scorpionking said:


> Talk to anyone in the know regarding aerodynamics and they'll laugh if you propose to them that a 20 or 24 spoke count front wheel on a clincher rim will result in any meaningful aero difference to anyone consistently riding under 30 mph.


I bought aero wheels with some trepidation- all marketing hype, etc. My first real world test was cruising along on a stretch I normally did around 17-17.5 MPH on. I feel really good. I think I'm going faster, but it could all be in my head. I looked down at my computer and it's reading 18.5 MPH- 'Hold on cowboy,' I told myself. It's a windy day and you can't tell what direction the wind is blowing. About that time I see a flag- I'm in a headwind. That's what people don't consider, maybe aero wheel don't have real benefits below 30 MPH (I've read 25 MPH in other places), but if you're going 15 MPH into a 15 MPH headwind (something many riders do regularly) you've got a 30 MPH airspeed, so even us slowpokes can benefit from them.

From my own purely subjective experience, I'd say they give the most benefit when the wind is coming from the front, at a slightly off angle, maybe 15-30 degrees.

Durability? I worry about that. I'll let you know in a few thousand miles.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

California L33 said:


> I bought aero wheels with some trepidation- all marketing hype, etc. My first real world test was cruising along on a stretch I normally did around 17-17.5 MPH on. I feel really good. I think I'm going faster, but it could all be in my head. I looked down at my computer and it's reading 18.5 MPH- 'Hold on cowboy,' I told myself. It's a windy day and you can't tell what direction the wind is blowing. About that time I see a flag- I'm in a headwind. That's what people don't consider, maybe aero wheel don't have real benefits below 30 MPH (I've read 25 MPH in other places), but if you're going 15 MPH into a 15 MPH headwind (something many riders do regularly) you've got a 30 MPH airspeed, so even us slowpokes can benefit from them.
> 
> From my own purely subjective experience, I'd say they give the most benefit when the wind is coming from the front, at a slightly off angle, maybe 15-30 degrees.
> 
> Durability? I worry about that. I'll let you know in a few thousand miles.


Total BS. Best improvement you could expect would be at most 0.5mph. The rest is in your head.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> Total BS. Best improvement you could expect would be at most 0.5mph. The rest is in your head.


Well not total. As you said, let's give .5mph (as you state a possible improvement) to a wheel upgrade and give the other .6 or better to his increasing strength;-)

Now let's stretch this anecdote even more and include going from a crappy clincher (say GP 3000, high Crr ther eare plenty worse out there) and he makes the switch to Veloflex Carbons (consistently test well for lower Crr). Maybe there is another .1 or .2mph to be had there! The improvement in equipment becomes significant (not that .5mph isn't) when you combine factors. Starting from a 32 box rim setup with crappy tires and heavy tubes and going to a pair of high profile wheels and using better tires (either HQ tubulars or as tests have shown, high quality clinchers with latex tubes with the right air pressure) and you *might* see 1mph or so better. Slogging into a 15mph headwind is never fun.

I would like to here California L33 (or someone with a similar experience of improvement in equipment) try switching back as seeing if they indeed loose all of the extra speed gained. Sure this isn't exactly science going on here, but hey, why not?

-Eric


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

*Curses! Forrest Root has unmasked me!*



Forrest Root said:


> Total BS.


What a nice polite young man you are. Your mother must be very proud. 

The truth is the Aerowheel Industrial Complex got to me. They promised me money and women if I played along, and threatened my family if I didn't. Please don't put me in jail. I'm too pretty  



Forrest Root said:


> Best improvement you could expect would be at most 0.5mph. The rest is in your head.


And on my GPS.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

ergott said:


> Well not total. As you said, let's give .5mph (as you state a possible improvement) to a wheel upgrade and give the other .6 or better to his increasing strength;-)
> 
> Now let's stretch this anecdote even more and include going from a crappy clincher (say GP 3000, high Crr ther eare plenty worse out there) and he makes the switch to Veloflex Carbons (consistently test well for lower Crr). Maybe there is another .1 or .2mph to be had there! The improvement in equipment becomes significant (not that .5mph isn't) when you combine factors. Starting from a 32 box rim setup with crappy tires and heavy tubes and going to a pair of high profile wheels and using better tires (either HQ tubulars or as tests have shown, high quality clinchers with latex tubes with the right air pressure) and you *might* see 1mph or so better. Slogging into a 15mph headwind is never fun.
> 
> ...


