# How much wheel weight difference can a rider feel?



## Aaron in Denver

I know this is probably very subjective, but I'm thinking about changing to a set of lighter wheels and am wondering how much difference it will make in the way my bike feels.
i currently have a Felt F55 with Mavic Aksiums and Vittoria Rubino wire bead slicks. The wheels list at 1980gm and the tires at 620gms for the pair. 
I'm looking at a couple of whelsets including Excel Sports Swiss Threat wheels and Rolf Prima Vigors, both weighing between 1400 and 1500gms. I have a set of GP4000 tires ready to go which list at 410gms for the pair. So, between the two changes I'd save about 700gms or a little over a pound and a half off the bike.
Will this difference be noticable when climbing, riding in general, or not at all? I'm pretty heavy (5-09, 180lbs... I know I can lose weight here very cheaply!) and ride mainly climbs west of Denver. I'm not a racer, but like to improve my times over routes I know whenever I can.
I've done some searches on the site and haven't been able to find a thread covering how much weight savings is noticable. Thanks for any info/opinions.


----------



## 633

The more you pay for 'em, the more convinced you are that you can feel the difference.


----------



## ampastoral

most will agree that with that much weight off of the weels, the bike will "feel" lighter, but actual performance gains will be more attributed to the effect that "feel" has on your drive, output, motivation, etc: the ever elusive placebo effect.


----------



## ericm979

A lot of the difference in feel depends on your riding style. If you climb sitting down and smoothly without many acellerations you won't notice anything. If you stand and rock the bike quite a bit you'll notice some difference in feel. There won't be much difference in actual speed since a pound and a half out of 200+ pounds (you + bike + gear) is a pretty small change. 

You'd notice a lot more in actual improvement if you could suddenly lose 10 pounds of body weight, but that's kind of hard to do and still remain fully functional. 

You could always use the spiffy new wheels as a reward for losing weight. Especially since it's still winter and you wouldn't want to be crudding up new wheels in the wet.


----------



## team_sheepshead

Subjectively, you will probably "feel" a difference for the first 50 miles or so, but after that you won't notice. Objectively, here's one perspective:
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Bike + rider: 200 pounds
90 cadence
8% grade
160 watts =
4.5 mph

Bike + rider: 198.5 pounds
90 cadence
8% grade
160 watts =
4.5 mph

Forgot to add, at the above speed/power output, new wheels will save you less than 20 seconds over a 1-mile climb at 8%. If you are racing for money or beer, that's significant. Otherwise, probably not, and you can gain more time more effectively by losing body weight and increasing your fitness.


----------



## catskillclimber

http://www.northeastcycling.com/NE_Climbs_main.html


----------



## skygodmatt

*Changing wheels is Mandatory*

Guys,

I don't know if you agree but the best and cheapest way to gain performance is to reduce rotating weight. The dude has boat anchors for wheels. If he went with a mid-weight bulletproof set of K's or Eurus's he would save over a pound ! A pound of rotating weight is huge ! Also, a set of Pro Race 2 tires would take more off. The bike would handle better, climb better and feel better. The only way I'd be caught riding wheels of that weight is in a flat time trial and I'd have the aero benefit of 50mm deep v'.s

Matt


----------



## allons-y

i can tell the difference between my wheels.

i have 2 pairs (soon to add a third).

1 is 21mm, ~1900g (wheels only)
2 is 27mm ~1500g (wheels only)

they feel very different when riding. climbing yes, but also just coasting along they roll better.


----------



## fabsroman

This whole "Lose body weight before spending money on new bike parts" is killing me. Yes, obviously being in better shape is the key to being a better rider, but the equipment does matter. I went from a 20+ year old steel frame bike with friction downtube shifters that weighed 22 pounds to a 16 pound bike with indexed shifting. My average speed/times improved. So has my enjoyment of riding. Now, when I built the wheels for the new bike I used the same make/model of rims as I had on the old bike, so there isn't much difference there. Those wheels weigh in at 1,600 grams. However, I just bought a set of Zipp 202's and the difference in weight is considerable. That will shave another pound+ off the bike with lighter tires. Trust me, a significant change in wheel weight will be noticeable every time this guy goes to accelerate. A bike that weighs 7 pounds lighter than your previous bike will be noticeable, as it is in my case. Just with it being 6 pounds lighter, it takes off when I stand to climb a hill. Then again, I am in decent shape and I don't have too much weight that I can lose at 5' 9" and 150 lbs, but I still can stand to lose a little bit of fat for muscle.

To answer the OP's question, the weight difference that you are talking about will make a difference. I know I felt the difference in wheel weight when I went from clinchers to tubulars as a junior racer. That was awesome. I am dying to try out the new 202's. Try the new wheels, if you truly don't feel any difference and don't notice an improvement in your times, then get rid of them on ebay. However, you might want to do some asking around about the wheels you are considering. I haven't heard too many good things about the Rolfs.


----------



## iliveonnitro

fabsroman said:


> This whole "Lose body weight before spending money on new bike parts" is killing me. Yes, obviously being in better shape is the key to being a better rider, but the equipment does matter. I went from a 20+ year old steel frame bike with friction downtube shifters that weighed 22 pounds to a 16 pound bike with indexed shifting. My average speed/times improved. So has my enjoyment of riding. Now, when I built the wheels for the new bike I used the same make/model of rims as I had on the old bike, so there isn't much difference there. Those wheels weigh in at 1,600 grams. However, I just bought a set of Zipp 202's and the difference in weight is considerable. That will shave another pound+ off the bike with lighter tires. Trust me, a significant change in wheel weight will be noticeable every time this guy goes to accelerate. A bike that weighs 7 pounds lighter than your previous bike will be noticeable, as it is in my case. Just with it being 6 pounds lighter, it takes off when I stand to climb a hill. Then again, I am in decent shape and I don't have too much weight that I can lose at 5' 9" and 150 lbs, but I still can stand to lose a little bit of fat for muscle.
> 
> To answer the OP's question, the weight difference that you are talking about will make a difference. I know I felt the difference in wheel weight when I went from clinchers to tubulars as a junior racer. That was awesome. I am dying to try out the new 202's. Try the new wheels, if you truly don't feel any difference and don't notice an improvement in your times, then get rid of them on ebay. However, you might want to do some asking around about the wheels you are considering. I haven't heard too many good things about the Rolfs.


I just wanted to say thanks. What most people don't realize is that a nice, newer bike part that WILL function better (even if small) is part of what makes cycling enjoyable. Keep things new and fresh and your attitude to training will be the same.


----------



## terzo rene

Well sure if you can only do one losing the weight is more effective. However you could actually do both. Or as is the case with most people weight loss off the body just isn't going to happen and the great thing about light equipment is that if you have the money (or credit card and willingness to go into debt) the weight loss is guaranteed regardless of your motivation or appetite.

To answer the original question you can feel whatever difference you think you can feel, but in reality differences are only apparent when accelerating.


----------



## fabsroman

I have to make a correction to my last post. You will notice the difference in accelerating AND in climbing and especially if you are trying to accelerate on a climb.


----------



## rgojr2001

Last year, I picked up a set of AC carbon38s. Was riding the RaceXLites that came with my 5200. Huge difference IMHO. Lost around 1.6 lbs in rim weight and it made a huge difference in certain areas. Acceleration and climbing were greatly improved, to the point that on certain climbs, I was able to begin accelerating much earlier than the rest of my group. Acceleration with the new rims seems almost instant. Even if a large part of the gains are mental rather than physical, it worth every penny to be able to look back at the group and not see be able to see the look of pain on there faces from that last hill because they're too far back.


----------



## Aaron in Denver

Thanks for all the replies. A lot to think about. Been looking at posts and reviews on the Rolfs, Eastons, AC's... on and on.

Anyone know anything about Rol? Read a couple good reveiews and they are close by.

Thanks again.


----------



## dagger

I can tell weight differences in the rear wheel when I accelerate.


----------



## JakeJolly

get new wheels and you'll be motivated to train harder and get your legs jacked, not to mention, fellow cyclists will notice whne you roll in on cane creek aeros 58 tubes.


----------



## KillerBee

*Rotating weight?*

I agree that saving a pound of rotating wheel weight could be significant IF THAT POUND DIFFERENCE WAS ALL OUT AT THE RIMS. If much of the savings is at the hub then the rotating weight difference wouldn't be noticeable. In looking at various wheel options, I'm not finding that the manufacturers tell us where the weight savings lies (rims, spokes, hubs).


----------



## fabsroman

Build your own wheels and you will know exactly where the wheel weight is. That is why i am going to build myself some Zipps. The rim weight is really light, so they should be some really nice wheels to ride.


----------



## fleck

Aaron in Denver said:


> Thanks for all the replies. A lot to think about. Been looking at posts and reviews on the Rolfs, Eastons, AC's... on and on.
> 
> Anyone know anything about Rol? Read a couple good reveiews and they are close by.
> 
> Thanks again.


I've only tried out Rol wheels once but for the few laps i used it they were nice. Rol provides neutral wheel support for a lot of Crits in the denver/boulder area. A few teamates picked up some and really like em. Tip, show up at some of the ACA crits, they were selling em out of their truck at the same as internet prices but with a pair of tubes and Conti GP4000 tires.


----------



## Jack Hammer

Something I've noticed is a lighter bike and wheels will become more appreciated toward the middle to end of a long ride. I used to consistently start 'feeling it' at ~the 50 mile mark. After I changed my wheels to some lighter ones I was able to consistently go a lot further before hitting that same point. I didn't really notice much of a difference on shorter rides, other than easier acceleration.

