# Main Advantages of Deep Carbon Wheels?



## bikerneil (Nov 3, 2007)

What are the main advantages (and disadvantages) of deep carbon wheels?

thx.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

bikerneil said:


> What are the main advantages (and disadvantages) of deep carbon wheels?
> 
> thx.


Advantages:
Generally stronger than shallow-V carbon rims.
Aero IF you ride with a tailwind or headwind.
Impresses your buddies

Disadvantages:
Heavy
Expensive
Catch the wind, slowing you down, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.
Catch the wind, blowing you off of the road, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.
Look stupid for anything other than a race.
Require special brake pads versus aluminum rims, and usually manufacturer-specified ones at that.

And the #1 disadvantage... They cause people to look like idiots when they refer to them as "Deep Dish Carbon Rims". They're wheels, not a pizza. If you want to be amused for hours, do a forum search on "deep dish".


----------



## bikerneil (Nov 3, 2007)

I was wondering if that was the case. I live in southern CA and ride almost every day on the 101 Coast Highway where the wind is almost always blowing ACROSS the road. 

Riding the past few days I have seen even more deep wheels than I used to. Looks like Santa brought lots of new wheels to riders, and now they *look cool* when riding.


----------



## skepticman (Dec 25, 2005)

I've ridden Mavic Cosmics and HED Jets in cross winds and there are surprisingly stable and easy to control. Aero wheels still have less drag with a partial cross wind, to a point. The angle that drag increases depends on the wheel design.

Both have an aluminum braking surface, so no special brake pads are needed. 

Ksyriums are the worst I've experienced in cross winds.


----------



## andresmuro (Dec 11, 2007)

bikerneil said:


> What are the main advantages (and disadvantages) of deep carbon wheels?
> 
> thx.


The most significant advantage of tall rims is aerodynamics. They are intended for TTs. Ultimately, In a flat 40k tt, you'll drop almost somewhere around 30 to 45 seconds (don't remember exactly) with a tall rimed front wheel, all other things being equal. In other words, you'll ride a tiny bit faster. 
They are heavy, so not advantageous on hills or for quick accelerations.


----------



## sneakyracer (Dec 1, 2007)

First off, Not all Deep Carbo Wheels are created equal!

Main Variables are (clincher aero rims and build):

WEIGHT

DURABILITY (includes strength/resistance to flex)

AERO Performance

...all in relation to cost!

There is usually a compromise!

examples:

*Zipp 404 Carbon Clincher:* High Cost, Decently Light, Very good durability and probably best aero performance. (Seen them in person, they are thick / tough, very nice build quality). *The choice for Best overall performance*

*EDGE/ENVE Carbon Clinchers:* VERY high cost (with the best hubs), VERY light, good durability, good aero performance (Also, saw them in person, they are well built, dont look nearly as thick / tough as the zipps) *The choice for lightest weight in an aero wheel.*

*Mavic Cosmic SL (alum./carbon rim): *Med Cost, Med Weight, Great Durability, Very good aero performance. (have them on my bike, great all around wheel, tough enough for daily use by a 200 lb rider) *The choice for best value / overall performance in all conditions*

*Williams Cycling 58 (full carbon clincher):* Med Cost, Med/High Weight, Good Durablity, Very good aero performance. (not much info, but good reviews online). *The choice for best value on a quality carbon clincher.*

There are other choices but those are my top 4 in each category. I havent heard much real world info on the American Classic EC90 aeros but they look like a good choice also but at the price I think id go for the ZIPPs. There are a bunch of cheap no name carbon clincher wheels that are mostly very heavy with questionable performance, they do give you "the look" but compromising a bunch of stuff including, possibly, safety.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PlatyPius said:


> Catch the wind, slowing you down, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.


The most casual review of the data will show this is absolutely false and without any foundation in reality.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

asgelle said:


> The most casual review of the data will show this is absolutely false and without any foundation in reality.


Ok, you watch a 140 pound guy riding in a crosswind and tell me if moving 2 feet sideways doesn't slow him down a bit...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PlatyPius said:


> Ok, you watch a 140 pound guy riding in a crosswind and tell me if moving 2 feet sideways doesn't slow him down a bit...


That's a lack of skill on the part of the rider. If he's being blown around with deep profile rims, he'd be blown around without them. Beside, how much lateral force do you think there is with an 0.5 degree yaw angle (since you claim deep profile rims are slower at any angle other than 0)?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

asgelle said:


> That's a lack of skill on the part of the rider. If he's being blown around with deep profile rims, he'd be blown around without them. Beside, how much lateral force do you think there is with an 0.5 degree yaw angle (since you claim deep profile rims are slower at any angle other than 0)?


