# Which Shimano wheel set? - c35/c50



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

I recently got a domane 5.2 and after 2 rides......well, I know I'm going to change the wheelset. So.....I've decided on either the Dura ace 9000 C35 or C50. The big question - is the difference in climbing w/ the C35 going to be that drastic over the C50? I do about 70% flats and 30% hills. I live in SoCal and enjoy hammering it on PCH as well as climbing in the Santa Monica's. From a price standpoint, there is only a $150 diff between the both of them. I've looked for reviews and the ones I've read say that the C35 is a good all-rounder.....but I haven't found too many on the C50. Oh....and he C50's look so blinged out too  hard to ignore that. Soooo sexy looking. 

Thoughts and suggestions?


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

70% flats? C50 no question.

I do about 90% climbing and I still consider the C50s, but I go with the C35s.


----------



## STRANA (Oct 5, 2013)

+1 c50


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

So the consensus so far is that the C50's are stiff enough for climbing then


----------



## metalheart (Sep 3, 2010)

If rides were 50% flats and 50% climbing would that favor the 35's or even the 24's?


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

I WANT the 50s.....but don't want to get them and then realize I'm lugging a truck up the mountain. Hence my conundrum over the 35's.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

SROC3 said:


> So the consensus so far is that the C50's are stiff enough for climbing then


stiffer than the 35 :idea:

heavier too


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

dcgriz said:


> stiffer than the 35 :idea:
> 
> heavier too


Well, if they are stiffer than the 35s.....hmmmm, then the extra 150 grms in weight is fine.....THEN, I can use them for climbing too


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

wider too.


----------



## ngl (Jan 22, 2002)

There seems to be 3 camps out there:
1) one that says aero trumps weight
2) one that says weight trumps aero
3) one that says there is no noticeable difference
The C35s weight is about 184 grams lighter than the C50s and the weight is mainly in the rim. 

They tend to say rotational weight vs static weight is about a 2:1 ratio, therefore, try the following test. Put 368 grams of water in a water bottle and go for a ride. Remove the water and ride. Notice any perceivable difference? If not then purchase the C50s.

Another suggestion is to find some other 50mm carbon wheels that weigh around the same as the C35s.


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

ngl said:


> There seems to be 3 camps out there:
> 1) one that says aero trumps weight
> 2) one that says weight trumps aero
> 3) one that says there is no noticeable difference
> ...


Great Point. Since I'm really looking for the aluminum braking surface, I'm def sticking with the Shimanos.....plus price-wise they cannot be beat. I'm also running 25c tires currently and the C50s are designed primarily for those tires too (shimmy peeps recommend them). It's looking like the C50's!!!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

Do you ever find it to be windy on the PCH, especially cross winds? The 35's may make it easier to hold your line.


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

Blue CheeseHead said:


> Do you ever find it to be windy on the PCH, especially cross winds? The 35's may make it easier to hold your line.


I had 38mm Easton EC90 SLs before on my Paris and I had no issues in crosswinds.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

If you're running 25 tires the 50s are a no brainer.

That was actually my deciding factor between the two. I decided that if I was going to switch to 25s that the C50s would be my wheels. But in the end I decided to stick with 23s because I have a stock pile of them and therefore went with the C35s.

I don't regret my decision, but I also still plan on getting a pair of C50s and a stock pile of 25 tires in the future. I'm just putting it off for a while.


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

MMsRepBike said:


> If you're running 25 tires the 50s are a no brainer.
> 
> That was actually my deciding factor between the two. I decided that if I was going to switch to 25s that the C50s would be my wheels. But in the end I decided to stick with 23s because I have a stock pile of them and therefore went with the C35s.
> 
> I don't regret my decision, but I also still plan on getting a pair of C50s and a stock pile of 25 tires in the future. I'm just putting it off for a while.


Awesome. thanks!


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

ngl said:


> There seems to be 3 camps out there:
> 1) one that says aero trumps weight
> 2) one that says weight trumps aero
> 3) one that says there is no noticeable difference
> The C35s weight is about 184 grams lighter than the C50s and the weight is mainly in the rim.


I think there is a degree of accuracy to each and every one of the three.
1) _one that says aero trumps weight:_ Yes when the speed is high enough for the aero to develop 
2) _one that says weight trumps aero :_ Yes for strictly climbing applications and lower speeds
3) _one that says there is no noticeable difference_: Yes for the recreational rider looking for the magic wand to add 1 mph to their AMS. No for the professional or amateur racer who is looking to add a few seconds to their run and knows that few seconds make the difference of being on the podium or not.


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

.....and with that said I do not compete in any way, but do enjoy the knowledge of having components that compliment my style of riding  I won't climb like a mountain goat on the C50's but heck, they'll do fine and I'll look gooooood on the way up


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

would any of you consider the Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLS over the Shimano C50?


----------



## CyclingVirtual (Apr 10, 2008)

The C50 deep sections feels much better IMO


----------



## jiajilah (Jun 23, 2013)

I didn't ride them before but if you referring to clincher, I notice both weight quite heavy.
C35 at around 1488 and C50 at 1685.
What about Reynold 46 below 1500? And cheaper too I think.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

SROC3 said:


> would any of you consider the Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLS over the Shimano C50?


I have a pair of the Carbones. 52mm. And no. 

HELL NO.

The Shimano wheels are better, far better in every single category, it's not even a contest. I actually have two sets of these crap wheels because my R5 came with a set on it as well. Stay away from Mavic.


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

MMsRepBike said:


> I have a pair of the Carbones. 52mm. And no.
> 
> HELL NO.
> 
> The Shimano wheels are better, far better in every single category, it's not even a contest. I actually have two sets of these crap wheels because my R5 came with a set on it as well. Stay away from Mavic.


NICE. Thanks for that!


----------



## jpaschal01 (Jul 20, 2011)

SROC3 said:


> would any of you consider the Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLS over the Shimano C50?


Nope! Dura Ace hubs vs. Mavic hubs...Dura Ace every time!


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

Yeah.......I even tried looking at Easton EC70 wheels and the "older" C50 of Shimano....I have 11 speed too so no dice  But heck......Shimmy C-fitty it is!!!!!  I had a set of EC90 SLs before and that stupid hub-adjustment thingy of theirs really sucks ass. The wheels ran great but I had to send it in for service and then also a re-build afterwards. Not too enthused about Easton Wheels anymore. Just gonna do it good this time and save up for my C50's :thumbsup:


----------



## HarryV (Oct 24, 2009)

I rode C50s for 12 months and thought they were great... Until I rode some other deep section wheels I realised just how much wind the C50s catch compared to other deeper wheels... ENVE 65s & 6.7s, & Zipp 404s.

I still have a set of C35s which are a nice all round wheel... The DA hubs are pretty nice and also bombproof, so I would go those long before I used Zipps poor rear hubs...


----------



## SROC3 (Jul 20, 2009)

Update : I think now I am seriously considering Boyd 44mm carbon clinchers. Might be the best balance for price, stiffness, braking and aero capability. Nothing but stellar reviews.


----------



## rsilvers (Nov 27, 2005)

dcgriz said:


> Yes for the recreational rider looking for the magic wand to add 1 mph to their AMS.


If only they could add 1 mph. You can expect 1/4 of a MPH if you average 300 watts of power according to the Global Cycling Network video test on YouTube. But since this is about recreational riders, they are probably averaging 150 watts of power, and so would get significantly less than 1/4 of a MPH gain.


----------