Jack


----------



## Doggity

I noticed it with acceleration (not that I'm white hot or anything...). Am I the only one that feels like the bike also loses speed quicker with coasting, with lighter wheels? Subjectively, it seems that way, even though the bearings are way better in my lighter wheels. Less momentum in the lighter wheels-seems like they would also deccelerate quicker. Anyway, you'll accomodate quickly to the dif in any case, and not notice it after the 1st ride or two.


----------



## iliveonnitro

OK, I officially have the freshest answer.

I put on my new wheels which are 425g (.94lbs) lighter than my old ones.

I CAN feel a difference with the way the bike accelerates (I can still pack an 1100w sprint after 2hrs of hard riding), but there isn't much noticeable change in climbing. There is no change in the way the bike feels while cruising. They also handle a tad better in very tight turns where hard braking and fast accelerating are necessary (ie, crits).

Buy new wheels, not for the weight savings, but for the stiffness increase and maintenance decrease.


----------



## imetis

I can feel a significant difference changing tires from 175 gm Vittoria Diamante ProLight to 292 gm Continental Gatorskins, specifically in accellaration. Once up to speed the difference is not noticable, but unless it's a TT how much time are you cruising at a constant speed? 

Fast is easy, quick is hard, and light wheels definitely help with quick.


----------



## Forrest Root

imetis said:


> I can feel a significant difference changing tires from 175 gm Vittoria Diamante ProLight to 292 gm Continental Gatorskins, specifically in accellaration. Once up to speed the difference is not noticable, but unless it's a TT how much time are you cruising at a constant speed?
> 
> Fast is easy, quick is hard, and light wheels definitely help with quick.


Ah, the wonders of placebos..........


----------



## yater

Forrest Root said:


> Ah, the wonders of placebos..........


Whatever it takes. If those fresh new wheels get you itchin' to ride, they're worth it.


----------



## fabsroman

I rode on my 1600 gram wheelset with 260 gram tires today and I can tell you that it is one heck of a difference between that wheelset and my Zipp 202's with 160 gram tires. I could immediately tell the difference. It is going to be hard to ride those Campy box tubulars now. However, they are much more forgiving than the 202's. Much smoother, but they accelerate and climb a lot slower.


----------



## ETWN Stu

People don’t forget to work on your core strength when you set out to loose weight. Weight loss is not the b and all for cyclist, esp people who like to sprint or get out of the saddle and dance on the pedals in the hills. If you do decide to diet than do it slowly, and cross train. The last thing that you want is to have nothing in the tank before the pressure is on.


----------



## sevencycle

Low weight,Stiffness and Aero Dynamics is the Key to wheel performance. American Classic hubs,Zipp 303 rims, Tufo 200g tubulars.At 1070g and way faster than my 202's


----------



## Kestreljr

iliveonnitro said:


> I just wanted to say thanks. What most people don't realize is that a nice, newer bike part that WILL function better (even if small) is part of what makes cycling enjoyable. Keep things new and fresh and your attitude to training will be the same.



I share your same sentiments... it kills me when a guy is looking to upgrade his wheels and he post some thoughts on the forum for technical product reviews and improvements. Then you have the random guys all giving him weight and nutrition advice... what a joke. If the guy says he want a coach, then you can give him advice about loosing weight... I realize that they are related to the subject, but it just seems silly IMO.


----------



## Argentius

I thought this was a thread about wheel weight...


----------



## sevencycle

ETWN Stu said:


> People don’t forget to work on your core strength when you set out to loose weight. Weight loss is not the b and all for cyclist, esp people who like to sprint or get out of the saddle and dance on the pedals in the hills. If you do decide to diet than do it slowly, and cross train. The last thing that you want is to have nothing in the tank before the pressure is on.


... and eat your veggies and get plenty of sleep and dont ever talk to strangers!!!


----------



## flyboy50

Don't forget about lite tires. You can easily save 100 grams on tires, which is a good fraction of what you save by spending a thousand bucks on a new wheelset, except good tires are a tenth of the price.


----------



## fabsroman

Yep, I bought some really light tires for my Zipp 202's, and have to replace them after about 500 miles on them. They were Tufo Elite Jet's at 165 grams. I am going to replace them with Tufo S3 Lites that are 195 grams. The Tufo S33 that I have on my everyday wheels have 500 miles on them and they exhibit no wear whatsoever. Then again, they weigh close to 250 grams each.


----------



## flyboy50

> have to replace them after about 500 miles on them


I meant for racing. For training I use "bulletproof" tires, it's cheaper and when I put on the lite racing tires I feel like there's an engine on my bike.


----------



## homebrew

I had a pair of shamals and switched to campy boras. saved around a pound as I remember. Once up to speed the shamal were as fast but the aceleration was way off the boras. I let several friends try them and they all said the same thing. Found the same thing climbing. If you lost your momentum on a steep grade the boras were a bit quicker getting you back on top of your gear. Keeping in mind however that bearings also play a role however IMO light wheels can still help a strong aggresive rider if speed is what your after. Areo still is first  Did I mention that Boras rule


----------



## afriqnboy

Doggity said:


> I noticed it with acceleration (not that I'm white hot or anything...). Am I the only one that feels like the bike also loses speed quicker with coasting, with lighter wheels? Subjectively, it seems that way, even though the bearings are way better in my lighter wheels. Less momentum in the lighter wheels-seems like they would also deccelerate quicker. Anyway, you'll accomodate quickly to the dif in any case, and not notice it after the 1st ride or two.



According to physics lighter wheels will mean that you can accelerate a lot faster because of the reduced angular momentum. Speed will be gained and lost faster as well. But losing a little weight in your wheels is going make a big difference in acceleration/deceleration. If any new bike parts are placebos, its probably the parts that weigh a couple hundred grams less that are in the body of the bike. The wheels are definitely the first thing to look at when you're losing weight.


----------



## Mark McM

*A little physics brush-up*



afriqnboy said:


> According to physics lighter wheels will mean that you can accelerate a lot faster because of the reduced angular momentum. Speed will be gained and lost faster as well.


Not quite. Lighter wheels will mean that you can accelerate a _little_ faster, but not a lot. Since wheels weigh about 2 - 3 kg, and the rider and the rest of the bike are usually more in the 80 - 90 kg range, even if the wheels had zero mass, you'd only accelerate a few percent faster. But since the real differences in weight between wheels are typically a fraction of their total weight, the difference in acceleration between different wheels is very small.





afriqnboy said:


> If any new bike parts are placebos, its probably the parts that weigh a couple hundred grams less that are in the body of the bike. The wheels are definitely the first thing to look at when you're losing weight.


All mass matters, not just wheel mass. A couple hundred grams less in the body of the bike will have a similar affect a corresponding reduction in mass in the wheels - at least according to the laws of physics you mentioned above. But since even a few hundred grams are only a small fraction of the total mass, then any belief in these changes have a dramatic affect on acceleration is mostly placebo - regardless of whether the weight loss was in the wheels or elsewhere.


----------



## Jack Hammer

Can anyone explain why in the mountain biking world it is generally accepted (at least that is my understanding) that lighter wheels and a lighter bike make a big difference, whereas in the road biking world it is primarily considered placebo and voodoo and to not make much difference?


----------



## Kestreljr

*the same laws of physics apply to both sports*



Jack Hammer said:


> Can anyone explain why in the mountain biking world it is generally accepted (at least that is my understanding) that lighter wheels and a lighter bike make a big difference, whereas in the road biking world it is primarily considered placebo and voodoo and to not make much difference?


You are right- those tour guys don't ride 28 pound clunckers, but I think the difference is that on this website, you have some seriously knowledgable people who will tell you what the calculated amount of time is with a weight savings. 

For example: When they see that the average rider can save 13 seconds over 20 miles with a one pound lighter bike, then they tend to be very real with the answers they give. If people are looking to take off 20 minutes on their 40 mile loop, starting with the engine (aka the rider) is a far better place to begin. :thumbsup:


----------



## fabsroman

Trust me, weight matters in the road bike arena too. I can feel a difference between my 22 pound steel Mino Denti and my 15 pound Colnago Cristallo. I can also feel a difference between my box style aluminum tubulars and my Zipp 202's which have a pound in difference between the two, probably more if you take the tires into consideration. There is definitely a difference in acceleration when climbing hills and when coming out of corners extremely hard. The lighter bike and lighter wheels tend to accelerate a lot better. Exactly how much of a difference that makes, I have no idea. Now, take into account that aero is usually more important than weight at high speeds, so who knows. Maybe light and aero is the trick.


----------



## afriqnboy

Mark McM said:


> A couple hundred grams less in the body of the bike will have a similar affect a corresponding reduction in mass in the wheels - at least according to the laws of physics you mentioned above.



Really? I know that the differences that are felt in acceleration/deceleration are going to be very very small, but I still think a few hundred grams of difference in the wheels is going to feel like double that weight or more of body weight reduction. I don't know, maybe not, I've only taken a few physics classes. I guess the bikes we're talking about are already really efficient and the new parts really don't make a significant difference.


----------



## sevencycle

Jack Hammer said:


> Can anyone explain why in the mountain biking world it is generally accepted (at least that is my understanding) that lighter wheels and a lighter bike make a big difference, whereas in the road biking world it is primarily considered placebo and voodoo and to not make much difference?


 UCI road racing has a 15 lb. min. weight limit or they would use 11 - 12 lb. bikes on climbing stages. My experience is that roadies tend to be more weight weenies than off road riders. You can see 1000g carbon road wheels on any group road ride. Go on a group Mt. ride you rarely see light trick wheels. Look at popular
brake wheel combo's for Mt. bikes HEAVY DISC setups.