 I just uploaded a couple of jpegs (edit- of my GPS data in a reply to Forrest Root) of before/after aero wheel installation. January 24th was the day I first rode like I did with my old wheels, fairly hard on a 16.5 mile loop. (More "total BS man" is that I break in wheels, riding slowly the first hundred miles or so.) The 4th was last time I rode that loop with my old wheels in that direction. The wind generally blows out of the South, but in the winter it is more likely to switch directions. The 24th was one of those days, and I actually ended up riding into a fairly strong headwind while headed North. Within a minute of the highlighted leg I saw a flag pointing almost directly at me. I don't remember which way the wind was blowing on the 4th, but I generally don't intentionally ride into the wind on that Western leg because it's more exposed. The only difference in tires/tubes was that I replaced the rear tube with a Performance lightweight tube (from standard weight). The tires were the same, Specialized Armadillo Elites (not great [much better than standard Armadillos] but we get a lot of puncturevine around here) inflated to 125psi rear, 110 in the front- as with the old wheels. 

One of these days I will put the old wheels back on and see what I do, but I just don't see that kind of performance increase in less than 3 weeks time from improved physical conditioning.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

Nice build  
.
.
And 90 grams less than a AC 420/CX-ray without stickers


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

California L33 said:


> And on my GPS.


Well, gee: GPS data certainly tells the tale, now, doesn't it? Oh, hey, BTW, where is the wind data? Is flag position your only decider for wind velocity?

Nothing in your data speaks to the wheels being wickedly faster. Certainly a "3 mph" difference over the same section of road is not attributable to wheels. Ain't happenin. If you did the science, you'd know that.

Breaking in wheels slowly? Where did you come up with that crap?

You "think" you'll be faster on aero wheels, so you pedal harder. It's called a placebo effect. Aero wheels certainly do have an advantage, but no one--no lab, no magazine, no scientist, and no engineer--has documented such magnificent gains. Zipp, who love to issue white papers and claim great aero benefits, do not show such huge gains with their wheels in their studies.

In honor of accuracy and honesty in scientific reporting, it should also be noted that nowhere do you give any physiological data: heart rate, power output, etc. So exactly how is it that you've been able to so accurately attribute your superhuman gains? Maybe you've discovered that wormhole in scientific knowledge. Heck, I'll bet you get nominated for a Nobel Prize, fella. All that science you learned from Reader's Digest has served you well.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Forrest Root said:


> Well, gee: GPS data certainly tells the tale, now, doesn't it? Oh, hey, BTW, where is the wind data? Is flag position your only decider for wind velocity?
> 
> Nothing in your data speaks to the wheels being wickedly faster. Certainly a "3 mph" difference over the same section of road is not attributable to wheels. Ain't happenin. If you did the science, you'd know that.
> 
> ...


The data is representative of an overall speed increase from many data sets. The point at which the collected data show a noticeable and measurable speed increase is the point at which standard wheels were changed for aero wheels. The two shown were not meant to be exhaustive (I’m a bit surprised you thought they were), only to demonstrate that there is a difference which can be measured if you choose to do so. This was a specific reply to an assertion that any increase was 'only in my head'- which implied that it would not be measurable. It is measurable. It is easy to do so. It is repeatable. If you don’t like my data and my experience- fine. Make your own observations. Just don’t say you don’t need to make measurements because you already know. That’s not science. You can ‘prove’ bumblebees can't fly with standard aeronautical formulas. That doesn’t prove everyone who’s seen a bumblebee fly is wrong.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 
Please don't soil the scientific method with your GPS measurements. 
As for your bumblebees, you might want to step above misunderstandings from the 30ies and the persistent clinging to lies since then. 
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html




California L33 said:


> The data is representative of an overall speed increase from many data sets. The point at which the collected data show a noticeable and measurable speed increase is the point at which standard wheels were changed for aero wheels. The two shown were not meant to be exhaustive (I’m a bit surprised you thought they were), only to demonstrate that there is a difference which can be measured if you choose to do so. This was a specific reply to an assertion that any increase was 'only in my head'- which implied that it would not be measurable. It is measurable. It is easy to do so. It is repeatable. If you don’t like my data and my experience- fine. Make your own observations. Just don’t say you don’t need to make measurements because you already know. That’s not science. You can ‘prove’ bumblebees can't fly with standard aeronautical formulas. That doesn’t prove everyone who’s seen a bumblebee fly is wrong.