I think we first need to define "deep".

Deep, to me, signifies the tallest of the tall. "V" designates the middle range, and shallow V describes the smallest.

Using Zipp as the example,

Deep = 808/1080
V = 404/606
Shallow = 101/202

Ergo, a 140lb guy riding in a moderate wind is indeed going to be blowing around riding "Deep" wheels.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PlatyPius said:


> I think we first need to define "deep".


Actually no. For rims of a given shape, increasing rim depth lowers drag over all wind angles likely to be experienced by a road rider no matter the starting depth. The qualitative difference going from 20 mm to 30 mm is pretty much the same as going from 50 mm to 60 mm or more.



PlatyPius said:


> Deep, to me, signifies the tallest of the tall. "V" designates the middle range, and shallow V describes the smallest.


Deep is a measure of length or size, V is a description of shape. No current Zipp rims have a V shape down to the 30 mm 101 rim. At one time, both the 303 and 440 (precursor to the 404) had a V shape.



PlatyPius said:


> Ergo, a 140lb guy riding in a moderate wind is indeed going to be blowing around riding "Deep" wheels.


I know plenty of riders weighing less than 140 lbs who can control their bike.


----------



## wetpaint (Oct 12, 2008)

I have no problems riding 50mm wheels even on very windy days and I weigh 140 pounds, your body mass catches alot more wind than the wheels do.

I've found my Carbon clinchers ride better than my 32 spoke aluminum wheels with the same tires and pressure. Then going to tubulars and the ride gets even better.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> ...
> Catch the wind, slowing you down, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.
> Catch the wind, blowing you off of the road, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.
> ... .


A well-designed aero rim actually has less drag at an oblique, effective wind angle of 15º or so, and just as low drag at 30º as at 0º.

This is _effective_ wind angle, the vector sum of bike velocity and wind velocity. Therefore, a good wheel is very tolerant of moderate crosswinds.

For exmpl, say
-- bike speed = 20 mph.
-- wind speed = 10 mph, at 90º (ie, pure cross wind).
Then effective wind angle = arctan(10/20) = 26.6º .

A well designed aero wheel will have similar drag at 26º, as at 0º (0 = No cross wind, or riding directly into wind)


----------



## ghostryder (Dec 28, 2009)

I agree, the carbon clinchers, ride smoother than the aluminum wheels that i had. Much smoother. I have the 38 easton clinchers. Very light very smooth. The braking gets very hairy at high speeds. That is the only negative.


----------



## Bullvine (Sep 9, 2009)

They look cooler than low profile wheels..


----------



## av8torjim (May 11, 2009)

ghostryder said:


> I agree, the carbon clinchers, ride smoother than the aluminum wheels that i had. Much smoother. I have the 38 easton clinchers. Very light very smooth. The braking gets very hairy at high speeds. That is the only negative.


+1. My Reynolds DV46CKT wheels (essentially the same as Assaults) ride MUCH smoother than my Ksyrium Elite wheels. They may be more aero, but they feel like I'm riding on carpet compared to the Elites. I weigh 180 pounds and have several thousand incident-free miles on the Reynolds wheels. I will not be going back to aluminum wheels.


----------



## KMan (Feb 3, 2004)

Only 2 days into 2011 and I think we already have a winner for the worst post of the year.
I would ignore this post....can't say I read one statement that is even close to being accurate.

Michael



PlatyPius said:


> Advantages:
> 
> Disadvantages:
> Heavy
> ...


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

you should not take your advice about high performance road bike equipement from old fat guys.... unless you are an old fat guy too


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

KMan said:


> Only 2 days into 2011 and I think we already have a winner for the worst post of the year.
> I would ignore this post....can't say I read one statement that is even close to being accurate.
> 
> Michael


I think this forum is the winner for "Most uptight and unable to detect when you're being wound up".

Congrats.

Seriously. Hello? I own a bike shop. Says so below. I have to sell those things, don't I?


----------



## gearguywb (Dec 26, 2006)

PlatyPius said:


> Disadvantages:
> Heavy.
> Expensive
> Catch the wind, slowing you down, unless the wind is at 0° or 180° to the bike.
> ...


Heavy? Not really. Many 40-45mm rims are comparable weight wise with alloy rims.

Expensive? Can be.

Special brake pads? Different might be a better word. With decent pads (new Reynolds, Cool Stop, etc) braking is just fine.

Advantages: WAY stonger rims allowing for a lighter wheel ustilizing less spokes. (look at what is being raced on cross courses)

The difference at speed is tremendous! Get them up to 25 or so and the feel is amazing.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I've never ridden deep section wheels.. When I got my 30mm wheels this past summer I could feel a difference in the ride compared with my other wheels that were likely half that deep.