11.81 lb Scott CR 1 SL, 22 lb Kona King


----------



## sevencycle

fabsroman said:


> Trust me, weight matters in the road bike arena too. I can feel a difference between my 22 pound steel Mino Denti and my 15 pound Colnago Cristallo. I can also feel a difference between my box style aluminum tubulars and my Zipp 202's which have a pound in difference between the two, probably more if you take the tires into consideration. There is definitely a difference in acceleration when climbing hills and when coming out of corners extremely hard. The lighter bike and lighter wheels tend to accelerate a lot better. Exactly how much of a difference that makes, I have no idea. Now, take into account that aero is usually more important than weight at high speeds, so who knows. Maybe light and aero is the trick.


Light and Aero *IS* the trick.My Custom Zipp 303's (1066g) are why I sold my 202's.


----------



## fabsroman

I agree about the reality. If you aren't racing, you shouldn't be worrying too much about weight or aero because everything should be based upon personal bests if you even care about that. However, while I am racing I never want to think about what might have been if I had more aero wheels or a little lighter bike. With that said, no matter what I decide to go with I will always be wondering. Should I ride the aluminum frame bike that is 70 grams heavier than the carbon fiber bike. Should I use the 202's, 303's, 404's, or 808's, and if a time trial, should I use the rear disk or not. Then, I can wonder about that decision after the race when I don't win. Ultimately, I will agree that is almost all about the engine/motor. My returns are much better from training than from wrenching, but the wrenching and new parts are nice.


----------



## sevencycle

It is all about the motor but a 400 hp motor in a vette will always be faster than the same motor in a pick up truck. If not more critical in a human powered machine.


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> It is all about the motor but a 400 hp motor in a vette will always be faster than the same motor in a pick up truck. If not more critical in a human powered machine.



I agree, but I think that is an unfair comparison if you are referring to most of the questions that come up on this site. 

Even the difference between a Mavic CXP 33 and a bad @ss pair of Zipp 303's* is more like comparing a 2000 Corvette vs. a 2007 corvette. the '07 is faster, but in the scheme of all cars, they are relatively the same. 

(** I hope I don't get struck by lighting for comparing a Zipp to a vette. In the interest of full disclosure, I put vettes in the same catagory as "mama" tattoos, rat tails, and real cheesy Jersey guys who run a small Denny's and wear gold chains. YMMV)


----------



## fabsroman

Okay, how about a better analogy. It is like the difference between a 2007 Ford Mustang ShelbyGT500 at 500hp and the 2008 Ford Mustang ShelbyGT500KR ("King of the Road") at 540+hp. Me, I'll take the KR, but most people would be happy with the standard GT500. If you are a die hard car guy or bike guy, you will pay the extra money for the slight performance gain.


----------



## Mark McM

*Actual vs. affective inertia*



afriqnboy said:


> Really? I know that the differences that are felt in acceleration/deceleration are going to be very very small, but I still think a few hundred grams of difference in the wheels is going to feel like double that weight or more of body weight reduction. I don't know, maybe not, I've only taken a few physics classes. I guess the bikes we're talking about are already really efficient and the new parts really don't make a significant difference.


Because the mass of the wheels must accelerate both linearly and rotationally, the effective inertia of the mass at any point on the wheel will be:

M(eff) = M(act) x ( 1 + (r/R)^2 )

where:

M(eff) = effective mass (inertia)

M(act) = actual mass

r = radius of M(act)

R = outer radius of wheel

So mass at the hub will have the same effective mass as mass anywhere else, whereas mass at the periphery of the wheel (tire, rim) will have the twice the effective mass as other parts of the bike. But none of this changes the fact that the mass at the periphery of the wheel - even if its effective inertia is doubled - is still just a very small portion of the total inertia of the bike. A "heavy" rim and tire combination might be 2 Kg, while a "light" rim and tire combination might be 1.2 Kg, and that difference of 0.8 Kg will have the effective inertia of 1.6 kg, but that is still just a small percentage of the total 80 - 90 Kg of a typical bike/rider. So even going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration" you previously claimed. Also keep in mind that the inertia only has an affect during acceleration/deceleration, and not in steady-state riding - including riding up hills, where only total mass, not inertia, matters.


----------



## Mark McM

*Perception*



Jack Hammer said:


> Can anyone explain why in the mountain biking world it is generally accepted (at least that is my understanding) that lighter wheels and a lighter bike make a big difference, whereas in the road biking world it is primarily considered placebo and voodoo and to not make much difference?


I think the perception that lighter wheels and bikes being more important in mountain biking (specifically cross-country racing) may be due to vastly different dynamics of mountain biking. In mountain biking, the bike tends to bounce and slide around quite a bit more than on the road. This requires the rider to actively "push and pull" the bike around to keep it on track. Muscling the bike around is obviously easier to do with a lightweight bike. In addition, there are more frequent accelerations/decelerations on a mountain bike. On the other hand, independent motion between the rider and the bike tends to increase the ability to sense the mass of the bike, and since there is more independent bike/rider motion in mountain biking, a mountain bike rider may simply have an amplified sense of bike weight, which may tend to increase their perception of its importance.

In short, I would say that in road biking the weight of the wheels contributes only a very small amount to performance, and in mountain biking the weight of the wheels contributes a larger difference in performance than in road biking, but still fairly small in the overall scheme of things.


----------



## sevencycle

Kestreljr said:


> I agree, but I think that is an unfair comparison if you are referring to most of the questions that come up on this site.
> 
> Even the difference between a Mavic CXP 33 and a bad @ss pair of Zipp 303's* is more like comparing a 2000 Corvette vs. a 2007 corvette. the '07 is faster, but in the scheme of all cars, they are relatively the same.
> 
> (** I hope I don't get struck by lighting for comparing a Zipp to a vette. In the interest of full disclosure, I put vettes in the same catagory as "mama" tattoos, rat tails, and real cheesy Jersey guys who run a small Denny's and wear gold chains. YMMV)


 If you take the 2 wheels you compare it would be more like Civic vs. Ferrari. Calculate % of weight savings between to 2 and you get a performance # engineers dream about. As to*Trailer Park Ferrari's* the Z / 28 is King. Joe Dirt fans may argue!!!


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> If you take the 2 wheels you compare it would be more like Civic vs. Ferrari.



HAHAHAHAHA!!! If you race your zipp's 303's on a 20 mile TT with a few turns, uphills, and straight aways, then you race a pair of Mavic CXP 33's- How much time do you really think you are going to save? Seconds right? 

Now race a civic vs. a Ferrari for 20 miles- that Ferrari could cover the course minutes faster than the civic.


----------



## afriqnboy

Mark McM said:


> Because the mass of the wheels must accelerate both linearly and rotationally, the effective inertia of the mass at any point on the wheel will be:
> 
> M(eff) = M(act) x ( 1 + (r/R)^2 )
> 
> where:
> 
> M(eff) = effective mass (inertia)
> 
> M(act) = actual mass
> 
> r = radius of M(act)
> 
> R = outer radius of wheel
> 
> So mass at the hub will have the same effective mass as mass anywhere else, whereas mass at the periphery of the wheel (tire, rim) will have the twice the effective mass as other parts of the bike. But none of this changes the fact that the mass at the periphery of the wheel - even if its effective inertia is doubled - is still just a very small portion of the total inertia of the bike. A "heavy" rim and tire combination might be 2 Kg, while a "light" rim and tire combination might be 1.2 Kg, and that difference of 0.8 Kg will have the effective inertia of 1.6 kg, but that is still just a small percentage of the total 80 - 90 Kg of a typical bike/rider. So even going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration" you previously claimed. Also keep in mind that the inertia only has an affect during acceleration/deceleration, and not in steady-state riding - including riding up hills, where only total mass, not inertia, matters.


I've never seen that equation. My instincts stand corrected :thumbsup: Thanks, Mark.


----------



## sevencycle

Kestreljr said:


> HAHAHAHAHA!!! If you race your zipp's 303's on a 20 mile TT with a few turns, uphills, and straight aways, then you race a pair of Mavic CXP 33's- How much time do you really think you are going to save? Seconds right?
> 
> Now race a civic vs. a Ferrari for 20 miles- that Ferrari could cover the course minutes faster than the civic.


I spoke of % ratio of weight gain not speed. But if a top pro beat a rival racer in a TT to win a stage race (Lemond/ Fignon) by a few seconds with equipment advantage wouldnt that be a huge defeat. Lots of civics can smoke Ferrari's in 1420ft. with mods . Lightweight wheels ect. are hotrod parts for bikes


----------



## Mark McM

*Equation*



afriqnboy said:


> I've never seen that equation. My instincts stand corrected :thumbsup: Thanks, Mark.


The equation is easily derived from a 1st or 2nd semester physics:

When a bike accelerates, the wheels must accelerate both translationally (i.e. linearly) and rotationally. So, both a force (translation) and a torque (rotation) have to be applied to the wheel. The translational part of the acceleration is from Newton's 2nd law:

F(t)= M x A(t)

where:

F(t) = translational force
M = mass
A(t) = translational acceleration


The torque to rotationally accelerate a mass about an axis is:

T = M x r^2 x A(r)

where:

T = rotational torque
r = radius of mass from axis of rotation
A(r) = angular acceleration

But the wheels don't rotate independent of the bike's forward motion, the rotational velocity will be proportional to the translational velocity (forward speed). Likewise, the rotational acceleration will be proportional to the translational acceleration:

A(r) = A(t) / R

where

R = radius of perimeter of wheel

So, the rotational torque will be related to the translational acceleration by:

T = M x r^2 x [ (A(t) / R ] = M x ( r^2 / R ) x A(t)

Wheel torque is supplied by a translational acceleration force acting on the perimeter of the wheel (the radius is affectively the moment arm that the force acts on):

T = F(r) x R

where

F(r) = force required for rotational acceleration

Rearranging to seperate force:

F(r) = T / R

So the force required to rotatationally accelerate the wheel is:

F(r) = [ M x ( r^2 / R ) x A(t) ] / R = M x ( r / R )^2 x A(t)

The total force to produce both translation and rotation is thus:

F = F(t) + F(r) = [ M x A(t) ] + [ M x ( r / R )^2 x A(t) ] = M x [ 1 + ( r / R )^2 ] x A(t)

This can be expressed as:

F = M(eff) x A(t)

M(eff) = M x [ 1 + ( r / R )^2 ]

where 

M(eff) = effective inertia of mass on the wheel


----------



## benInMA

Lighter wheels are important in mountain biking for all the same reasons as they are in road bikes.