----------



## Forrest Root (Dec 22, 2006)

California L33 said:


> The data is representative of an overall speed increase from many data sets. The point at which the collected data show a noticeable and measurable speed increase is the point at which standard wheels were changed for aero wheels. The two shown were not meant to be exhaustive (I’m a bit surprised you thought they were), only to demonstrate that there is a difference which can be measured if you choose to do so. This was a specific reply to an assertion that any increase was 'only in my head'- which implied that it would not be measurable. It is measurable. It is easy to do so. It is repeatable. If you don’t like my data and my experience- fine. Make your own observations. Just don’t say you don’t need to make measurements because you already know. That’s not science. You can ‘prove’ bumblebees can't fly with standard aeronautical formulas. That doesn’t prove everyone who’s seen a bumblebee fly is wrong.


By "in your head" it was meant that the effect was likely, in part, a placebo effect.

Again, you've shown absolutely nothing that proves you gained that speed as a result of the wheels themselves. To do so, would re-write engineering and science. "Representative data" is a euphamism for "I picked and choosed which data I wanted to show."

As for your bumblebee comments, you make no sense. If only science worked the way you thought it did.


----------



## niteschaos (Apr 19, 2002)

California L33 said:


> The data is representative of an overall speed increase from many data sets. The point at which the collected data show a noticeable and measurable speed increase is the point at which standard wheels were changed for aero wheels. The two shown were not meant to be exhaustive (I’m a bit surprised you thought they were), only to demonstrate that there is a difference which can be measured if you choose to do so. This was a specific reply to an assertion that any increase was 'only in my head'- which implied that it would not be measurable. It is measurable. It is easy to do so. It is repeatable. If you don’t like my data and my experience- fine. Make your own observations. Just don’t say you don’t need to make measurements because you already know. That’s not science. You can ‘prove’ bumblebees can't fly with standard aeronautical formulas. That doesn’t prove everyone who’s seen a bumblebee fly is wrong.


I take exception. The stuff you learn at the undergraduate doesn't apply to low Reynolds number flight. It's not that "magical" equations disprove it. It's the other way around. The equations used in aerodynamics have only certain regions of applicability. For example, the equations for low-speed flight don't apply to high-speed flight. It's not that the equations disprove it. Equations are meant to model and help us understand our observations, as they are often *derived *from our observations.

Anyone who states the old addage "aerodynamics would prove insects can't fly" have stepped well beyond their area of expertise and are now blowing smoke.

Okay....lecture off.


----------



## dai_pink (Jan 7, 2009)

Erm, I just like riding my bike!


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

wow - old post, yet so much angst over a man that built an interesting wheelset ! - I truly appreciated this thread since ergott with this creation has inspired my own clone (sorry man! but it's too good!)...

for the true believers, high spoke count and low profile rims are not the be all of custom as ergott has shown. Thanks to dependable data, it can be proven that in every measurable metric these new fanagled low-spoke wheels are superior... Stiffness of custom as a virtue was mentioned - but check out the mon chasserals, essentially a dt240/28h/RR1.1 build (a rim also mentioned as the panacea for wheel builds), tested as one of the lowest rear stiffness out of the lot. More than just being stiff for stiffness sake, low numbers can pose a problem for stronger riders >80kg. For those that race, having something like eurus (16h front / 21h rear), far stiffer, more aero and with excellent hubs would be an advantage - and why would you give that up? sure not for everyone, but to laugh the differences away seems premature, even arrogant. Add to the fact that ergott's wheel would be even more aero and a good ~400g lighter in the real world? kinda leaves the chasserals for dead.