I would love to try some really deep wheels just to see how they feel.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PlatyPius said:


> Seriously. Hello? I own a bike shop. Says so below. I have to sell those things, don't I?


Interesting. So you see your role as moving merchandise rather than educating the riding public. That explains a lot.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Interesting. So you see your role as moving merchandise rather than educating the riding public. That explains a lot.


I educate and sell to local cyclists; not to self-important internet blowhards.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

PlatyPius pretty much nailed it, tho in a semi harsh way. 

Deep carbon aero wheels add some aero benefits but they don't really out weigh the costs for me personally. So much so that I sold all my carbon wheels with exception of my tri spoke and disc for TTs and track. I got tired of changing out brake pads and wondering is someone was gonna drop it in a corner and take me down and mess up the over priced wheels I was riding. Its a personal choice backed up by the fact that I can do just as well in my cat 1,2 races and master races on alu rims that cost 1/4 of the price of the carbon ones. Could be that I will change my mind at some point and just have to have carbon wheels again, but for right now no thanks. 

For the record Im done with tubulars too.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

PlatyPius said:


> when you're being wound up".


I'll admit that I didn't read that into your first post.

-Eric


----------



## fa63 (Aug 16, 2007)

tom_h said:


> A well-designed aero rim actually has less drag at an oblique, effective wind angle of 15º or so, and just as low drag at 30º as at 0º.
> 
> This is _effective_ wind angle, the vector sum of bike velocity and wind velocity. Therefore, a good wheel is very tolerant of moderate crosswinds.
> 
> ...


This is true in theory, and there is plenty of wind-tunnel test data out there to back this up. But I also think that what PlatyPius is trying to say has some merit based on my personal experience. I find it harder to handle my Cosmic Carbone SLs in windy conditions as compared to my relatively shallow Campy Zondas. It is not so much being blown around in my case, but the need to do small corrections which disrupts my rhythm. Another simple example is that I cannot take my hands off comfortably while riding with the Cosmic Carbone SLs in moderately windy conditions, whereas this is usually a non-issue with the Zondas. I weigh 220 lbs, so no light weight either, and I like to think my bike handling skills are pretty good.


----------



## AvantDale (Dec 26, 2008)

Bullvine said:


> They look cooler than low profile wheels..


IMO...this is the reason why people by deep wheels. The vast majority of the people that spend big bucks on some wheels are recreational riders.

Its no different than fixing up a car. People can try and justify the "performance" all they want in their bling set of wheels...but in the end...99.9999999% of the time...its all about the looks.



asgelle said:


> That's a lack of skill on the part of the rider. If he's being blown around with deep profile rims, he'd be blown around without them. Beside, how much lateral force do you think there is with an 0.5 degree yaw angle (since you claim deep profile rims are slower at any angle other than 0)?


Its the_ unexpected_ gust of wind that will get you. If the wind is consistently blowing, you can adjust...but if some random gust hits you...its gonna knock you off.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

ergott said:


> I'll admit that I didn't read that into your first post.
> 
> -Eric


It was a little of both, actually.

I fully believe most of what I posted. However, I also knew that some of the "OMG AERO!!!1" people would latch onto it and chew it to death. So, I made broad statements about wind and such rather than giving more detail on how/when wind affects V/Deep V rims.

Personally, I think 98% of the people who ride carbon deep-v rims have no real reason to, other than looks/impressing others.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

PlatyPius said:


> Personally, I think 98% of the people who ride carbon deep-v rims have no real reason to, other than looks/impressing others.


Hmmm, I wonder if this is something you fully believe, and if so, you share with prospective buyers.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if this is something you fully believe, and if so, you share with prospective buyers.


Since you'll never be in my shop, I think that falls under NOYFB.

In the interest of disclosure though, yes, I do. One of my customers lurks on here. We're building her up a set of DT/Swiss RR465/DT 240s tomorrow. We discussed her wants/needs in regards to wheels and decided that flashy carbon wheels would be a waste...not to mention another component that had to be watched for potential failure.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

i bought some assaults a couple years ago. i do not race. I bought them out of curiosity and I fell in love with all things carbon fiber I've enjoyed them very much. I will say that I can definitely feel their benefit above 18-20 mph and when I'm going for a top speed on a decsent. I've also been pretty impressed with how tough they are. I've pounded the crap out of them.
I think they also change the character of the ride. 
I switched from reynolds pads to swiss stop yellows and the braking improved substantially.
Braking in the wet takes getting used to. At first, it was terrifying.
if i could by any wheel, money no object, it would be edge low profile rims with dura ace or record hubs ONLY when they go tubeless.


