# climbing wheels?



## deadleg (Jan 26, 2005)

so what is a good climbing and descending wheel? I don't race, weigh 160lbs, ride a lot of hills in north CA. I'm not interested in deep aero rim wheelsets due to crosswinds. I am thinking handbuilt with DA 7900 hubs, and what kind of rims? how many spokes and what lacing pattern? any suggestions welcome, even on manufactored wheelsets. how would the kinlin xr200 differ from open pro rims?


----------



## Gimme Shoulder (Feb 10, 2004)

deadleg said:


> so what is a good climbing and descending wheel? I don't race, weigh 160lbs, ride a lot of hills in north CA. I'm not interested in deep aero rim wheelsets due to crosswinds. I am thinking handbuilt with DA 7900 hubs, and what kind of rims? how many spokes and what lacing pattern? any suggestions welcome, even on manufactored wheelsets. how would the kinlin xr200 differ from open pro rims?


You might consider this recent thread from a few days ago.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=193666


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Go with some Nimble Spider rims. They tie for the lightest clinchers ever with the Reynolds Mv32c ULs.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

Stuck on these three, none of which meet your criteria, all of which see considerable use for both training and racing:

Lightweight Standard Gen III
Mavic Cosmic Carbone Ultimate
Bontrager Race XXX Lite tubular


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I can't speak for Lightweight or Bontrager, but I use Mavic CCUs. They have a nice ratio of weight to depth. Only available in tubular. I have crosswind issues with them, but I weigh 125lbs. I'd think 160lbs would be much safer. 

Given their carbon rim to rim spokes, the front wheel can't be trued. The rear wheel can, but where the spoke attaches to the nipple isn't very sturdy. I managed to break several spokes of my original rear wheel. I have the warranty and they replaced it, but just something to think about. 

If you're looking for climbing, I'm looking at some Zen Enlightenments with stainless steel spokes in the near future, but I'll be going with tubulars for racing.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Zen Cyclery said:


> ightest clinchers ever


I think we need a sticky at the top of this forum that lists rim weights from the lightest to heaviest in both clincher and tubular as questions as to lightest rims come up all the time.

Any volunteers Austin?  

As a person who lost a lot of weight this year (35lbs) I'd possibly like to treat my svelte 165lb self to a set of lighter wheels that can compliment my lack of bulk. Maybe my 32h OP wheels are overkill for "special" rides. But what rims to buy!!


----------



## deadleg (Jan 26, 2005)

I am thinking alloy rims, not the lightest, but lighter than mavic open pro. I just want it all, light, durable, reasonable price.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

Even though the Spider is the lightest rim available I think that it would be great in 24/28.


----------



## DeLuz (Aug 1, 2008)

The wheels do not do the climbing, you do.
You plus the bike weigh at least 175 lbs.
Saving a couple hundred grams on wheels will not improve your climbing ability.
Only training and loosing weight (if appropriate) will do that.
Nothing wrong with having light wheels but I wouldn't spend a ton of money on them and they should also be durable and repairable on the road.


----------



## deadleg (Jan 26, 2005)

very true, especially that body fat. 

One or my concerns with OP wheels is I remember my old ones pinging on the climbs. Probably not tensioned properly. Do the old school 32 spoke 3x wheels need more maintenance than new high tension wheelsets? Being able to maintain them locally is nice, not needing maintenance is better.


----------



## orthobiker (Oct 12, 2007)

*Handbuilt wheels*

Suggest you contact a good local wheel builder. They can tailor the spoke count, stiffness and hubs to suit your weight and riding style. Worked for me and cost less than popular brands. Ended up with DT Swiss hubs, bladed spokes and Velocity rims.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

Williams System 19.

http://www.williamscycling.com/sys19/sys19.html


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

"climbing wheel" category is hype and over-rated, IMO.

Light wheels are always preferred, eg 1300 - 1600 gram range. But going ultra-light seems crazy and will not make a measureable increase in performance . 