Also don't be quick to dismiss the AC rims (depth of 34mm). Check out the tests here: http://rouesartisanales.over-blog.com/article-15505311.html
all things considered, its aero preformance is damn close to campy boras (50mm), and actually beats some deeper carbon rims out there...

Again, nice build - it highlights the strengths of the AC rim, whilst giving us a option to avoid resorting to AC hubs / random spokes.


----------



## niteschaos (Apr 19, 2002)

Quiet Wankski! Enough with your reason and technical data! There's no room for your objective analysis here! [/sarcasm]

Overall, Wankski gets +1.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

ha, it's not even about reason so much. The OP was about a unique wheel build, and it certainly is. Then it gets attacked because its not a 3x 32h 'traditional build'... sure they may have a place (eg, long distance training rides where a broken spoke on low count sets can leave u stranded) - but is such a traditional build 'post-worthy'? prolly not. Just about everyone who owns a spoke wrench and stand has built such a set.

building a XT/EX729 set right now in such a fashion....

soon pics of my triplet AC420s!!! when the parts come and they get built that is...


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

ergott said:


> Tune rear hub (stock Shimano)
> *17.7mm* - center to right
> *38.6mm* - center to left
> *56.3mm* - flange width
> ...


Hi,
Love the wheelset. So much so that I decided to copy it. The main question I have is regarding the lacing of the NDS rear spokes. Usually I'd go for heads out to reduce to dish, and improve tension balance. But with twice the number of DS spokes, this would appear to be less important. Would heads-in radial NDS therefore be a better idea, to increase the bracing angle?

My exact build plan is:

*Front *
Tune Mig 70, 18 radial, 34mm American Classic 420 rim (18H)

*Rear*
Tune Mag 180, 8 radial (heads in?) NDS, 16 3x DS, 34mm American Classic 420 rim (24H)

Also, how do I calculate spoke length for the rear DS? I assume it would be slightly different than if I was using a 32h rim. (do you still have your spoke lengths handy)

Sorry for all the questions, and the dragging up of an old thread, and thanks for the inspiration.


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

Smallfurry said:


> Hi,
> 
> Also, how do I calculate spoke length for the rear DS? I assume it would be slightly different than if I was using a 32h rim. (do you still have your spoke lengths handy)


Eric and I have a spokecalc program that has been modified to calculate triplet lacing patterns. The lengths you need are 277mm for 3x drive side and 273mm for 1x non drive side.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Ligero said:


> Eric and I have a spokecalc program that has been modified to calculate triplet lacing patterns. The lengths you need are 277mm for 3x drive side and 273mm for 1x non drive side.


Cheers:thumbsup: 
I've been trying to work it out from basic trig (spokecalc et al, you spoil us), but I seemed to have too many unknowns in my equations.

Was planning radial NDS to be honest. But 1x is an interesting option, as I had toyed with the idea of using M5 hubs (slightly cheaper, slightly lighter, but no 18 hole front). The uber light front flanged M5 hub dosent like radial, so I considered 20 spoke 1x (kinlin 31mm 20 hole rim). 1x on the rear NDS would improve the asthetics of this wheelset (IMHO), if I went with this option.

On paper the Tune hubs look to be more sturdy though. With the rear having 5 bearings as opposed to 4.

....and they come in green.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Right I make it.....

*Front* - spoke length 268mm _(tune MIG 70 laced 18 with spokes radial to American classic 420 (18H))_

*Rear DS* - spoke length 276mm _(tune MAG 180 (32h) laced 3x with 16 spokes to American classic 420 (24H))_

*Rear NDS* - spoke length 266mm _(tune MAG 180 (32h) laced radial with 8 spokes to American classic 420 (24H))_

(rounded to nearest even mm)

I figure heads out for all the radial spokes will be best. Despite the fact that this increases rear dish slightly. The 2:1 spoke ration on the rear should compensate for this.

Cheers.


----------



## Ligero (Oct 21, 2005)

Smallfurry said:


> I figure heads out for all the radial spokes will be best. Despite the fact that this increases rear dish slightly. The 2:1 spoke ration on the rear should compensate for this.
> 
> Cheers.