----------



## Ghost234 (Jun 1, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> In the interest of disclosure though, yes, I do. One of my customers lurks on here. We're building her up a set of DT/Swiss RR465/DT 240s tomorrow. We discussed her wants/needs in regards to wheels and decided that flashy carbon wheels would be a waste...not to mention another component that had to be watched for potential failure.



In most races, I would not dare bring out my deep section wheels because it is far to sketchy. The only exceptions are ITT and the KOM races, where the pack splits very distinctively at the hill (a light tubular wheel is nice here, I save about 600grams over my std wheelset). 

But I agree, 98% of rec. riders will see little to no return on deep section carbon wheels.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

Ghost234 said:


> In most races, I would not dare bring out my deep section wheels because it is far to sketchy. The only exceptions are ITT and the KOM races, where the pack splits very distinctively at the hill (a light tubular wheel is nice here, I save about 600grams over my std wheelset).
> 
> But I agree, 98% of rec. riders will see little to no return on deep section carbon wheels.


Very true ... while the aero drag benefits are measureable, it is a small effect.

Eg, read:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15441821.html

At 50 kph (31 mph), the difference between the best deep section CF front wheel (more important than rear) and the median wheel was about 10 watts power loss. 

Since power losses scale as the 3rd power of speed, at 25 mph the loss on front wheel is x0.52 or about 5 watts ... pretty small. If you can do a pull at 25 mph, you're probably putting out roughly 250 watts, so the deep CF wheel saves 2% power ... not of concern for a recreational cyclist.

Speaking for myself, I recently opted to go tubular tires & rims for racing, for reasons of :
-- perceived safety, in case of flat in a high speed pack.
-- ability to ride tire flat to the pit stop.

Deep CF tubular rims made sense to me in this mostly-racing scenario. My Zipp 404 wheelset + tub tires is ~230g lighter than a med profile alloy rim + clincher race tires, plus that 2% power benefit. 

But my main motivation was the perceived safety of the tub tires, the 230g + 2% power was a bonus. Deep section CF clincher wheels don't make a lot of sense to me, unless you race a lot of TTs, where a few watts does make a difference.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

PlatyPius said:


> Personally, I think 98% of the people who ride carbon deep-v rims have no real reason to, other than looks/impressing others.


The study I read was more like 96%, but now we are splitting hairs, no?

The aero people (myself included) have a problem with your 0deg wind statements as that is far from the truth. In most cases, aero wheels perform even better than their counterparts when the wind is off 0deg. 

-Eric


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Haven't they proven that a decently fitted aero helmet provides more aero benefit than wheels? Hell losing 5 pounds might benefit you the same way.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Haven't they proven that a decently fitted aero helmet provides more aero benefit than wheels? Hell losing 5 pounds might benefit you the same way.


Yes, but wearing TT helmet on the road outside of a TT is frowned upon.

-Eric


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Haven't they proven that a decently fitted aero helmet provides more aero benefit than wheels?


No. Bicycling magazine misquoted some MIT students to give that false impression. The MIT students almost immediately disavowed that conclusion.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

asgelle said:


> No. Bicycling magazine misquoted some MIT students to give that false impression. The MIT students almost immediately disavowed that conclusion.


I didn't see that study retracted. Did they update their findings somewhere I can read?

-Thanks
Eric


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ergott said:


> I didn't see that study retracted. Did they update their findings somewhere I can read?


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin...rch_string=mit helmet;&t=search_engine#908372 et al.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

asgelle said:


> http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin...rch_string=mit helmet;&t=search_engine#908372 et al.


Thanks. I'll do some reading.

-Eric


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

I know people sight aero benefits for carbon wheels and one of the main attractions, I wonder tho how many of those people practice riding for long periods of time in a full aero postion, working on flexability and core strength to get as low as possibel while producing good power and actual training. Im not saying they don't but as our bodies are the biggest aero drag in the whole system buying cabon wheels for the aero benefits while riding upright with a poor aero position is some what self delsional (Im guilty of this as well at times - we all want to be able to buy speed).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> I know people sight aero benefits for carbon wheels and one of the main attractions, I wonder tho how many of those people practice riding for long periods of time in a full aero postion, working on flexability and core strength to get as low as possibel while producing good power and actual training. Im not saying they don't but as our bodies are the biggest aero drag in the whole system buying cabon wheels for the aero benefits while riding upright with a poor aero position is some what self delsional (Im guilty of this as well at times - we all want to be able to buy speed).