But there is also the need to get the bike over obstacles. Lighter wheels with their lower inertia and mass can move up and down obstacles more easily. This makes the job of the suspension much easier as well. This is the same thing as lightweight wheels for cars and motorcycles being very desirable.

But I can't believe this thread got so far. The difference in weight this guy is talking about is huge. It's going to be very noticeable, so it's going to be very fun, and if he has the money that's all that matters.


----------



## sevencycle

fabsroman said:


> Okay, how about a better analogy. It is like the difference between a 2007 Ford Mustang ShelbyGT500 at 500hp and the 2008 Ford Mustang ShelbyGT500KR ("King of the Road") at 540+hp. Me, I'll take the KR, but most people would be happy with the standard GT500. If you are a die hard car guy or bike guy, you will pay the extra money for the slight performance gain.


Right on.Bicycle performance is splitting hairs.Its great that the highest price bike is not the fastest. I just like to modify my machines. I do have a 400 hp awd TSI that will smoke any Ferrari in the 1/4, But I will take a Cordoba with Corentheon leather any day.


----------



## sevencycle

Mark McM said:


> Because the mass of the wheels must accelerate both linearly and rotationally, the effective inertia of the mass at any point on the wheel will be:
> 
> M(eff) = M(act) x ( 1 + (r/R)^2 )
> 
> where:
> 
> M(eff) = effective mass (inertia)
> 
> M(act) = actual mass
> 
> r = radius of M(act)
> 
> R = outer radius of wheel
> 
> So mass at the hub will have the same effective mass as mass anywhere else, whereas mass at the periphery of the wheel (tire, rim) will have the twice the effective mass as other parts of the bike. But none of this changes the fact that the mass at the periphery of the wheel - even if its effective inertia is doubled - is still just a very small portion of the total inertia of the bike. A "heavy" rim and tire combination might be 2 Kg, while a "light" rim and tire combination might be 1.2 Kg, and that difference of 0.8 Kg will have the effective inertia of 1.6 kg, but that is still just a small percentage of the total 80 - 90 Kg of a typical bike/rider. So even going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration" you previously claimed. Also keep in mind that the inertia only has an affect during acceleration/deceleration, and not in steady-state riding - including riding up hills, where only total mass, not inertia, matters.


 All your math can be flushed down the toilet when you say *"going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration"
*. Try sprinting on the heaviest wheels vs. lightest set.


----------



## afriqnboy

Mark McM said:


> The total force to produce both translation and rotation is thus:
> 
> F = F(t) + F(r) = [ M x A(t) ] + [ M x ( r / R )^2 x A(t) ] = M x [ 1 + ( r / R )^2 ] x A(t)
> 
> This can be expressed as:
> 
> F = M(eff) x A(t)
> 
> M(eff) = M x [ 1 + ( r / R )^2 ]
> 
> where
> 
> M(eff) = effective inertia of mass on the wheel



...I mean, do you want me to check your math? On paper thats ok, but apparently (according to some fellow forum members) if you actually try to ride with heavy wheels opposed to light wheels, there is a significant difference.


----------



## fabsroman

Yeah, I got a lot of blah, blah, blah out of all those equations. How about adding in some numbers to show what a difference is made with wheels that are 600 grams lighter on a 15 pound bike with a 150 lb rider that puts out X watts. My Zipp 202's are about 600 grams lighter than my training wheels and the tires are another 90 grams lighter. I know they feel a lot quicker when I get out of the saddle on a climb or I am accelerating out of a corner.


Sevencycle,

As far as the 400hp awd TSI beating any Ferrari out there in the 1/4 mile, I seriously doubt that. How about the Enzo? How about the Ferraris modified by Koenig? What about the new Ferrari FXX with 800 bhp?

Oh yeah, I like to modify my machines too. Whether it happens to be a car, bike, gun, computer, or whatever, things rarely stay in their initial state after I buy them. There is always something to tinker with.


----------



## sevencycle

fabsroman said:


> Yeah, I got a lot of blah, blah, blah out of all those equations. How about adding in some numbers to show what a difference is made with wheels that are 600 grams lighter on a 15 pound bike with a 150 lb rider that puts out X watts. My Zipp 202's are about 600 grams lighter than my training wheels and the tires are another 90 grams lighter. I know they feel a lot quicker when I get out of the saddle on a climb or I am accelerating out of a corner.
> 
> 
> Sevencycle,
> 
> As far as the 400hp awd TSI beating any Ferrari out there in the 1/4 mile, I seriously doubt that. How about the Enzo? How about the Ferraris modified by Koenig? What about the new Ferrari FXX with 800 bhp?
> 
> Oh yeah, I like to modify my machines too. Whether it happens to be a car, bike, gun, computer, or whatever, things rarely stay in their initial state after I buy them. There is always something to tinker with.


Ran a 11.46 @ 6500 ft.(might run hi 10 @ sea level) I dont know any Ferrari set up for 1/4 mile. No matter what you got there is always something faster. Sorry not every Ferrari. There are alot of Pinto's and Vega's with over 1000 HP


----------



## fabsroman

Yep, 11.46 is pretty quick. My brother's 1991 Camaro, with a GM racing motor in it delivering 450hp would run close to 12 flat, but the rear end was junk. The awd probably helps with your hookup. I lost a 1/4 mile race in my Mustang GT to a Talon because the guy got one heck of a jump off the line. We were dead even except for that two car length jump he got on me. I didn't gain on him and he didn't pull away from me either.

Now, both of my brothers have 89 Mustang GT's just like mine, but they just finished up a ton of motor work on them (e.g., superchargers, heads). This should be a fun summer if we don't end up in jail.


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> All your math can be flushed down the toilet when you say *"going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration"
> *. Try sprinting on the heaviest wheels vs. lightest set.


Wow. So you say that all the science and math is wrong, eh? Did you get your Nobel Prize, yet, for revolutionizing Newtonian mechanics?

No? What a surprise.

No, the math and science aren't wrong. However, it has been shown time and time again that the accuracy of the "human sensor" sucks, is often way off, and that the human sensor is easily influenced by psychological factors.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Wow. So you say that all the science and math is wrong, eh? Did you get your Nobel Prize, yet, for revolutionizing Newtonian mechanics?
> 
> No? What a surprise.
> 
> No, the math and science aren't wrong. However, it has been shown time and time again that the accuracy of the "human sensor" sucks, is often way off, and that the human sensor is easily influenced by psychological factors.


It has been shown time and time again that the *real world* kicks science's butt. When your climbing up a 17% grade hill and I come flying by... use your pocket PC to estimate how many beers I will have had before you get to the top.


----------



## sevencycle

fabsroman said:


> Yep, 11.46 is pretty quick. My brother's 1991 Camaro, with a GM racing motor in it delivering 450hp would run close to 12 flat, but the rear end was junk. The awd probably helps with your hookup. I lost a 1/4 mile race in my Mustang GT to a Talon because the guy got one heck of a jump off the line. We were dead even except for that two car length jump he got on me. I didn't gain on him and he didn't pull away from me either.
> 
> Now, both of my brothers have 89 Mustang GT's just like mine, but they just finished up a ton of motor work on them (e.g., superchargers, heads). This should be a fun summer if we don't end up in jail.


My neighbor has a Viper with 200 shot nitrous (plus other mods) and cant beat me in the 1/4. He is running me down at the big end. On the street never lost to Mustang (even if they are way faster at the track). If its big $$ run I always run a short 1/4 (most street runs are shorter anyway).I will even use a dirty road as if I can get a little tire spin I can boost up faster and 2 wheel cars just spin. I still like bicycle's better.


----------



## Ligero

sevencycle said:


> All your math can be flushed down the toilet when you say *"going from the heaviest to the lightest wheels will only have a small affect on acceleration, and not the "big difference in acceleration/deceleration"
> *. Try sprinting on the heaviest wheels vs. lightest set.


So all the pro sprinters that were/are using 2000g a pair Mavic Cosmic carbones are using the wrong wheel? You should start offering consulting services to teams because your "real world" knowledge far outweighs there scientific testing.


----------



## sevencycle

Ligero said:


> So all the pro sprinters that were/are using 2000g a pair Mavic Cosmic carbones are using the wrong wheel? You should start offering consulting services to teams because your "real world" knowledge far outweighs there scientific testing.


"All the sprinters use Mavic wheels" must be a UCI rule for sprinters. Petacchi was using 2000g wheelset for Giro's mountian stages.... He is the man. What do wheel sponsor's think of YOUR sprinter's wheel rule or is Petacchi the only sprinter in your mind


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> It has been shown time and time again that the *real world* kicks science's butt. When your climbing up a 17% grade hill and I come flying by... use your pocket PC to estimate how many beers I will have had before you get to the top.



I think you are getting scientist and science mixed up. Yes, I am sure you could kick a lab rat's butt up a climb, but do you really profess that the trend right now in pro cycling is less science and more of "old school- just ride until you are tired"??? If you do believe that, then I am surprised, b/c all the top athletes in endurance sports are turning to science to figure out how to get the most out of their bodies.