100g = just 3.5 ounces ... just go to bathroom before you ride ;-)

A 24 ounce, full water bottle is over 700 gram.


----------



## pennyweight (Nov 4, 2009)

tom_h said:


> "climbing wheel" category is hype and over-rated, IMO.
> 
> Light wheels are always preferred, eg 1300 - 1600 gram range. But going ultra-light seems crazy and will not make a measureable increase in performance .
> 
> ...



Hah! That's perspective...


----------



## twinkles (Apr 23, 2007)

I recently built a new set of wheels.

front
dura ace 7800 24 hole hub ( I wanted 20 hole, but no longer manufactured)
dt revolution spokes radial heads in
velocity aerohead rim

rear
dura ace 7850 28 hole hub
drive side spokes dt supercomp 3x
non drive spokes dt revolution radial heads out
velocity aerohead OCR

They weigh under 1500 g and ride like a dream. They accelerate super quick, climb fast, corner well, and give a really smooth ride. I weigh 175, live west on denver and do lots of climbing and descending. 

The only things I would change if I wanted a more perfedt wheelset would be, a 20 hole front hub like a silver Alchemy to match the DA rear, it's lighter than DA and has the widest flanges on the market. Sapim cx ray or dt aerolite spokes instead of revolution spokes, same weight, stronger, but easier to build with. The supercomp spokes are light, easy to build with and feel as stiff as a dt competition spoke. I really like the dura ace rear hubs, probably the most reliable out there.

If you go with Velocity rims, get some Velocity Veloplugs instead of rim tape, it will save you a little more wieght where you really want save it.

A wheelset similar to this will not dissapoint.


----------



## Mdeth1313 (Nov 1, 2001)

DeLuz said:


> The wheels do not do the climbing, you do.
> You plus the bike weigh at least 175 lbs.
> Saving a couple hundred grams on wheels will not improve your climbing ability.
> Only training and loosing weight (if appropriate) will do that.
> Nothing wrong with having light wheels but I wouldn't spend a ton of money on them and they should also be durable and repairable on the road.



Always a favorite statement. Some people can climb and want more. Even if one person feels as if it's a waste (or is rationalizing), someone else may feel as if they deserve it.

Also go by the three rule--- light, strong, cheap-- pick 2, although depending on your persepective, there seem to be more and more reasonable sets coming out that get closer to all 3.


----------



## deadleg (Jan 26, 2005)

Thanks, I will look for a similiar build. anyone recommend a wheelbuilder?


----------



## J Squiggles (Sep 24, 2007)

*Zen Cyclery*



deadleg said:


> Thanks, I will look for a similiar build. anyone recommend a wheelbuilder?


Get in touch with Austin at Zen Cyclery (he posted above)

https://www.zencyclery.com/

He built these awesome wheels for me...


----------



## jlwdm (Nov 7, 2009)

deadleg said:


> Thanks, I will look for a similiar build. anyone recommend a wheelbuilder?



Joe Young.

Jeff


----------



## DeLuz (Aug 1, 2008)

J Squiggles said:


> Get in touch with Austin at Zen Cyclery (he posted above)
> 
> https://www.zencyclery.com/
> 
> He built these awesome wheels for me...


What handlebars are those?


----------



## J Squiggles (Sep 24, 2007)

They're FSA wing pro bars with the compact drop.


----------



## mpk1996 (May 11, 2007)

I will say this, ron ruff did a nice job on my wheels. also, i really like the alchemy hubs. they are awesome. light and strong. well priced to considering they come std with ceramic bearings.


----------



## Kapoen (Oct 12, 2008)

The best climbing wheels are these wheels who are aerodynamic (deep rim carbon) and light also. But this combination is always very expensive. Now I'm riding with Fulcrum Racing Zero's, under 1.500 gr en not to expensive... but offcourse, not aerodynamic.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Kapoen said:


> The best climbing wheels are these wheels who are aerodynamic (deep rim carbon) and light also. But this combination is always very expensive. Now I'm riding with Fulcrum Racing Zero's, under 1.500 gr en not to expensive... but offcourse, not aerodynamic.