I would lace the non drive side on the rear heads in not heads out. With the 2 to 1 lacing you loose lateral strength but gain balanced tension so you need to do something to gain back some of the lateral strength that was lost. Lacing the non drive side heads in will help gain back some of the stiffness you lost but you will still have pretty close to balanced tensions.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Ligero said:


> I would lace the non drive side on the rear heads in not heads out. With the 2 to 1 lacing you loose lateral strength but gain balanced tension so you need to do something to gain back some of the lateral strength that was lost. Lacing the non drive side heads in will help gain back some of the stiffness you lost but you will still have pretty close to balanced tensions.


Slip of the hand :blush2: 

I meant heads in. Hence the comment regarding increasing dish slightly. I was'nt totally sure about it though, so thanks for the info.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Yep... if you check Troy's triplet specific hubs you'll see that the NDS flange is *way* out there. Greater spacing is better.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Sorry I was late to the game. I haven't been home long enough to get a correct reply in (thanks Troy).

Basically what Ron and Troy said. I still rock those wheels and they are my favorite set of clinchers for the road.

I also used DT Competitions on the left side to gain back some more lateral stiffness. That way I have almost even tension on both sides and great lateral integrity.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

ergott said:


> Sorry I was late to the game. I haven't been home long enough to get a correct reply in (thanks Troy).
> 
> Basically what Ron and Troy said. I still rock those wheels and they are my favorite set of clinchers for the road.
> 
> ...


Cheers.

I cant see the pics anymore. Have you laced the NDS radial or 1x as in Ligero's pic?

Would 1x even up the tension more than radial, and transfer drive torque more effectively, or is the tension difference still such that the drive side transmitts nearly all the drive torque?

Sorry for all the questions. I just find the concept fascinating.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Smallfurry said:


> Cheers.
> 
> I cant see the pics anymore. Have you laced the NDS radial or 1x as in Ligero's pic?
> 
> ...












I didn't do radial because the Tune rear hub isn't a big fan. Left side flanges are known to fail when laced radially. I'm sure there is some torque transfer with the 1X, but I doubt it's significantly more than radial.

-Eric


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

You don't need to worry about drive torque... you have 16 tangential spokes on the DS.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Lets face it, if the big sprinters arent troubled using low spoke count rear wheels with radial NDS. I cant believe I could even detect the difference. But then its not all about real world performance gain. For me its about putting together the best possible wheelset I can for a given budget/weight/purpose etc.

I think I'll go 1x NDS regardless. I noticed that tune's front hubs are only compatible with radial lacing up to the 28 hole hub. The NDS flange of the rear hub is only 3.5mm larger in diameter, than the front hubs, and appears to be of a similar thickness. It therefore seems sensible to aviod radial lacing here (I assume there more stress on the rear NDS than the front flanges). As much as anything else, it looks nice (IMHO). 

Cheers


----------



## FORT-Cyclist (Jan 19, 2003)

Do you know the hubs by PMP ?

The flange of the rear hub seems to be fit for radial lacing. Front hub flanges anyway.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Those are some solid looking flanges. Heavier than I'd like though.

On the internet site of M5, whose hubs that I am also looking at, as well as Tune. They actually recommend radial NDS, and 2x DS. I dont know TBH, but the 2x recommendation makes me suspect they are talking about 28 or less holed hubs (they are only described as being availible in20, 24, and 28 drillings in the intro. Then later also in 32 and 36.). 
http://www.m5-ligfietsen.nl/site/EN...p:1432/art_id:1432.2/quantity:1/custom:/#1432

The more I think about it though, the more I prefer the idea of 3x, 1x lacing.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Ligero said:


> Eric and I have a spokecalc program that has been modified to calculate triplet lacing patterns. The lengths you need are 277mm for 3x drive side and 273mm for 1x non drive side.


Sorry for the thread dredge, but I've had my version of this build on the back burner for some time (had a slight pay cut to go on paternity leave). But as my birthdays is coming up I figured I'd start collecting parts.

I was hoping if it was'nt too much bother if someone could check my rear spoke lengths. I find this triplet pattern a bit vexing with regards to spoke calcs.

I have....