----------



## sevencycle

Kestreljr said:


> I think you are getting scientist and science mixed up. Yes, I am sure you could kick a lab rat's butt up a climb, but do you really profess that the trend right now in pro cycling is less science and more of "old school- just ride until you are tired"??? If you do believe that, then I am surprised, b/c all the top athletes in endurance sports are turning to science to figure out how to get the most out of their bodies.


 Science is King. You got my post all wrong. Poster was using math to show light wheels have very little sprint/ climb advantage.And Real World road test kill that. Science tests and builds all the performance parts and on the road tests make sure its just not better on paper.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Wow. So you say that all the science and math is wrong, eh? Did you get your Nobel Prize, yet, for revolutionizing Newtonian mechanics?
> 
> No? What a surprise.
> 
> No, the math and science aren't wrong. However, it has been shown time and time again that the accuracy of the "human sensor" sucks, is often way off, and that the human sensor is easily influenced by psychological factors.


WOW. I didnt know you got a Nobel prize for winning a bike race. Your so smart Pearl Izumi should make a front pocket for your "pocket protector" on your race jersey. But do the math to test weight vs.aero effect first.:idea:


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> Science is King. You got my post all wrong. Poster was using math to show light wheels have very little sprint/ climb advantage.And Real World road test kill that. Science tests and builds all the performance parts and on the road tests make sure its just not better on paper.


Okay- gotcha. Yes, the real world is where you find out if Science's suspicions are accurate.


----------



## sevencycle

Kestreljr said:


> Okay- gotcha. Yes, the real world is where you find out if Science's suspicions are accurate.


Right On !!!!!!!!! We need both to advance performance.


----------



## fabsroman

Let's not forget that the pros get PAID to ride what they ride. I have seen plenty of riders using Zipps wheels, which are pretty light. I think I saw Jens Voight using a set of 404's in a TDF stage that he won. Just because one sprinter uses 2,000 gram Mavic Carbones, which I find hard to believe that those wheels even weight that much, doesn't mean that everybody does.



> the human sensor is easily influenced by psychological factors


Yep, the human brain is influenced by psychological factors, and as a result, I would much rather have the most beneficial wheels possible.

Also, I have heard on this board many a time that aero ALWAYS trumps weight, and that statement isn't ALWAYS correct. I will agree that aero is very important, but I think that eventually there is a trade off on the weight side. Mind you, we might never reach that trade off because of light material like carbon, etc. However, if we didn't have carbon or aluminium, could you imagine racing a disk wheel that is made out of steel with a Zipp 808 wheel made out of steel?


----------



## Mark McM

*The real world*



sevencycle said:


> It has been shown time and time again that the *real world* kicks science's butt.


You're right, the real world is the final proving ground. That's the same real world were sprinters with all kinds of wheels, both heavy and light, have been beating other sprinters with all kinds of wheels, both heavy and light, thus illustrating that wheel weight is of only minor significance. The science merely quantifies the differences (and explains why they are so small).


----------



## sevencycle

Mark McM said:


> You're right, the real world is the final proving ground. That's the same real world were sprinters with all kinds of wheels, both heavy and light, have been beating other sprinters with all kinds of wheels, both heavy and light, thus illustrating that wheel weight is of only minor significance. The science merely quantifies the differences (and explains why they are so small).


.I dont believe the differences are so small. The bicycle is a low power machine and can not produce the Big numbers. But they are big numbers used in prospective. Take a 2000g Carbone vs 1000g Zipp. Twice the weight. OK double the weight of rims on a Nascar or Indy car and see what happens. You will get the big numbers. And you would not win a race for sure.Plus did your math count for turning force and many other factors of the wheels.How can Bettini hang (within inch's) with Pettechi with much less wattage.


----------



## Mark McM

sevencycle said:


> .I dont believe the differences are so small.


Well, at least you're consistent. Your entire premise seems to be based on belief rather than facts.



sevencycle said:


> The bicycle is a low power machine and can not produce the Big numbers. But they are big numbers used in prospective.


Okay, so give us some of the numbers. Oh, I forgot - you don't have any numbers, because your proof is simply belief-based.



sevencycle said:


> Plus did your math count for turning force and many other factors of the wheels.


What is this "turning force and many other factors", and what do they have to do with the mass of the wheels? All of the math for determining the effective inertia of the rotating mass of the wheels is presented above. If you think there is something missing, point it out.


----------



## Jack Hammer

*Mark McM,* Thanks. I see what you mean. The differences in weight aren't as pronounced on a road bike vs a mtn bike because the rider is more static with the bike. That makes a lot of sense.

*Kestreljr*, Yeah, I'm a fim believer that the biggest overall improvements you can make are in the engine (yourself). I've noticed much better improvements from all types of riding simply by getting out and riding more and getting in better shape. Much more so than making minor parts changes. 

As far as phschological placebo effects, don't fully write them off. I don't believe science has been able to fully document and design a formula for will-power or human stick-to-it-iveness. Sometimes those "phony" beliefs are what it takes to get you to push yourself that extra distance. (No that doesn't make them fact, but it can be a factor). For a cheesy example of what I mean, go watch Days of Thunder, flip to the scene with the "special set of matched tires." Belief, founded in reality or not, can be a very powerful tool that doesn't show up in any equation.


----------



## sevencycle

Mark McM said:


> Well, at least you're consistent. Your entire premise seems to be based on belief rather than facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so give us some of the numbers. Oh, I forgot - you don't have any numbers, because your proof is simply belief-based.
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "turning force and many other factors", and what do they have to do with the mass of the wheels? All of the math for determining the effective inertia of the rotating mass of the wheels is presented above. If you think there is something missing, point it out.


The front wheel is mounted to the fork it is not always going straight.What about bumps,rough roads the rider swaying the bike side to side. I would believe your math measures the wheel in a straight line. Yes my opinion is based on belief. As I believe a Math Professor could hammer your cut and paste belief of real world performance.


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> Yes my opinion is based on belief. As I believe a Math Professor could hammer your cut and paste belief of real world performance.


7 Dude, this is pretty weak. You are basically saying that you don't know how the physics work that Mark posted, but you believe that someone that knows more then Mark would say he is wrong?

Sometimes, it is best to call it a day and recognize when you get your butt kicked in an argument. 

I believe this is exactly where the can of whoop @ss came out: 



Mark McM said:


> F = F(t) + F(r) = [ M x A(t) ] + [ M x ( r / R )^2 x A(t) ] = M x [ 1 + ( r / R )^2 ] x A(t)


Maybe time to start memorial weekend early, and go for a ride on those super sonic wheels you got! :thumbsup:


----------



## sevencycle

Kestreljr said:


> 7 Dude, this is pretty weak. You are basically saying that you don't know how the physics work that Mark posted, but you believe that someone that knows more then Mark would say he is wrong?
> 
> Sometimes, it is best to call it a day and recognize when you get your butt kicked in an argument.
> 
> I believe this is exactly where the can of whoop @ss came out:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe time to start memorial weekend earlier, and go for a ride on those super sonic wheels you got! :thumbsup:


 I never said I know how that Mumbo Jumbo sutff work. I have way more experience on a bike than Mark and I can tell you there is a bigger difference in performance than his physics show. I will eat the "Virtual can of W/A"
if you guys EAT a Real One !!!!!!


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> WOW. I didnt know you got a Nobel prize for winning a bike race. Your so smart Pearl Izumi should make a front pocket for your "pocket protector" on your race jersey. But do the math to test weight vs.aero effect first.:idea:


Just illustrating how little you know about how the real world works. As Mark McM said, science quantifies what we observe in the real world. That part, you also don't get. You think there is something mystical happening on the road that isn't in the science. Well guess what: there isn't.

Just how little you understand is illustrated by your comparisons of Indy car wheels to bike wheels. Since you don't understand the science, then there's no point in showing you just how stupid that comparison is.

With all the "whoop ass" that you're apparently dishing out, I'm surprised we don't see your name everywhere.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Just illustrating how little you know about how the real world works. As Mark McM said, science quantifies what we observe in the real world. That part, you also don't get. You think there is something mystical happening on the road that isn't in the science. Well guess what: there isn't.
> 
> Just how little you understand is illustrated by your comparisons of Indy car wheels to bike wheels. Since you don't understand the science, then there's no point in showing you just how stupid that comparison is.
> 
> With all the "whoop ass" that you're apparently dishing out, I'm surprised we don't see your name everywhere.


 Poindexter,You win I guess a wheel is not a wheel.
I will scrub the floor of the math club but you got to wash my chamois.


----------



## sevencycle

Wait a minute this is a Bike Rider forum.Your opinion was on paper and mine was out on the road....Hummm


----------



## Kestreljr

sevencycle said:


> Wait a minute this is a Bike Rider forum.Your opinion was on paper and mine was out on the road....Hummm


Stop dude, just stop. You are either trying to pad your post count or just making an @ss out of yourself...


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> Poindexter,You win I guess a wheel is not a wheel.
> I will scrub the floor of the math club but you got to wash my chamois.


Ah, I see. Ignorance really is bliss. Well, I guess if I'm Poindexter, you're the Dunce. Considering that the energy stored in a wheel goes as the angular speed of the wheel squared (for you, that's w*w), and since the angular velocity of an IndyCar wheel is typically much greater than a bicycle wheel, there is....well....no comparison.

It's funny how those that don't understand argue.....take for example Sevencycle. Well, he has no argument. None. He apparently has secret knowledge that will only be revealed on some climb or sprint. He discounts knowledge and experience of everyone else. 