How fast are _you_ climbing? ;-)
The benefits of aero wheels don't start to appear, until average speeds achieve low-to-mid 20s MPH (35-40 kph).

OTOH, I will grant that steep ascents are often followed by fast descents, where aero wheels could provide a benefit.


----------



## Kapoen (Oct 12, 2008)

tom_h said:


> How fast are _you_ climbing? ;-)
> The benefits of aero wheels don't start to appear, until average speeds achieve low-to-mid 20s MPH (35-40 kph).
> 
> OTOH, I will grant that steep ascents are often followed by fast descents, where aero wheels could provide a benefit.


You aren't quoting enough tom_h. I said a combination of light weight AND aerodynamic results in the fastest climbing. They did a test on the climb of Alpe d'Huez. A trispoke 'heavy' aerodynamic wheel vs. a lighter conventional wheel. The conventional wheel wins after 14,3 km of climbing with 8 meter after a lot of calculating work. But the aerodynamic shape of the trispokes results in 15,5 meter gain. Result: 15,5 - 8 = a gain of 7,5 meter for the aerodynamic wheel. This is offcourse pure theory, but it's a sign that even aerodynamic wheels can be useful in the mountains. 

Here's the test. It's unfortunately only in Dutch.

http://www.henkleenaers.nl/fiets22.htm


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Kapoen said:


> You aren't quoting enough tom_h. I said a combination of light weight AND aerodynamic results in the fastest climbing. They did a test on the climb of Alpe d'Huez. A trispoke 'heavy' aerodynamic wheel vs. a lighter conventional wheel. The conventional wheel wins after 14,3 km of climbing with 8 meter after a lot of calculating work. But the aerodynamic shape of the trispokes results in 15,5 meter gain. Result: 15,5 - 8 = a gain of 7,5 meter for the aerodynamic wheel. This is offcourse pure theory, but it's a sign that even aerodynamic wheels can be useful in the mountains.
> 
> Here's the test. It's unfortunately only in Dutch.
> 
> http://www.henkleenaers.nl/fiets22.htm


Kapoen, thanks for this info :thumbsup: 

I tried using "google translate" on that website, and the translation into english was rather mangled.

Did the website state how fast (kph), or how many watts, the modelled cyclist was doing? I couldn't seem to find it.

Still, a 7.5 meter advantage on a 14.3 km climb is pretty small.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

tom_h said:


> The benefits of aero wheels don't start to appear, until average speeds achieve low-to-mid 20s MPH (35-40 kph).


I wonder how you determined that...


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

rruff said:


> I wonder how you determined that...


Some of this info (data and models) is available at various websites, including

www.analyticcycling.com (be prepared to input various scenarios).
www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15441821.html
http://wing-light.de/CFD/CFD.htm

Also keep in mind that aerodynamic power losses scale as the _3rd power_ of speed.

ie, if a power loss @ 40 kph (25mph) is computed or cited, then the 20 mph aero power loss is only about 1/2 as much. Majority of the total aero power loss, is due to the _rider_.

When seconds count, as in an individual Time Trial, aero wheels can definitely make a difference. In a crit or road race, where cyclists are attacking or reacting to the other racers' tactics, I find it hard to believe that less-aero wheels will be the deciding factor.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I'm aware of these programs, and I've also written my own. The truth of the matter is that saving a couple watts of aero drag via wheels at say 12mph on a climb is not that difficult. If it's a 6% grade, aero drag will still be ~30W. If that doesn't matter to you, then an extra 200g in weight shouldn't matter either. You certainly don't need to be going 20+ mph for aero to matter. Some cyclists can only manage 20mph for lengthy time on a flat road, yet ~80% of their power (such as it is) is still used to overcome aero drag.


----------



## rcjunkie3000 (Sep 5, 2009)

Try some Rolf Prima Elan wheels. I own a 2006 wheelset and are very light at 1350 grams a set. 2010 Elan wheelsets are out now and are still the same weight. 