Hub - M5 Rear, 32H
Flange width: 52 mm (C-left 36mm, C-right 16mm, I think)
Flange diameter right: 52 mm, left: 32 mm

Rim - 48mm deep, 24H, ERD 544

Spokes - NDS 8 spokes, 1 cross with *262mm*
DS - 16 spokes, 3 cross with *264mm*
(rounded down to nearest 2mm)

Thanks in advance for any help.

Lee


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Drive side spoke calc is 266.5mm
Non-drive side calc is 255.6mm

My numbers are only as good as the numbers your gave me. Measure the ERD of the rim and don't use mfg. estimate. Many rims vary from batch to batch.

Order spokes from Jeremy at www.alchemybicycleworks.com He will sell you the proper spoke lengths for the build if you give him those numbers. He will also sell odd lots of spokes so you don't have to order batches you don't need.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Thanks.

I thought I was a bit off. I'm going to buy the hubs and rims first, then measure by hand. That ERD is calculated from knowing rim depth, and spoke drilling thickness. This should be spot-on in theory, but I'd feel better having measured it by hand.

The distances from centre to left and right flanges are not listed on the M5 site so that was calculated from the web picture, using the 52mm total flange width as a scale. Again, This should be spot-on in theory, but I'd feel better having measured it by hand.

Not very confidence inspiring to say the least.

Thanks for the link, very good prices, and they have the straight pull CX-Rays I was planning on using for the front (flangless M5).

Thanks again.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

If you want to update your measurements I can run the numbers again before you buy. Jeremy can do the calcs as well. He was the one that gave me the formula for triplet in the first place. He's one smart dude.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

I used the numbers supplied earlier on this thread for a Tune - KlinLin build.
Compared the DS lengths to a standard 32 spoke 3x wheel (using the same parts) on the drive side.
Then calculated the difference as a percentage.
Then calulated lengths for my new components, as if a standard 32 3x wheel, and applied the percentage change to get the new lengths

(did the same for NDS comparing to a 16 spoke 1x wheel)

I thought I was being quite clever to be honest  

Thanks for all the help. I'll definitly check back when I have some relible numbers. Is measuring the ERD by pushing two spokes, with nipps attached, through opposite spoke holes, and then measuring the distance from nipple shoulder to nipple shoulder, a decent one?
I figure if I do this across a few pairs and average the results. I'd be pretty spot on.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

It's taken me many wheel builds to dial in my ERD calculations. I started off with the Wheelsmith rods. I didn't like how they sat in some rims so I made my own rods out of 310mm spoke blanks. I cut off the elbows and threaded nipples on the other ends. I've also made a set of spoke rods for internally drilled rims using this procedure (I used a known ERD from a carbon rim that has a very consistent ERD from rim to rim).

I took a known rim (using the Wheelsmith rods) and figured out how much to subtract the overlap from to get the same ERD using my rods. I always measure a rim in four places and average the results. Not all rims are that round to start off.

It took a couple of sets of wheels to get the spokes consistently flush with the tops of the nipples, but now I'm happy with the results. I use the spocalc spreadsheet to get my spoke lengths. Once I get a number I subtract anywhere from .5mm to 1mm from the results to factor in the amount the spoke will stretch at tension.

There is a separate triplet formula you must use for the drive side spokes and the non drive spokes are simply 16 1X.

-Eric


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Smallfurry said:


> I have....
> 
> Hub - M5 Rear, 32H
> Flange width: 52 mm (C-left 36mm, C-right 16mm, I think)
> ...


I have an American Classic 24h rear hub sitting around and was thinking of giving this lacing pattern a try. Rims a usually drilled with alternating off-center spoke holes. Are you using specially drilled rims to do this or just rolling with standard drilling?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

You need a rim that has centered drillings. My AC 420 rims were.

I wouldn't use an American Classic hub. The pattern works better when the non drive side flange is around 38mm from center or more. AC hubs are too narrow.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

davidka said:


> I have an American Classic 24h rear hub sitting around and was thinking of giving this lacing pattern a try. Rims a usually drilled with alternating off-center spoke holes. Are you using specially drilled rims to do this or just rolling with standard drilling?