I don't understand how riding position affects the aerodynamics of wheels. Whatever my position, it takes less power to move at a given speed with aero wheels than without. Position and equipment are not mutually exclusive, nor is training.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

32and3cross said:


> I know people sight aero benefits for carbon wheels and one of the main attractions, I wonder tho how many of those people practice riding for long periods of time in a full aero postion, working on flexability and core strength to get as low as possibel while producing good power and actual training. Im not saying they don't but as our bodies are the biggest aero drag in the whole system buying cabon wheels for the aero benefits while riding upright with a poor aero position is some what self delsional (Im guilty of this as well at times - we all want to be able to buy speed).


I do and routinely out coast people on straight runs. I run a pretty big saddle to bar drop with a flat back.

Full aero is nothing though unless you can still produce power in that position.

-Eric


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

asgelle said:


> I don't understand how riding position affects the aerodynamics of wheels. Whatever my position, it takes less power to move at a given speed with aero wheels than without. Position and equipment are not mutually exclusive, nor is training.



Sort missing the point here, yes they are exclusive but spending hundres to thousands on a set of aero wheels for the supposed aero benefits and not working to maximize ones position on the bike or ones training shows a lack of real though in where one is spending ones money. Yes the weels might provide you some benefits but I thionk I could make the argument that aero benefits a person with an un aero position might see from a set of deep rim wheels is less (my guess is by alot) than the benefits I see by getting in the drops and being able to ride that way with good power. 

I of course don't have proof of this and I do agree that a good position plus aero wheels would yeild more of benefit but I personally don't thing the benefits of the aero wheel out weigh the costs, at least in mass start racing (TT and timed events are another matter). I don't think I have ever lost a race or a placing because of not having aero wheels in fact thinking back on it I pretty sure every race I have won has been on alu rimmed clinchers and at least three of my wins were solo breakaways on 32 spoke wheesets.

That all said by no means do I think people should not have/buy/use deep carbon rims.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

ergott said:


> I do and routinely out coast people on straight runs. I run a pretty big saddle to bar drop with a flat back.
> 
> Full aero is nothing though unless you can still produce power in that position.
> 
> -Eric



My drop is not what I would call extreme (12cm or so) but it allows me to get in a full flat back position at 6'4" and I maximize that but doing tons of LT intervals in that position, I got in the habit trying to improve my time trialing (as well as riding on my TT bike alot), so agreed position means nothing if you can't make power there. 

I honestly thing good hubs with least amount of drag in them matter more that deep rims, but that may be perception as well.


----------



## asad137 (Jul 29, 2009)

32and3cross said:


> I honestly thing good hubs with least amount of drag in them matter more that deep rims, but that may be perception as well.


My hunch is that hub friction is almost completely negligible at speed. Not only that, power losses due to hub friction only go as speed^2 while power losses due to aero drag go as speed^3, so the faster you go, the less important hub friction is.

Asad


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

asad137 said:


> My hunch is that hub friction is almost completely negligible at speed. Not only that, power losses due to hub friction only go as speed^2 while power losses due to aero drag go as speed^3, so the faster you go, the less important hub friction is.
> 
> Asad


Like I said perception, I the the gains of aero wheels in mass start races are likly only peceptional as well in reality, yes they are saving you watts but in reality the saving as very very small enough so as to be counter balanced by losses else where.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

Even high end ceramic hubs give you at most 1 watt compared to cheap steel bearings, .2-.4 compared to quality stainless bearings (according to Zipp's testing), good aero wheels will give around 20 when pulling of the front at 27-30. The two are not even remotely comparable.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

dcl10 said:


> good aero wheels will give around 20 when pulling of the front at 27-30. The two are not even remotely comparable.


As I said I doubted my impression of the drag of hubs was anything more than perception. Just like I doubt your assement that aero wheels will give me a 20 watt advantage, I have never see any evidence of this that did not come from marketing hype.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

I know Adrien, he's not marketing anything, nor does he have anything to prove. Show me a study, any study that shows aero wheels have the same benefit as good bearings. You can't, because you're talking out of your ass.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*possible*



asgelle said:


> That's a lack of skill on the part of the rider. If he's being blown around with deep profile rims, he'd be blown around without them. Beside, how much lateral force do you think there is with an 0.5 degree yaw angle (since you claim deep profile rims are slower at any angle other than 0)?


I've raced through the California deserts in the Furnace Creek 508 on a Cervelo P2C with Zipp 808/909, with hellacious winds from every angle, at speeds over 60 mph, and weighed 150 pounds at the time. Even resting on relatively low aerobars, I could always control the bike, even if it meant moving a few feet sideways now and then, but still controlled, if paying attention. You get used to it. I know it was aero, too, as I was absolutely blowing by others on descents and flats, unless they were on the brakes. On the other hand, I've seen guys all over the road using 404's. I have heard, though, that a deep front actually works better in cross winds with a disc on the rear, rather than a deep rear, something about "center of pressure." I've also read that a rear disc can actually provide a small forward thrust (negative drag) in certain crosswinds, too.