I am in Northern CA and climb Mt. Diablo regularly and the reason I got the set. 

Products Specs: https://www.rolfprima.com/products.php


----------



## nor_cal_rider (Dec 18, 2006)

I weigh about the same as you and live/ride the northern Calif foothills and mountians. Last summer I built up a set of DA 7900/OP rims that proved extremely comfortable and durable (I recently had a hit-n-run that caused a crash bad enough to crack my CF headtube - wheels were still true).

Here is a couple of picts....


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

rruff said:


> I'm aware of these programs, and I've also written my own. The truth of the matter is that saving a couple watts of aero drag via wheels at say 12mph on a climb is not that difficult. If it's a 6% grade, aero drag will still be ~30W. If that doesn't matter to you, then an extra 200g in weight shouldn't matter either. You certainly don't need to be going 20+ mph for aero to matter. Some cyclists can only manage 20mph for lengthy time on a flat road, yet ~80% of their power (such as it is) is still used to overcome aero drag.


I agree that total aero power losses are important even at 12 mph -- 30 W is a lot.

But the wheel portion of total power losses is very small, at these low speeds.

Consider the measured data of front wheel losses at the www.rouesartisanales.com web site.

Of the approx 60 wheels tested, the median aero power loss was about 25 watts at 50 kph (31 mph).

Because aero power losses scale as the 3rd power of speed, at 12 mph the wheel loss is only 25W * (12/31)^3 = 1.5 watts !

At 31 mph, the power loss difference between the best aero wheel (Zipp 808) and a "median" wheel is about 8 W.

At 12 mph, the Zipp 808 advantage reduces to just 0.5 watt ! That is _not significant_.

And, a Zipp 808, with a crosswind sensitive 82mm deep rim, is not going to be the best choice for an all-around wheel.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Kapoen said:


> You aren't quoting enough tom_h. I said a combination of light weight AND aerodynamic results in the fastest climbing. They did a test on the climb of Alpe d'Huez. A trispoke 'heavy' aerodynamic wheel vs. a lighter conventional wheel. The conventional wheel wins after 14,3 km of climbing with 8 meter after a lot of calculating work. But the aerodynamic shape of the trispokes results in 15,5 meter gain. Result: 15,5 - 8 = a gain of 7,5 meter for the aerodynamic wheel. This is offcourse pure theory, but it's a sign that even aerodynamic wheels can be useful in the mountains.
> 
> Here's the test. It's unfortunately only in Dutch.
> 
> http://www.henkleenaers.nl/fiets22.htm


"Van de gemiddeld 80 kilo die je als renner samen met je fiets en je kleding vooruit trapt, bestaan er namleijk maar 4 uit wiel." 4 kilo? Kolere.....


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

Tom_h did not lave out the word "apparent" in the windspeed argument? It is possible that one can climb at 10-11mph with a 9 ish mph 30º headwind hits your magic _apparent_ wind speed of 20 mph. Further if it's steep and you're climbing at 6 mph (real steep I guess :lol and have the same conditions above but with a wind speed of ~15mph you'll still hit the magic number.

The argument then becomes, as you so aptly point out, does the 3rd power ƒ(x) of the aerodynamic drag have more effect on speed than the linear one for gravity (mass)? 

I live in a (very) windy location. We have a 1000 foot climb that's ~3miles long. I have a set of 1100 grams aero wheels (68mm) and a set of 779 grams "climbing" wheels (24mm). In windy (anything over 6ish mph) conditions the aero wheels are always faster at a given wattage. Further the climb circles around mountain and you're getting blasted from all directions on the way up as you circle around. Plus, I have the exact same tires on both sets of wheels. We often run laps on the climb and on windy days I'll take both sets just to see and change sets in between runs up (parking lot at the bottom).