The rims I am (currently-keeps changing) looking at using, have a default 3 degree alternating drilling angle. I am pretty sure I can have them drilled with zero angle instead at no extra cost. At least thats the plan. I should have them drilled for internal nipples really (also an option), but am a bit apprehensive as I have never built an internal nippled wheel before.

I guess the fact that they are clinchers and I have some velo-plugs to use should mean it should'nt be too much hassle to retru them.

Also if AC hubs are a bit narrow then maybe the M5's are too.....


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

ergott said:


> You need a rim that has centered drillings. My AC 420 rims were.
> 
> I wouldn't use an American Classic hub. The pattern works better when the non drive side flange is around 38mm from center or more. AC hubs are too narrow.
> 
> -Eric


Good tip, thanks for that. I will talk with the guys at Velocity about thier rim's drillings, perhaps I'll try one of their Fusion rims.


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

ergott said:


> If you want to update your measurements I can run the numbers again before you buy. Jeremy can do the calcs as well. He was the one that gave me the formula for triplet in the first place. He's one smart dude.
> 
> -Eric


I'd like to take you up on this kind offer, if its noty to much bother. I have finally got all my bits together, and would appreciate it if you could check my numbers.

Measured the ERD of my rims to be *564mm*.
Front rim *20 hole*
Rear rim *24 hole*

This was measured by pushing spokes through, with the internal nipples and nipple washers I intent to use, threaded on. Happily the rims had a very consistent diameter.

Front hub *20 hole*
Flange Diameter *37.5 mm *
Flange to Center *35 mm *

Rear hub *32 hole*
Left Flange Diameter *41.0 mm* 
Right Flange Diameter *54.4 mm* 
Left Flange to Center *39.0 mm *
Right Flange to Center *17.0 mm *

I have calculated the following for all my spoke lengths.

Front, 20 spokes with radial lacing = *264.3mm*
Rear left, 8 spokes with 1x lacing = *269.5mm*
Rear right, 16 spokes 3x lacing = *276.2mm*

Thankyou very much in advance for any help with this.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

I get the same for the front. If the hub is straight pull it would be 265.6mm
For the rear I get:
270.7mm NDS
275mm DS
I don't know why you would get a different number for the NDS. In the calc you should have 16 spokes cross 1.
For the DS, it's not just a straight 48 cross 5. There is a formula for a small subtraction that has to be added. This is why I always use Spocalc. Since it's a spreadsheet, I can create a custom field with my own calculation (I should say Jeremy's) and save it. All I have to do is put the dimensions into the calc, set to 48 cross 5 and I have a separate cell with one more additional calculation that adjusts the results for a true triplet spoke length.

What rims/hubs are you using? 564mm looks like a 45mm internal drilled rim. ENVE (formerly Edge Composites) 45mm rims are close coming in at 566mm.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

ergott said:


> I get the same for the front. If the hub is straight pull it would be 265.6mm
> For the rear I get:
> 270.7mm NDS
> 275mm DS
> ...


Thanks. I pretty sure I just messed up the DS calc (using Tune Mag180).

Rear Wheel Input Data Output Data 
N, total number of spokes	48	cross	left length	right length
ERD, effective rim diameter	564,0	0	263,2	254,2
OSB, offset spoke bed	0,0	1	263,9	255,2
WL, center to left flange	39,0	2	266,1	258,2
WR, center to right flange	17,0	3	269,5	262,8
dL, left flange diameter	41,0	4	273,9	268,8
dR, right flange diameter	54,4	5,00	278,9	275,5
S, spoke hole diameter	2,4 
X, cross number (decimal allowed)(optional)	5,00 
WL_effective = W - OSB 39,0 
WR_effective = W + OSB 17,0 


Strange though. I was actually using SpokeCalc with 16 spokes 1x NDS to get the 269.5mm.