For me, there is only one reason to use deep carbon wheels -- racing, especially solo. When you want to go as fast as you can, getting from A to B in the least time, deep aero wheels will nearly always be faster.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

dcl10 said:


> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
> 
> I know Adrien, he's not marketing anything, nor does he have anything to prove. Show me a study, any study that shows aero wheels have the same benefit as good bearings. You can't, because you're talking out of your ass.



I never said that I definitively though that good bearings had the same benefits as aero wheels. Since you reading comprehension seems lacking I have to assume you talking out of your ass.

The study you presented (which I took the time to read) presents some interesting arguments I disagree is a true field test. 

As I said repeatedly I agree aero wheels offer some benefits (I still use mine in TTs and times track events), but I think your fooling yourself if you think your getting a 20 watt advantage on the road in mass start races due to a wheelset.

But hey like I also said I don't think people should not use them, feel free to justify your purchases we all do it to some degree.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

I currently use three sets of wheels with identical tires: Michelin Pro3Race. (sometimes heavier tires on the training set)

1) Ultegra hubs still buttery smooth, 32 Dt 14g spokes 3x and Mavic OpenPro rims.
2) Dt rear/ Alchemy E.L.F. front hubs all with Enduro 0 grade 3 ceramic bearings., 28/32 DT Competition spokes and OpenPro rims, ultra light rimtape, 45gr ti skewers.
3) DuraAce C50 carbon clinchers.

The best wheelset for which I see no downside what so ever is the lightweight ceramic bearings one. It is by far the best do-it-all wheelset I can get (180 pounds in summer)

The 50mm carbon set looks great, inspire confidence at speed, but is a drag to climb with. I grant you it is not a super light set... I got it for the LOOKS and the fast flat riding (Montreal F1 circuit...)

The light wheelset is just better because I don't feel or measure a difference of performance on long group rides, but since it is better at climbing and accelerating, it is a better all condition wheel.

The C50 are a bit more trouble in the wind and I certainly would not be caught not holding the bars while a suddent gust hits me. Besides the look, I see no real advantage so far.

On the other hand, ceramic bearings are great; I coast longer and releasing the brakes on a steep downhill feels like dropping like a rock from the roof. I just go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In any case, whenever I go on an epic ride (5 to 6 hours, new roads, uncertain pavement) I put the trusty OP/Ultegra 32 on and will ride them to hell and back.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*civil?*



dcl10 said:


> http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
> 
> I know Adrien, he's not marketing anything, nor does he have anything to prove. Show me a study, any study that shows aero wheels have the same benefit as good bearings. You can't, because you're talking out of your ass.


I think the overall tone would be much better here if we all refrain from the personal attacks. You can make the same point without it.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



Fixed said:


> I think the overall tone would be much better here if we all refrain from the personal attacks. You can make the same point without it.


I agree.


----------



## bikerneil (Nov 3, 2007)

This post and the three pages of replies have been informative, humurous, and entertaining. Thank you all for the answers and information. I have learned much. (I also learned much that I didn't even care to know.) I'm not sure how the posting got twisted around like it did, but that happens in any on-line forum. I guess everyone becomes a little different person on the internet - would we really go off on each other at a cocktail party over an innocent conversation about wheels???

In closing, it sounds like if I have the money (which I do and cost is not an object) I can get some marginal performance increase in riding (especially if I am riding fast) if I had a high quality set of "cool looking" carbon wheels........ If nothing else I suppose I would look cool like alot of the other people that have them (but then again I sense some resentment for non-racers that use them too). Hmm, now I don't know what to do!

Thanks for all the input.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

bikerneil said:


> This post and the three pages of replies have been informative, humurous, and entertaining. Thank you all for the answers and information. I have learned much. (I also learned much that I didn't even care to know.) I'm not sure how the posting got twisted around like it did, but that happens in any on-line forum. I guess everyone becomes a little different person on the internet - would we really go off on each other at a cocktail party over an innocent conversation about wheels???
> 
> In closing, it sounds like if I have the money (which I do and cost is not an object) I can get some marginal performance increase in riding (especially if I am riding fast) if I had a high quality set of "cool looking" carbon wheels........ If nothing else I suppose I would look cool like alot of the other people that have them (but then again I sense some resentment for non-racers that use them too). Hmm, now I don't know what to do!
> 
> Thanks for all the input.