As to the whole cross wind thing. I'm a light tall rider at 6'0" and 142-146 pounds. I've ridden a 1080 front and a disc rear in a 30-45º apparent crosswind with a ground velocity of 30 mph with gusts to 40+ and had no handling problems, or nothing I couldn't handle. I'm of the opinion that ridding deep wheels in windy conditions is where you'll gain the most from their depth and it is a skill that can be learned. People that use the crosswind argument either haven't ridden deep wheels in such conditions and/or don't live where it's windy. I'm considering using an 808 front and 1080 rear next season for road races. 

Additionally, the back and forth above leaves out the apparent wind speed. It is totally possible to have a 40 mph _apparent_ windspeed while riding at a relatively pedestrian 20mph in conditions that routinely occur across the country. It's not simply a game of "I can't ride 30mph so it doesn't matter to me", when a 4 year old on a trike can achieve a 30 mph apparent wind velocity relatively easily.

Moreover, the wattage savings is point in time not an overall. If you could save 1.5w every second, that can/will be on the order of hundreds of kJ saved in a race and the guy who pedals the least is going to win. Therefor, I'd argue the 0.5w saved at 12mph _is significant_ over a given time but _insignificant_ as an instantaneous measure. Further, I'd argue the slower you're going the more it matters to cover a fixed distance. It means your aerodynamic equipment will have a greater effect on the time of the distance covered.

Starnut


----------



## 72guy (Nov 18, 2009)

Do you see any advantage to be gained with a ZIPP 303 ( ZIPP 417 clincher-44mm--1600g ) or the EDGE 45 ( 45mm--1400g ). Say, over a lightweight non aero clincher such as a Bontrager Race XXX Lite ( 1300g )? For training, longevity, reliability, everyday, one wheel set does it all type of riding?
Thanks


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

tom_h said:


> Because aero power losses scale as the 3rd power of speed, at 12 mph the wheel loss is only 25W * (12/31)^3 = 1.5 watts !
> 
> At 31 mph, the power loss difference between the best aero wheel (Zipp 808) and a "median" wheel is about 8 W.


Yes but let's look at other scenarios. Say for instance the R-Sys, or other shallow rimmed wheels with a significant number of round spokes vs a decent deep wheel that many would consider for road racing, like a 40-60mm rim. Many of these are less than 20W, and ~22W is typical I'd say... compared to a "conventional" wheel which would be at least as bad as the R-Sys with 35W of drag at 31mph. This is also only one wheel. If we weight the rear wheel at 75% we get a difference of 13W*1.75 ~23W at 31 mph. At 12 mph it would be 23W*(12/31)^3= 1.3W.

1.3W is only going to be <0.5% of our power output for most of us (260W+ total)... but what is the weight equivalent? To produce that same 0.5% power difference would require ~0.6% weight difference on a steep climb. In my particular case this would be ~520g. 

So if the aeroness of your wheels doesn't matter to you on a climb, then neither should more than a pound of extra weight. Both are a pretty small factor, and good case can be made that neither of these *should* be important to 99.9% of the riders out there... but we know that isn't how it is. 

Another consideration is that it isn't difficult to obtain a solid set of aero tubular wheels that are in the 1000g range, so there is literally no downside.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I think there's entirely too much math in this thread. With all of the aero/carbon components on the market as well as power meters, it's still training and tactics that will win a race. 

I think a smaller and lighter rider might notice the benefits of climbing wheels. If you still want to save as many watts as possible, stay in the draft! 

If anything, a nice set of tubular aero rims and a set of low profile are good to have. Lighter riders like me really get screwed in the cross winds, but those aren't at every race. Get a flat? Have a nice wheel ready to go. 

If you have multiple wheel sets, go out and test it all out if you can.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> I think there's entirely too much math in this thread. With all of the aero/carbon components on the market as well as power meters, it's still training and tactics that will win a race.