Rear Wheel Input Data Output Data 
N, total number of spokes	16	cross	left length	right length
ERD, effective rim diameter	564,0	0	263,2	254,2
OSB, offset spoke bed	0,0	1	269,5	262,8
WL, center to left flange	39,0	2	284,2	282,6
WR, center to right flange	17,0	3	298,2	301,1
dL, left flange diameter	41,0	4	303,8	308,5
dR, right flange diameter	54,4	3,00	298,2	301,1
S, spoke hole diameter	2,4 
X, cross number (decimal allowed)(optional)	3,00 
WL_effective = W - OSB 39,0 
WR_effective = W + OSB 17,0	

The front is a standard Mig 70	

Front Wheel Input Data Output Data 
N, total number of spokes	20	cross	left length	right length
ERD, effective rim diameter	564,0	0	264,3	264,3
OSB, offset spoke bed	0,0	1	268,1	268,1
WL, center to left flange	35,0	2	277,7	277,7
WR, center to right flange	35,0	3	289,2	289,2
dL, left flange diameter	37,5	4	298,2	298,2
dR, right flange diameter	37,5	3,00	289,2	289,2
S, spoke hole diameter	2,5 
X, cross number (decimal allowed)(optional)	3,00 
WL_effective = W + OSB 35,0 
WR_effective = W - OSB 35,0 

The Rims are OEM carbon clinchers. They are 48mm deep and drilled for internal nipples. So if a similar 45mm rim has a ERD of 566, then 564 for a 48mm rim seems resonable (especially with nipple washers on).

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Sorry!

Had the spoke hole diameter at 0

Your NDS is the same as mine.

273.8 for the DS.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

This post is long overdue, but basically a big thanks for all the help, and especially to ergott (Eric). 

I finally got my wheels together after slowly picking up parts, and they turned out better than I could have expected. The weight is around the 1.4Kg mark (with skewers and veloplugs), so no lightweight records were broken. But they're none too shabby for semi-aero wheels.

I have a barginus BMC SLX01 frameset coming, to put them on, which I think will match them well.

The trickest part of the build was threading tiny internal nipple washers onto spokes that were hidden in a 48mm deep rim. But once laced, the wheels came together very easily, and are now the most true wheelset I own.

(Sorry for the poor pic's, not much in the way of natural light where I am at the moment)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5132967550/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5132967578/sizes/l/in/set-72157625157116945/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5132967530/sizes/l/in/set-72157625157116945/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5132967564/sizes/l/in/set-72157625157116945/


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

No luck with the photos. They are asking me to sign in.

Glad the wheels are working out for you.

-Eric


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

Trying to post the pic's again.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

very cool wheelset. So what is the final weight? how does this wheelset compare to the American classic 420 wheelset? it has a triplet pattern too.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

California L33 said:


> Very nice build. When I glanced at the pictures I thought, 'OK, that's it, a six spoke wheel is pushing it a bit too far.'
> 
> On a serious note, I didn't think you could make titanium spokes. I was always told that titanium is light and super strong, but also brittle and subject to metal fatigue. Give us a longevity report after a few thousand miles.


When Marwi made Ti spokes in the mid-90s I built up several pairs of wheels with em.

WAY light

WAY soft-riding. Felt like I had a flat allatime. When I first got em, or put em back on after riding wheels with steel spokes, I caught myself looking down at the rear wheel a lot.

Lasted about 3 seasons and started breaking. So I pulled em all outta the wheels and replaced em with steel versions. Still have some of em if anyone's innerested.

M


----------



## Smallfurry (Mar 7, 2008)

cmg said:


> very cool wheelset. So what is the final weight? how does this wheelset compare to the American classic 420 wheelset? it has a triplet pattern too.


Thanks for the compliment.

If you look at the specifications alone (my weights are calculated), then they compare very favourably to the AM 420's, and thats with a stiffer heavier gauge of spoke on the rear (0,95x2.2mm bladed front, and 0,95x2.6mm bladed rear). I dont really think I paid much more than the 420's RRP for them in the end either. 

*Mine*
Depth 48mm
Front 600g
Rear 750g
Pair 1350g

*AM 420*
Depth 34mm
Front 663g
Rear 867g
Pair 1530g

So on paper at least, mine should be lighter, stiffer, and more aero. The AM 420's have the advantage of aluminium rims though (like the OP), and the aero statment is pure guesswork. Plus I havent ridden mine yet, so its still very possible that they suck.


----------