If you want em and can afford em get em, I mean this ins all seriousness, its quite acceptable to just have something you want. As far as what others think, who cares really.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Haven't they proven that a decently fitted aero helmet provides more aero benefit than wheels? Hell losing 5 pounds might benefit you the same way.


A 2008 Bike radar article used a combination of wind tunnel and track tests to assess this
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/how-aero-is-aero-19273

Their general conclusion, in order of importance:
1. rider position (TT bike > clip-on aerobar > std road bike).
2. helmet type
3. wheels

Of course, in a crit or road race, how could you possibly take advantage of 1 & 2 ?!!

Don't underestimate effect of *rolling resistance* from the tire + inner tube combination. Between best & worst tires, there can be up to 8 watts per tire (16 W total) @ 25 mph.
http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/AFM_tire_crr.htm
(download the PDF or Excel for full data).

Between best & worst front wheel @ 31 mph, there's about 16W aero losses, or about 8W @ 25 mph. Effect of rear wheel wasn't measured.
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

These power losses are not insignificant @ 25 mph ... by itself it won't win any races, but can give an edge.

Some other posts alluded to effect of bearings, but the calculations & data I've previously read indicate wheel bearing losses are negligible (<1-2 W)


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

bikerneil said:


> ...
> In closing, it sounds like if I have the money (which I do and cost is not an object) I can get some marginal performance increase in riding (especially if I am riding fast) if I had a high quality set of "cool looking" carbon wheels........ .


Don't overlook benefit of good tires and tubes, see my previous post.

It's a waste of power to use a deep section aero rim with a training or crappy tire+tube.

A good clincher is the equal of a good tubular, although there is a good case for tubulars as a race tire. The best clinchers are going to be "race" tires and not especially durable. Latex tubes for clinchers are a must for lowest rolling resistance (nearly all tubulars using latex inners). Latex tubes also have some other potential issues, but I still use them as a "mostly" everyday tube.

Some recent articles & photos at Velonews have pointed out the international pros are typically riding shallow-section, alloy clincher rims as their everyday training wheel.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Human nature*



bikerneil said:


> I guess everyone becomes a little different person on the internet - would we really go off on each other at a cocktail party over an innocent conversation about wheels???


I would, for sure. Let me know when/where your next cocktail party is and I'll show up and rip you a new one


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

bikerneil said:


> This post and the three pages of replies have been informative, humurous, and entertaining. Thank you all for the answers and information. I have learned much. (I also learned much that I didn't even care to know.) I'm not sure how the posting got twisted around like it did, but that happens in any on-line forum. I guess everyone becomes a little different person on the internet - would we really go off on each other at a cocktail party over an innocent conversation about wheels???
> 
> In closing, it sounds like if I have the money (which I do and cost is not an object) I can get some marginal performance increase in riding (especially if I am riding fast) if I had a high quality set of "cool looking" carbon wheels........ *If nothing else I suppose I would look cool like alot of the other people that have them (but then again I sense some resentment for non-racers that use them too).* Hmm, now I don't know what to do!
> 
> Thanks for all the input.


FWIW, I think the aero thing is silly unless you're racing and need that extra 2.4 seconds to win. Any discussions involving numbers, wind tunnels, angles and such make me wonder if these people actually ENJOY riding.
I still maintain that deep carbon wheels sell well because they look cool.

And contrary to what some might suspect, I have kinda-deep carbon wheels on my road bike - Torellis. And I'm an uber-clyde. I bought them because they were on sale, they were Campy, and they look cool.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I like aero wheels because of my riding style. I don't care about the weight, if I was 165#, I might care. I'm typically on the front on group rides and at 6'2" and 220, there aren't many people who can provide me a good draft. It may be totally in my head, but I feel faster when riding solo or on the front when I'm using aero wheels. I used to race and agree that aero wheels don't do anything in a pack, but the races where I did the best usually involved me bridging to a breakaway or otherwise riding like a time trial. Back in the day, it was spinergy, these days it is 50mm carbon tubulars and clincher carbones.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> On the other hand, ceramic bearings are great; I coast longer and releasing the brakes on a steep downhill feels like dropping like a rock from the roof. I just go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It's more a rule than exception that I have to hit the brakes while coasting behind dudes with
aerowheels and hyped bearings.

And that's me rolling on 13mm low sections and cup'n cone.

I am not saying aerowheels don't give any benefits, I do say however that a typical ~50mm V profil 
with some hyped bearing will do more good lightning up your wallet than make you perform better
on a mass start/group ride.

I calculated that a Zipp 808 would save me half a fishcake worth of energy on a 560km (350m) race
with and average speed of 34kmh / 21mph.