Sevencycle, don't be ashamed that you're an ignoramus, that you didn't have the skills to succeed in school. Be it a result of poor motivation, lassitude, or just lousy genetics, you are what you are. But for future reference, if you actually want to take part in a discussion, you might want to actually contribute something valuable. As yet, you haven't done that.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Ah, I see. Ignorance really is bliss. Well, I guess if I'm Poindexter, you're the Dunce. Considering that the energy stored in a wheel goes as the angular speed of the wheel squared (for you, that's w*w), and since the angular velocity of an IndyCar wheel is typically much greater than a bicycle wheel, there is....well....no comparison.
> 
> It's funny how those that don't understand argue.....take for example Sevencycle. Well, he has no argument. None. He apparently has secret knowledge that will only be revealed on some climb or sprint. He discounts knowledge and experience of everyone else.
> 
> Sevencycle, don't be ashamed that you're an ignoramus, that you didn't have the skills to succeed in school. Be it a result of poor motivation, lassitude, or just lousy genetics, you are what you are. But for future reference, if you actually want to take part in a discussion, you might want to actually contribute something valuable. As yet, you haven't done that.


 Thanks for the advise showing me how smart you are. Lets go for a ride sometime, to the library of course.


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> Thanks for the advise showing me how smart you are. Lets go for a ride sometime, to the library of course.



Yeah, I guess you would need help getting to the library.

Why would I or anyone want to ride with you, eh? Is there something valuable in your company? I ride with a lot of different people, and none of them, whether they're high school dropouts or PhD's, display the ignorance that you promote, and they're all loads more pleasant. That goes for all of 'em whether they're weekend warriors, pro's, or anything in between.


----------



## Mark McM

*More secret knowledge*



sevencycle said:


> I have way more experience on a bike than Mark and I can tell you there is a bigger difference in performance than his physics show.


This must be more of the secret knowledge that only you have. Just how do you know how much experience on a bike I have?


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Yeah, I guess you would need help getting to the library.
> 
> Why would I or anyone want to ride with you, eh? Is there something valuable in your company? I ride with a lot of different people, and none of them, whether they're high school dropouts or PhD's, display the ignorance that you promote, and they're all loads more pleasant. That goes for all of 'em whether they're weekend warriors, pro's, or anything in between.


Nutin' of value in my company.You wont find the meaning of life riding with me.I ride for my own purpose. I guess its a social male bonding thing for you. I personally dont need that I just want to be faster & stronger than yesterday. I enjoy riding and racing.*My Ignorance IS Bliss* I wonder what Steve Hed would say about all this.


lighter is better except for rotation weight


----------



## afriqnboy

Forrest Root said:


> Ah, I see. Ignorance really is bliss. Well, I guess if I'm Poindexter, you're the Dunce. Considering that the energy stored in a wheel goes as the angular speed of the wheel squared (for you, that's w*w), and since the angular velocity of an IndyCar wheel is typically much greater than a bicycle wheel, there is....well....no comparison.



Alright, forest. For all of your talk, you obviously don't know the physics either. Energy stored=Wheel speed squared? lol most definitely not. Just looking at it i can see that it has to be wrong because theres no weight of the wheel variable. And that needs variable needs to have another variable that its related to in some way. Thats called d. The distance from the axis of rotation.

What mark said made sense. Not really the equations, just that you have to calculate weight of the whole system to find the effect of reducing some weight. What he said was its only going to give you an advantage of a couple percent with acceleration. Thats HUGE considering that the hardcore cyclers count grams. It won't make you much faster on its own, but the placebo effect is a great one.

And how old are you? You're fighting like a little kid. Seven has said hes done fighting with you and you continue to try to insult him and beat him into the ground. I don't know about you, but I joined this forum because I wanted to talk to a lot of other people who love riding. Why are you hating? Once you calm down from all that flustered typing you should go get yourself some Haterade. Seriously, guys. Online fights are retarded anyway.


----------



## Forrest Root

afriqnboy said:


> Alright, forest. For all of your talk, you obviously don't know the physics either. Energy stored=Wheel speed squared? lol most definitely not. Just looking at it i can see that it has to be wrong because theres no weight of the wheel variable. And that needs variable needs to have another variable that its related to in some way. Thats called d. The distance from the axis of rotation.
> 
> What mark said made sense. Not really the equations, just that you have to calculate weight of the whole system to find the effect of reducing some weight. What he said was its only going to give you an advantage of a couple percent with acceleration. Thats HUGE considering that the hardcore cyclers count grams. It won't make you much faster on its own, but the placebo effect is a great one.
> 
> And how old are you? You're fighting like a little kid. Seven has said hes done fighting with you and you continue to try to insult him and beat him into the ground. I don't know about you, but I joined this forum because I wanted to talk to a lot of other people who love riding. Why are you hating? Once you calm down from all that flustered typing you should go get yourself some Haterade. Seriously, guys. Online fights are retarded anyway.


Okay, peaches, read carefully: I said the energy stored in a wheel goes as the angular speed of the wheel squared. What this statement means is that the energy stored in a wheel varies as a function of the square of the angular speed of the wheel. Nowhere did I use the phrase "equals" or the symbol "=" which means "equals." Specifically, the energy stored in a wheel is one half of the wheel's moment of inertia times the angular velocity squared. Now, since 1/2 is a constant, it causes no variation in energy stored. Moment of inertia is also a constant and causes no changes in energy stored. Therefore the only variable that can cause changes in energy for a given a wheelset is the angular velocity. I simplified the term by using the word "speed" for a couple reasons:
I didn't want anyone confused by the word velocity.
It automatically reduces the problem to the wheel spinning in one specific plane.

And since you're bothered by units, there's this: Energy units are mass*(length^2)]/(time^2). Angular velocity units are [1/(time^2)]. Now, peaches, guess what units, moment of inertia has? That's right: mass*(length^2). And since you are upset about the apprent lack of 'd', you should know that the moment of inertia of an infinitely thin ring, of radius d, spinning about an axis normal to d at the center of the ring, is I=m*d^2.
There.

Now as a helpful hint to you, you should know that equations in physics are most often not written explicitly in terms of length, mass, time. Most often variables are often grouped into a single variable that is well known and easier to work with.

Alas, I'm not fighting. I am sticking up for the science, which is--counter to what people think here--not wrong when it comes to the mechanics of bicycle performance. It's not the fault of science if some or even most people don't understand the science. And science is not something dreamed up to suit the whims and fancies of physicists, mathematicians, engineers, or even Albanians: no, science is because it is.

Placebo effect is something entirely different and can't be calculated; however, placebo effect can't be used to argue that the science is wrong, because the placebo effect is bound by the same physical laws as the rest of the physical world. Because scientists are unsure exactly how the mind operates, the placebo effect is as yet strange and interesting thing. However, the placebo effect does not create energy. Once a human's energy level drops below a certain point, the placebo effect will no longer work. For instance, if there is zero energy stored in the human, the human can do zero work.

Likewise, the placebo effect does not magically transform the small difference in acceleration that result from wheelsets of differing masses and mass distributions (see, this includes your beloved 'd'.). No, those differences are still small. All the placebo effect does is cause the human to increase output preferentially according to the effect.

And to reiterate: the human sensor sucks at quantifying things accurately. Whether it's torque on a bolt or acceleration differences, studies show that the human sensor is less than accurate and less than precise....at best.

Thank you for playing. If you'd like to know more about physics, there are a multitude of online sources as well as community college courses that deal with the subject.


----------



## sevencycle

*Forrest Root Bio*

F.Root you got to be the guy with tube socks,helmet mirror,crochet gloves,handlebar bag w/map,wooly seat cover and shorts from 1977 (same pair every ride).When you carry your bike on the trunk rack of your Ford Granada you cover your seat with a plastic bag.


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> F.Root you got to be the guy with tube socks,helmet mirror,crochet gloves,handlebar bag w/map,wooly seat cover and shorts from 1977 (same pair every ride).When you carry your bike on the trunk rack of your Ford Granada you cover your seat with a plastic bag.


You think? What lead you to that idea, eh? Say, did you happen to notice that the winner of one of the latest Giro stages was an engineer? So, does he drive the same Granada? Or are all the really cool people blissfully ignorant like you? No wait.....maybe the grownups let go of the high school stereotypes long ago.

You ought to give that a shot.

I wouldn't give up your day job for interntet bio prognosticating if I were you....


----------



## sevencycle

*Root of all answers*



Forrest Root said:


> You think? What lead you to that idea, eh? Say, did you happen to notice that the winner of one of the latest Giro stages was an engineer? So, does he drive the same Granada? Or are all the really cool people blissfully ignorant like you? No wait.....maybe the grownups let go of the high school stereotypes long ago.
> 
> You ought to give that a shot.
> 
> I wouldn't give up your day job for interntet bio prognosticating if I were you....


 True, I am blissfully ignorant but I am happy. You seem to be educated and full of hate. As ignorant as I am I always wonder about people that have to tell how smart they are.


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> True, I am blissfully ignorant but I am happy. You seem to be educated and full of hate. As ignorant as I am I always wonder about people that have to tell how smart they are.



See, I don't hate at all, and I have no illusions of grandeur. So I don't go on about how smart I may or may not be. I will point out errors in people's thoughts when they make errors with respect to physics, math, engineering, and etc. And I will pointedly laugh at folks like you who seem to get their panties all wound up because what they feel on their bike might not be the physical reality of things, who seem to get all wound up by people tallking science.......but, hey: you're worth laughing at. You're funny, in a hapless, pathetic sort of way, and the ignorance you preach w/ respect to science is as stupifying as the way you retreat and hide behind "blissful ignorance" is weasel like. But I guess people like you will act like that when it's shown that what you preach is not factual but rather fantasy.

