# What is considered "lightweight' wheels?



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

You hear the words "lightweight wheels" a lot, but just curious as to what weight range would you consider a set of wheels lightweight or "climbing" wheels? 

From what I've gathered:

super lightweight : < 1200 g ?
lightweight : 1200-1400 g ? 
moderately lightweight : 1400-1600 ? 
not lightweight : > 1600 g ? 

Not trying to start another what makes a wheelset a "climbing" wheelset thread, but just wondering what weights you have in mind when saying that a wheelset is "lightweight". 

Thank you.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

About what you said, assuming you're talking about clinchers.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> About what you said, assuming you're talking about clinchers.


Yes, thinking about clinchers mostly. But would those ranges change much if we included tubulars also? I see what you are thinking though...as 1500 g tubulars would likely be considered somewhat heavy rather than light.


----------



## upstateSC-rider (Aug 21, 2004)

Think a lot of it depends on your weight and intended use, 1600 grams could be considered lightweight for someone that puts down a lot of power and weighs 210 pounds racing crits.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

What is the definition of "lightweight"? Anything deemed so in the marketingland of any particular manufacturer.


----------



## fronesis (Jan 22, 2014)

Cni2i said:


> You hear the words "lightweight wheels" a lot, but just curious as to what weight range would you consider a set of wheels lightweight or "climbing" wheels?
> 
> From what I've gathered:
> 
> ...


These seem roughly right to me. 

But does someone actually make or build a sub 1200g clincher?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

fronesis said:


> But does someone actually make or build a sub 1200g clincher?


Possibly for a super-lightweight rider?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

fronesis said:


> These seem roughly right to me.
> 
> But does someone actually make or build a sub 1200g clincher?


Most custom builders are smart enough not to but there are hubs/rims/spokes out there that make it possible.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Most custom builders are smart enough not to.


^^^This^^^


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

upstateSC-rider said:


> Think a lot of it depends on your weight and intended use, 1600 grams could be considered lightweight for someone that puts down a lot of power and weighs 210 pounds racing crits.


Point taken. There are definitely a lot of variables/situations and my original question definitely leaves room for interpretation. 

I am primarily referring to "lightweight" wheels in reference to climbing.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

At the risk of going slightly off topic, I posted this thread to also get an idea at what weight difference would one set of wheels be noticeably better while climbing versus another (say 30 miles with 5000' of elevation...my typical routes)? By "better", I mean less effort/less fatigued at the end and more responsive when out of the saddle for short periods. Again I realize there are other factors involved (wheel flex, rider weight, rider's ability, etc...), but just looking at noticeable weight difference here.

200 g difference? Likely not. 
300 g difference? Probably not?
400-500 g difference? Likely will notice?
>500 g difference? Definitely will notice?

On a personal note, I've been riding mostly tubulars weighing between 1150-1350 g (different sets) and now considering a set of Carbon Clinchers...just for those remote rides where a flat with tubulars would really su*#. The clinchers would likely run about 1400-1450 g. So going from the 1150 set to the 1450 set...that's 300g give or take. I haven't purchased the clinchers yet, but seriously considering them....Knights 35 carbon clinchers with Aivee hubs (just FYI).


----------



## fronesis (Jan 22, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Most custom builders are smart enough not to but there are hubs/rims/spokes out there that make it possible.


To be clear, I have no interest in a wheel that light, and I'm not a heavy rider. I was just curious. It seems to me that sub 1200g is really hard to get to. For example:
Kinlin XR200 rims, around 775g for a pair
Novatec or Bitex lightweight hubs, around 300g for a pair
Sapim Laser or CX Ray spokes, around around 200g for 44 spokes. 

Once you add some grease for threads and oil for nipples we are going to be close to 1300g, and that is a 20/24 build with a superlight rim. BHS doesn't even sell this rim in a 16 drilling, so I don't see how you go lighter. 

Seems we would need to start with a rim that weighs only a bit over 300g, and I'm not familiar with any clincher rims in that weight. I'm sure I'm missing some that are, but I bet those would be old school rims that should be built with a TON more spokes. 

Overall, I feel like 1300-1350 grams is about the lightest you can go for a clincher.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

fronesis said:


> T
> 
> Overall, *I feel like 1300-1350 grams *is about the lightest you can go for a clincher.


Yeah, from what I've researched, that seems about right for a good set of "light" clinchers...whether carbon or aluminum.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Cni2i said:


> At the risk of going slightly off topic, I posted this thread to also get an idea at what weight difference would one set of wheels be noticeably better while climbing versus another (say 30 miles with 5000' of elevation...my typical routes)? By "better", I mean less effort/less fatigued at the end and more responsive when out of the saddle for short periods. Again I realize there are other factors involved (wheel flex, rider weight, rider's ability, etc...), but just looking at noticeable weight difference here.
> 
> 200 g difference? Likely not.
> 300 g difference? Probably not?
> ...


What's with all the guessing? You can directly calculate these things. Go to analyticcycling.com

For reference: 150 lb rider, 6% grade, 250 watts, saving 1 lb. (454 gm) increases speed by 0.1 mph. That's 34 seconds per hour of climbing, or 550 feet. That's how much you would be ahead of an identical rider carrying the extra 450 gm.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Kerry Irons said:


> What's with all the guessing? You can directly calculate these things. Go to analyticcycling.com
> 
> For reference: 150 lb rider, 6% grade, 250 watts, saving 1 lb. (454 gm) increases speed by 0.1 mph. That's 34 seconds per hour of climbing, or 550 feet. That's how much you would be ahead of an identical rider carrying the extra 450 gm.