A low section would probably give med a much more plush ride (thou the toroidal deep zipps are very forgiving)
and no cross wind issues...And that matters when you ride for 16.5h


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Lectron said:


> It's more a rule than exception that I have to hit the brakes while coasting behind dudes with
> aerowheels and hyped bearings.
> 
> And that's me rolling on 13mm low sections and cup'n cone.
> ...



Sure, but what do Norwegians know about road racing.  I just read an interview with Thor. I live in a small town in Washington State that was settled by Norwegians at the turn of the century. Everything downtown is Norwegian including bakeries and the Sons of Norway lodge.


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Lectron said:


> I calculated that a Zipp 808 would save me half a fishcake worth of energy on a 560km (350m) race
> with and average speed of 34kmh / 21mph.


Please don't take this the wrong way but that must be one really long course to only average 21mph on 808s.. 

Competitive people buy these wheels for add'l performance and they are more or less averaging well over this. For a 10 mile TT good speeds are over 25-26 mph. Not to brag but I did a triathlon leg at 27mph for 10 miles. This is where these wheels shine and could save you 15-30 seconds.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

mimason said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way but that must be one really long course to only average 21mph on 808s..
> 
> Competitive people buy these wheels for add'l performance and they are more or less averaging well over this. For a 10 mile TT good speeds are over 25-26 mph. Not to brag but I did a triathlon leg at 27mph for 10 miles. This is where these wheels shine and could save you 15-30 seconds.


You do that as a team of say 20 peeps running 'chain'. One fast row and one slow row

The last couple of hours only the strongest stays in front

To do this you need a support team with 'food stops' with boxes lined up for the team
Typical break is 3 minutes for filling up your pockets and get up on your bike again.

Fastest team last year averaged at 24.8 mph

And i consider 560km / 350miles a long course

27 for 10 miles is good..........24.8 for 350 miles even better


----------



## mimason (Oct 7, 2006)

Lectron said:


> You do that as a team of say 20 peeps running 'chain'. One fast row and one slow row
> 
> The last couple of hours only the strongest stays in front
> 
> ...


Better indeed but you are drafting, I am not.


----------



## Lectron (May 29, 2005)

mimason said:


> Better indeed but your are drafting, I am not.


And there's my point.....A TT rider would benefit more....A hell of a lot more
in fact, as the wheel represents a larger portion of the total aerodynamic
given a much more aero position, aero bike (Fork!) and helmet


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

^this


----------



## zach.scofield (Apr 11, 2010)

Trek_envy said:


> ^this


The best part of this is that he is ENJOYING himself. I sometimes think people forget what that means.


----------



## yetigooch (Mar 29, 2009)

PlatyPius said:


> It was a little of both, actually.
> Personally, I think 98% of the people who ride carbon deep-v rims have no real reason to, other than looks/impressing others.


I would agree with this statement...however who cares? This would hold true with all high end components(ie. Carbon frames, durance, campy record). If you can afford it and it makes you want to ride then more power to you. Why all the hate on this post?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

yetigooch said:


> I would agree with this statement...however who cares? This would hold true with all high end components(ie. Carbon frames, durance, campy record). If you can afford it and it makes you want to ride then more power to you. Why all the hate on this post?


Why do people throw around the "hate" thing so much these days?

Where was there ANY instance of hate? You agreed with my statement. Does that mean you "hate" too?


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> Why do people throw around the "hate" thing so much these days?
> 
> Where was there ANY instance of hate? You agreed with my statement. Does that mean you "hate" too?



For whatever reason people get emotional about other people's opinion if it disagrees with their own. I have two sets of deep carbon wheels, tubular and clincher. I like the way they ride, I'm a big guy and I'm pretty impervious to sidewinds as far as how it affects the handling of my bike. I know they don't give me a significant advantage in group rides but they do give me a minute or more on a 40K time trial and that's worth several places. 

I like my bikes and how they look. They look good with carbon wheels and liking what you ride is all that matters. IMO.


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

Could not agree more.

He's doing it.


----------



## tcraerofan (Oct 11, 2011)

i'm a rec. rider who would love to do a relaxed effort at short tri's this year would there be any comfort advantage for long hours in the saddle weekends that could offset the extra cost of these carbon aero wheelsets 99% of the noncompetitve time i'd be riding them. i'm only 140 lbs so would they hold up durability wise as an everyday good weather wheelset? thanks


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*And. .*



AvantDale said:


> The vast majority of the people that spend big bucks on some wheels are recreational riders.


. .That's pretty much 100% of the people on this forum. If you don't get paid to race, you're nothing but a recreactional rider.


----------