The majority of people here are open to new ideas and are not averse to seeing the science behind the ride and thus understanding things a bit better. Moreover, as scientists and engineers Mark McM, rruf, and I...as well as others....are more than used to the scientific method thing, wherein it's common place to have factual discussions 'bout what's right and wrong wherein people don't get all poopy like you when it's shown things ain't like they thought they were. That's how science moves forward.

Enjoy your stasis.


----------



## sevencycle

Mark McM said:


> This must be more of the secret knowledge that only you have. Just how do you know how much experience on a bike I have?


I am wrong to assume but I would wager that I do have more experience.Pro Off Road since1985, Pro Road 1988+, Mechanic 1996 Olympics, Owned & sold 5 bike shops,been airlifted from bike crash's twice. After 20 years I still ride full time (as business & wife let me).


----------



## fabsroman

And science once thought the Earth was flat, and people continue to stereotype. Guys, lets just leave this alone. I just finished building a Zipp 303 front wheel for my bike and put it in place of the Zipp 202 I had for a test ride. That wheel feels really fast and I love the hum to it. Is it really that much faster, who knows. Even testing this stuff is tough because you cannot be consistent on the bike on every ride and the environment doesn't always cooperate.


----------



## Forrest Root

fabsroman said:


> And science once thought the Earth was flat, and people continue to stereotype. Guys, lets just leave this alone. I just finished building a Zipp 303 front wheel for my bike and put it in place of the Zipp 202 I had for a test ride. That wheel feels really fast and I love the hum to it. Is it really that much faster, who knows. Even testing this stuff is tough because you cannot be consistent on the bike on every ride and the environment doesn't always cooperate.


Who says you have to test on the bike, on the road, eh?

Newtonian mechanics has been solid and verified over and over again for the last 400 years. When quantum world calculations are scaled up to macroscopic sizes, guess what: that's right, their limit is the Newtonian answer. How about that, eh?

No, science is dead on when it comes to cycling. Granted, that's uncomfortable for every soul who thinks he's discovered something on his bike that invalidates Newtonian mechanics or will revolutionize science as we know it, but so be it. The fact is that most people don't know how to establish a procedure to test things like that since they're not trained for it. Instead they rely on what they feel, which as has been said many, many times, is a really inaccurate way to quantify or even qualify anything.

That so many people hold science in contempt or believe that it is wrong in general is an indication of just how bad science education is in the US. It's just one more clue as to why so many other countries are catching up to and passing the US when it comes to scientific discovery and technical innovation.


----------



## California L33

sevencycle said:


> F.Root you got to be the guy with tube socks,helmet mirror,crochet gloves,handlebar bag w/map,wooly seat cover and shorts from 1977 (same pair every ride).When you carry your bike on the trunk rack of your Ford Granada you cover your seat with a plastic bag.


My vision of F. Root is the crotchety old guy with a long gray beard riding an old 70s vintage lugged steel bike, still in great shape because he does a half century every day, rain, snow, whatever- and blowing by someone on a carbon bike yelling, "Get off the road, you slowpoke bas#$%d," for no reason. Closing eyes- OK, I can see the crochet gloves, and maybe an earth colored wool jersey, not getting the Granada, though- maybe a '74 Caddy with original paint in good condition- waxed every Sunday, or even a VW bus in three shades of primer- hard to decide, but the bike and outfit are easier- those big toe clips pulled tight enough to cut off circulation (accounts for the crotchety-ness) , and old school brown leather cycling shoes  (Of course he could also be a 22 year old kid with an engineering degree who's flipping burgers because all the corporations are hiring H1B imports at half what they'd have to pay him.) For a while I thought he was troll. Now I think he's sincere, if a bit more abrasive than generally considered friendly in a medium with no vocal or facial cues.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Who says you have to test on the bike, on the road, eh?
> 
> Newtonian mechanics has been solid and verified over and over again for the last 400 years. When quantum world calculations are scaled up to macroscopic sizes, guess what: that's right, their limit is the Newtonian answer. How about that, eh?
> 
> No, science is dead on when it comes to cycling. Granted, that's uncomfortable for every soul who thinks he's discovered something on his bike that invalidates Newtonian mechanics or will revolutionize science as we know it, but so be it. The fact is that most people don't know how to establish a procedure to test things like that since they're not trained for it. Instead they rely on what they feel, which as has been said many, many times, is a really inaccurate way to quantify or even qualify anything.
> 
> That so many people hold science in contempt or believe that it is wrong in general is an indication of just how bad science education is in the US. It's just one more clue as to why so many other countries are catching up to and passing the US when it comes to scientific discovery and technical innovation.


 You never speak of riding the bike. Go ride. Please post picture of your bike.How many miles did you ride yesterday.Lets see a wattage graph of a ride by you. Is "Its not about the bike" you motto


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> You never speak of riding the bike. Go ride. Please post picture of your bike.How many miles did you ride yesterday.Lets see a wattage graph of a ride by you. Is "Its not about the bike" you motto


Am I supposed to wave my dick like you wave yours? Why should I post a wattage graph? Why should I post a pic of my bike?

Requests from you are way down my list of priorities. Although I must say, your attempt yesterday at bragging and dick waving was hilarious. Man......hoooweee. "Olympic mechanic." Ok, Mr. Mitty. God you're funny.


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Am I supposed to wave my dick like you wave yours? Why should I post a wattage graph? Why should I post a pic of my bike?
> 
> Requests from you are way down my list of priorities. Although I must say, your attempt yesterday at bragging and dick waving was hilarious. Man......hoooweee. "Olympic mechanic." Ok, Mr. Mitty. God you're funny.


 What are you waving with your big I am an *"Engineer"* WOW you work at a desk 8 to 5. You come and go when your told.You are ordered around by someone you believe is not as smart as you.Hop in your Granada and go home eat a pot pie and watch TV and fall asleep on the couch.Your last one back at the group ride. But #1 on the forum. Like your MOM I am proud of you!!!


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> What are you waving with your big I am an *"Engineer"* WOW you work at a desk 8 to 5. You come and go when your told.You are ordered around by someone you believe is not as smart as you.Hop in your Granada and go home eat a pot pie and watch TV and fall asleep on the couch.Your last one back at the group ride. But #1 on the forum. Like your MOM I am proud of you!!!


Man, your reading skills suck. No wonder you've had such issues with education.

Who said I was an engineer, eh? Who said what my job was? Who said you knew anything about such jobs, anyway? You've shown precious little knowledge of other things, even things at which you allegedly succeeded....at least according to your dubious claims.

And what did I wave, eh? Nothing, except a sign that you were dead wrong about the physical realities of bicycles and bicycle performance. 

Wow. Your estimates of your perceptive abilities are way too high, peaches.

Keep talking, though, because you look more and more ignorant with every breath. _Wattage graphs....._man, what a putz!


----------



## sevencycle

Forrest Root said:


> Man, your reading skills suck. No wonder you've had such issues with education.
> 
> Who said I was an engineer, eh? Who said what my job was? Who said you knew anything about such jobs, anyway? You've shown precious little knowledge of other things, even things at which you allegedly succeeded....at least according to your dubious claims.
> 
> And what did I wave, eh? Nothing, except a sign that you were dead wrong about the physical realities of bicycles and bicycle performance.
> 
> Wow. Your estimates of your perceptive abilities are way too high, peaches.
> 
> Keep talking, though, because you look more and more ignorant with every breath. _Wattage graphs....._man, what a putz!


Guess you dont need a job living in Mama's basement.


----------



## Forrest Root

sevencycle said:


> Guess you dont need a job living in Mama's basement.


Dang! You're pulling out all the one-liners those kids used in 8th grade. You're like a comic genius or something.

Once again, though, you assume things for which there is no reason to assume. Of course with your 8th grade mental skills, I guess we shouldn't expect much else.


----------



## fabsroman

This is nuts. See, Forrest Root, everybody here on this thread is most likely not a scientist, but maybe one person that disagreed with you. So, even though you are a scientist, physics major, and/or somewhat learned in the subject and you can use the big words and calculations related to the subject, nobody following this thread can understand a single thing you are saying. Like I said earlier, I saw all your calculations and what it meant to me was "Blah, Blah, Blah." When using an "expert" like you in Court, I at least would have to show your qualifications as an expert. However, you come on this board and think that we should take your word for it that you are correct, but nobody on here is even agreeing with anything you say. Either it is way over our head, or nobody actually cares to go through everything that you have put on here. So, I think SevenCycle is just trying to see what your qualifications are to see how much credence to give your hypothesis/theory or whatever else you science guys would like to call it.

As far as science being dead in the US, it is mostly because of the attitude that you are showing here. You have posted a bunch of stuff that none of us can possibly understand unless we were taking advanced physics. I took physics in high school for the AP test, and I can tell you that your stuff looked Greek to me, but I will confess that I didn't spend much time trying to understand it. Another reason why science is dead is because scientists are only right until they are proven wrong. God, I cannot tell you how many times "scientists" have been wrong. The case that comes to mind was a murder case in Florida where a doctor was accused of poisoning his wife with some substance that causes the body to release another substance after death. The "scientist" used some new procedure to find this other substance after death, and the doctor was sentenced to life in prison and they were going to perform a hearing for the death sentence. Based upon this new scientific procedure that this "scientist" was using, more and more deaths were coming back as murders via poisoning with this particular poison. One lab analyst at the FBI got a little suspicious and started to test for this substance in people that were killed by known means (e.g., gun shots, knife wounds, drowning). It turned out that this substance was secreted by the body upon death, regardless of whether or not the particular poison was used. So, our initial scientist that was so convinced he was right, who was paid a ton of money by the prosecution to put this doctor in jail, and who almost had this doctor sentenced to death, was completely wrong. Again, scientists used to think the Earth was flat. Who knows what you guys are screwing up today that will not be caught until tomorrow or 100 years from now.