Woohoo! 450 extra grams! No wonder I've been falling behind 34 seconds per hour! I gotta get some ultra-light wheels now! :lol:


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

*What is considered &quot;lightweight' wheels?*



Kerry Irons said:


> What's with all the guessing? You can directly calculate these things. Go to analyticcycling.com
> 
> For reference: 150 lb rider, 6% grade, 250 watts, saving 1 lb. (454 gm) increases speed by 0.1 mph. That's 34 seconds per hour of climbing, or 550 feet. That's how much you would be ahead of an identical rider carrying the extra 450 gm.


Thanks Kerry. Pretty interesting seeing those stats! I would think that that 34 secs would increase per hour of constant climbing, no? As the extra weight, albeit not that significant, would take a cumulative effect on the time disparity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

We also need to consider where that extra pound is located. I think that one would notice the extra weight more if it were in the wheel set as opposed to a heavier frame?


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Tachycardic said:


> We also need to consider where that extra pound is located. I think that one would notice the extra weight more if it were in the wheel set as opposed to a heavier frame?


I believe we are just referring to the weight of the wheels here. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

any aluminum clincher wheelset less than 1400 grams will probably sound like chaching$$$, the sound of money you'll be forced to spend sooner rather than later for a replacement. For light aluminum clinchers 1400g-1500g is the equilibrium point between reliability and lightweight. 1300g? no thanks. <1200g? GTFOH!


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i,
Hola. I've had good luck with and been very happy with Boyd Wheels. I have two sets of their aluminum clinchers (Vitesse and Altamont) and one set of their 44mm Carbon Clinchers with a PowerTap rear hub. I've been toying with the idea of getting a set of their 28mm Carbon Clinchers for my No. 22 build. They fall into the 'lightweight' category at 1,311 gramms for the set. you may want to check them out. The Boyd peeps are very responsive to questions.
2016 28mm clincher wheel set - Boyd Cycling 

Very respectfully, Tim

P.S. My LBS has had no luck getting my eTap groupsets (one for the No. 22 and I'm gonna put another set on my Madone 7s ... The latest ETA is sometime in June


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Tachycardic said:


> We also need to consider where that extra pound is located. I think that one would notice the extra weight more if it were in the wheel set as opposed to a heavier frame?


Bike wheels don't spin fast enough (especially when climbing) to make the effects of the rotating mass create a noticeable difference than if it were static mass.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> Bike wheels don't spin fast enough (especially when climbing) to make the effects of the rotating mass create a noticeable difference than if it were static mass.


I think the rotating mass vs. static mass argument is overblown. Less rotating mass will allow you to accelerate faster. However, once you are at a steady pace, it makes no difference whether your weight is rotating or static.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> Cni2i,
> Hola. I've had good luck with and been very happy with Boyd Wheels. I have two sets of their aluminum clinchers (Vitesse and Altamont) and one set of their 44mm Carbon Clinchers with a PowerTap rear hub. I've been toying with the idea of getting a set of their 28mm Carbon Clinchers for my No. 22 build. They fall into the 'lightweight' category at 1,311 gramms for the set. you may want to check them out. The Boyd peeps are very responsive to questions.
> 2016 28mm clincher wheel set - Boyd Cycling
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. Tim. I will check them out. BUMMER about your No. 22 build...but you waited long enough...what's another few weeks . Wow you are getting two sets before trying them out?


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i said:


> ... you are getting two sets before trying them out?


Yes indeedy. I've done the research and read all the reviews; I can't find a single flaw with eTap and I really like the idea of wireless. 

The second set will be an 'upgrade kit' for my 2015 Trek Madone 7s (shifters and derailleurs only). The bike already has near new Shimano Ultegra 6800 crank, chain, cassette, and direct mount brakes. I never liked the internal routing on that bike so this should make it more ... likeable. 

My Madone 7s has my Boyd 44mm Clinchers with a PowerTap G3 rear hub. Just want to keep the thread wheel-related so as not to offend the 'thread police'. >8^) 

Very respectfully, Tim

Boyd 44mm Carbon Clinchers:








San Pedro Surge! Master's Podium:


----------



## Sierrarider (Feb 26, 2015)

*Lite Weight?*



Cni2i said:


> You hear the words "lightweight wheels" a lot, but just curious as to what weight range would you consider a set of wheels lightweight or "climbing" wheels?
> 
> From what I've gathered:
> 
> ...


I myself went with Zipp 202 Firecrest at 1385g. Running 25 mm tires at 90 lbs because my bike is so stiff. I have seen them going for as low as $2000. They are a great uphill wheel and have noticed just a minor difference in braking power (less braking power), but not enough to be dragging my feet trying to stop. The weight of the bike makes a difference, which no one seems to be mentioning. My bike weighs in at 16 lbs (Vellum). Go up a hill on your bike, then get on a 16 lb bike and see if you can feel the difference. If not, then lighter wheels or frame is not going to make any difference for you. Have ridden on De Rosa's and Tomasinni's for many years (20), and this bike made all the difference in the world. Sometimes I actually have to pedal the bike to make it go forward!


----------



## dracula (Mar 9, 2010)

Cni2i said:


> You hear the words "lightweight wheels" a lot, but just curious as to what weight range would you consider a set of wheels lightweight or "climbing" wheels?
> 
> From what I've gathered:
> 
> ...


I think less than 1500 gr is where lightweight starts.

PS: I do not know my wheel weight. I guess it is close to 2000 gr.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

dracula said:


> I think less than 1500 gr is where lightweight starts.
> 
> PS: I do not know my wheel weight. I guess it is close to 2000 gr.


2000g is close to what a hybrid or touring wheelset weighs. The road wheelset I built up is a conventional 32 spoke 3x laced to HED Belgium C2 rims and Shimano Ultegra 6800 hubs. They weigh somewhere in the neighborhood of 1800-1900g. I built them for durability, not weight. Most budget road wheelsets weigh around the same.


----------