Because we all know that choosing the right equipment detracts from both training and tactics.
http://www.cyclingtechblog.com/2009/11/25/wind-tunnel-testing-with-john-cobb-at-texas-am/
"So was it worth the money and time? Absolutely. There were at least half a dozen races for me this year alone where I either lost a place by a second or beat the guy ahead of me by a second. I had the second fastest time at the Cherry Creek Time Trial, on the final race of the series, by less than one second. Taylor Phinney beat me in one of the 10-mile Lyons to Boulder time trials by 1 second. I got third at Masters Nationals and was only 4 seconds ahead of 4th place. And Kevin Nicol, my great friend and ExcelSports.com teammate, beat me at the National Record Challenge by a scant 3 seconds. So seconds do count."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Because we all know that choosing the right equipment detracts from both training and tactics.
> http://www.cyclingtechblog.com/2009/11/25/wind-tunnel-testing-with-john-cobb-at-texas-am/
> "So was it worth the money and time? Absolutely. There were at least half a dozen races for me this year alone where I either lost a place by a second or beat the guy ahead of me by a second. I had the second fastest time at the Cherry Creek Time Trial, on the final race of the series, by less than one second. Taylor Phinney beat me in one of the 10-mile Lyons to Boulder time trials by 1 second. I got third at Masters Nationals and was only 4 seconds ahead of 4th place. And Kevin Nicol, my great friend and ExcelSports.com teammate, beat me at the National Record Challenge by a scant 3 seconds. So seconds do count."


Outside of time trials, this isn't as critical. All things being equal, proper gear selection could be the deciding factor, but two athletes are seldom equal. 

After watching this year's grand tours, flat stages have a lot of deeper dish rims. When it's a mountain stage, you generally don't see anything higher than a medium profile rim.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spade2you said:


> Outside of time trials, this isn't as critical. All things being equal, proper gear selection could be the deciding factor, but two athletes are seldom equal.


From a purely logical standpoint, this doesn't make sense. If one equipment choice provides X% benefit over another, than an athlete who is anywhere less than X% behind another can make up the difference through the proper choice. The two don't have to be equal. 

Ever consider the margin of victory in a typical field sprint?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

asgelle said:


> From a purely logical standpoint, this doesn't make sense. If one equipment choice provides X% benefit over another, than an athlete who is anywhere less than X% behind another can make up the difference through the proper choice. The two don't have to be equal.
> 
> Ever consider the margin of victory in a typical field sprint?


Of course I know the margin of field sprints having been in them. There's much more to sprinting than absolute rim depth. I'll also re-stress that there is a benefit to the aero wheels, but seldom enough to tip the scales against a stronger athlete and/or one with superior tactics. 

I've done about 1/2 of my races with and without aero wheels and will agree that you really notice a difference in a TT. In the bunch, it's much less noticeable.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

I know this isn't what you're asking, but I would take the advice of those steering you away from super light wheels to heart. 

I have two sets of tubulars. I weigh just a few lbs less than you. My 1450g Dura Ace C50s are noticeably faster than my 970g Zipp 202s. The 202s climb well, but they give it all back, and then some, everywhere else. Downhill the difference is massive. Plus the light ones come out of true so easily. 

I'd find a set of semi light aero rims like 404 clinchers or C50 clinchers or nice Mavics UNLESS its only the climb that matters. I'd also not be scared of tubulars. I don't find they're a big deal and they're way lighter.


----------



## Specialized6000 (Aug 22, 2009)

Just use the wheels that Lance does, it will double your power & give you no aerodynamic resistance


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

1022 grams for a 20mm deep rim is not very light. In 20/24 you would build Edge 1.25 with Extralite SLs (Their heavy duty hubs) and they would come in at 750 grams!


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

Zen Cyclery said:


> Even though the Spider is the lightest rim available I think that it would be great in 24/28.



I have a set of spiders built just like that. They are fine wheels. I go 165-175lbs and ride mostly mountains and hills. While I don't always ride clinchers, the Nimbles are my wheel of choice for when I do and they have lasted very well indeed. Great customer service, also.

Reynolds SV tubulars are my favorite set for every day climbing. For LONG mountain races I will use my DV Reynolds carbon tubulars...they make a huge difference on long descents, where I usually end up chasing back, since I am not the best climber at my size and weight...Cross winds do take a bit of attention on DV rims..but nothing my CX-1 Colnago can't contend with.


----------