Leave this debate at an agree to disagree because neither of you guys can understand the other's language. One is talking cycling and the other is talking physics with a smidge of cycling accent in it. Me personally, I am going to finish building up my set of Zipp 404's and then start working on buying the parts to build a set of Zipp 808's. If nothing else, they will give me the emotional confidence that will make me go faster, and a lot about cycling is mental.


----------



## Juanmoretime

Take a deep breath everyone. OK, group hug. Let's not alienate ourselves. I'll give everyone gold stars since we have solved world hunger on this thread!


----------



## Forrest Root

Juanmoretime said:


> Take a deep breath everyone. OK, group hug. Let's not alienate ourselves. I'll give everyone gold stars since we have solved world hunger on this thread!


You're such a suck-up, Juan. You'll go to any length just to abase yourself publicly and pubicly.....I think it borders on fetish with you.....just so you can be the crowd pleaser. I'd hate to see to what lengths you'd degrade yourself at a Chippendales' show.


----------



## Juanmoretime

Forrest Root said:


> You're such a suck-up, Juan. You'll go to any length just to abase yourself publicly and pubicly.....I think it borders on fetish with you.....just so you can be the crowd pleaser. I'd hate to see to what lengths you'd degrade yourself at a Chippendales' show.


I have been known to remove and throw my panties at the guys!


----------



## Forrest Root

Juanmoretime said:


> I have been known to remove and throw my panties at the guys!


I hope they're not the same, sweaty panties you wear under your bibs on those 4 or 5 hour rides. Nothing turns a performer off more than getting hit in the face with wet, sweat-stinky, cloth, replete with brown stripe.


----------



## Juanmoretime

Absolutely. They also have to be silk otherwise there is to much chaffing when you when wear them under the bibs. Besides it also helps on laundry not to mention that I do get those coupons for free pairs from Victoria's Secret. Once they get you in that store...... Let me tell you sister.


----------



## DrRoebuck

fabsroman said:


> This whole "Lose body weight before spending money on new bike parts" is killing me. Yes, obviously being in better shape is the key to being a better rider, but the equipment does matter. I went from a 20+ year old steel frame bike with friction downtube shifters that weighed 22 pounds to a 16 pound bike with indexed shifting. My average speed/times improved. So has my enjoyment of riding. Now, when I built the wheels for the new bike I used the same make/model of rims as I had on the old bike, so there isn't much difference there. Those wheels weigh in at 1,600 grams. However, I just bought a set of Zipp 202's and the difference in weight is considerable. That will shave another pound+ off the bike with lighter tires. Trust me, a significant change in wheel weight will be noticeable every time this guy goes to accelerate. A bike that weighs 7 pounds lighter than your previous bike will be noticeable, as it is in my case. Just with it being 6 pounds lighter, it takes off when I stand to climb a hill. Then again, I am in decent shape and I don't have too much weight that I can lose at 5' 9" and 150 lbs, but I still can stand to lose a little bit of fat for muscle.


Plus, a pound off the bike is a pound off the bike, no matter how much you weigh.


----------



## oneslowmofo

Man, I just got through with this thread. It took a bookmark and a few visits... Exhausting.


----------



## DonDenver

oneslowmofo said:


> Man, I just got through with this thread. It took a bookmark and a few visits... Exhausting.


Thought I’d start at the back of the book this time and noticed your post. 

:idea: What is the price for your synopsis?


----------



## jhamlin38

Too much hating here. And stereotyping. Once Forest Root wound me up and got my undies jammed up. But if you read his posts, whether you like him or not, whether you argue with him or not, he's one smart motherfu[k€r. 
His post is still the one that splains it best. 
Just don't ask him his opinion of paired spoke design.


----------



## mattrider

I have a set on the way in which the real wheel + tire and tube will weigh about a pound less than my current real wheel, if I can't feel a difference I will be greatly disappointed. Oh and did I mention my old wheels are 7 years old and are way out of true.


----------



## mattrider

*yes a difference*

I just dropped a little over 900g's. went from 2200g wheels to just over 1300, then take about 50 more with a new DA cassette, then about 160 more grams with tires and tubes. I can certainly feel it when i sprint or climb, you can really feel your power transferring to the road. I can only imagine this reduces your effort output and contributes to an easier ride.


----------



## Poppadaddio

*This one's been around for a long time*

The rotating mass of the wheel makes some difference in acceleration, and the total weigh affects climbing. But not much.
Here's what Jobst Brandt said 8 years ago:
http://yarchive.net/bike/rotating_mass.html


----------



## ttug

*ok*



Poppadaddio said:


> The rotating mass of the wheel makes some difference in acceleration, and the total weigh affects climbing. But not much.
> Here's what Jobst Brandt said 8 years ago:
> http://yarchive.net/bike/rotating_mass.html


Ther initial effort to get to speed might be lower in some instances. However, once at speed, the effort to maintain a higher speed may be greater.

Otherwise, its your ride and most folks will drop you like a rock on wheels that weigh more because they are in shape and not a weight weenie.


----------



## ttug

*what?*



mattrider said:


> I have a set on the way in which the real wheel + tire and tube will weigh about a pound less than my current real wheel, if I can't feel a difference I will be greatly disappointed. Oh and did I mention my old wheels are 7 years old and are way out of true.


Your wheel in untrued? AND you think the solution is, another wheel set? How about truing the wheel? Its 7 years old? Are they worn out? Are the walls thin? Whats the model.

Otherwise, if you have been riding an untrue wheel, yeah, your effort will be much much higher........


----------



## Forrest Root

ttug said:


> Your wheel in untrued? AND you think the solution is, another wheel set? How about truing the wheel? Its 7 years old? Are they worn out? Are the walls thin? Whats the model.
> 
> Otherwise, if you have been riding an untrue wheel, yeah, your effort will be much much higher........


Doesn't that depend on the context?


----------



## ttug

*correct!*



Forrest Root said:


> Doesn't that depend on the context?



Why yes it does.

The context would require an individual to have the raw intelligence to know that riding a badly untrued wheel is unsafe and of course can cause a declione in performance on the bike.

It also begs the question, why you did not demonstrate this quality and then decide, why I need a new wheel set.

Thanks for pointing this out.


----------



## mattrider

don't worry the wheels are being trued. they were mavic cxp 21 rims, 32 hole, with cannondale expert hubs....a little over 2200g


----------



## km53jinx

*cost vs reality...whatever works...*



633 said:


> The more you pay for 'em, the more convinced you are that you can feel the difference.


You might have a point there. I have been spending a lot on wheels over the years. Just recently though, have I really felt I gained something. The new Mavic R Sys wheelset. Now there is a noticeable difference I have never experienced in the past with the wheel changes. These are great riding wheels and, sincerely, an improvement over anything in the past...in my opinion. If you think something is better, then it usually is. Real or imagined? Your mind is happy, you are better...always. We gotta make our own selves happy and content. If it takes more money...just figure out a way to make it happen.


----------



## km53jinx

Yes, I agree. Keep lightening you bike as often as you get money to do it. Lighter...everything...is better if you really enjoy riding.


----------



## Troy16

km53jinx said:


> Yes, I agree. Keep lightening you bike as often as you get money to do it. Lighter...everything...is better if you really enjoy riding.



Sure I suppose if they want to pretend they are Lance Armstrong, etc, they can convince themselves that Zipp 808's or some other light super asero wheel makes a hill of beans difference in their riding. But truth be told they aren't getting paid to race, they are not sponsored, and so what if they finish 60 seconds slower in an ITT because they used a conventional wheel versus say an 808??? All that means is that they used a slower wheel. If they gained 60 seconds by running 808's did it mean they performed 60 seconds better or were in better shape or put in a better effort? No, all it means is that they broke out their CC and purchased a tiny bit of additional speed. In the end, does it really add up to anything meaningful at all, not really. Let the weight weenies and the poser ITT guys (the ones who don't get paid to ride) ride their 808's etc to their hearts content. They'll be happy living in their lala land fantasies that everything is so much better becasue they are running Record and 808's, but truth be told, they aren't getting paid to ride and besides some silly buyer ego gratification their use of weight weenie bikes and aero wheels doesn't mean a hill of beans in the real world. It's all about marketeers marketing products to amateur riders who want to pose and pretend they are a sponsored rider where performence differences mean something in the real world. If you need to buy stuff to convince yourself of something or make your mind feel better there's a thing that's known as, its called being weak minded. Mavic RSYS? LOL, what a joke wheelset that is, yeh carbon spokes, a great application for carbon. LOL


----------



## Kestreljr

Troy16 said:


> Sure I suppose if they want to pretend they are Lance Armstrong, etc, they can convince themselves that Zipp 808's or some other light super asero wheel makes a hill of beans difference in their riding.


L.A. Used Lightweights, not zipps. Don't disrespect The Man. :nono: 










:wink:


----------



## mattrider

The differences might be insignificant but I doubt any of these haters are riding 30 pound bikes. Because a guy buys some Jordan's to play ball in, does that make him a poser? Sure a lot of it is about marketing, but what isn't? We are all guilty, to some extent, of American Consumerism. Be wise in purchases, but remember you are allowed to enjoy your hobby, even if you don't get paid.


----------



## fabsroman

I enjoy my hobbies a lot more than work, and I get paid to work.


----------



## ttug

*oooops*



mattrider said:


> The differences might be insignificant but I doubt any of these haters are riding 30 pound bikes. Because a guy buys some Jordan's to play ball in, does that make him a poser? Sure a lot of it is about marketing, but what isn't? We are all guilty, to some extent, of American Consumerism. Be wise in purchases, but remember you are allowed to enjoy your hobby, even if you don't get paid.


This hater rides a 28 pound MTB and a 22 pound road bike.


----------

