# What is the reason for carbon cross wheels



## bicycle12 (Apr 11, 2007)

Every photo I see of a quality cross pro shows them riding carbon wheels. Do they have a better ride quality than, say a Reflex rim? I'm fairly certain that the carbon rims are not lighter than a Reflex and while I've heard the argument that says they steer better in sand, I am dubious. What am I missing that justifies the high cost over a conventional wheel build?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

bicycle12 said:


> Every photo I see of a quality cross pro shows them riding carbon wheels. Do they have a better ride quality than, say a Reflex rim? I'm fairly certain that the carbon rims are not lighter than a Reflex and while I've heard the argument that says they steer better in sand, I am dubious. What am I missing that justifies the high cost over a conventional wheel build?


I believe a 404 rim is about the weight of a Reflex. And is deeper and requires fewer spokes. Shallower carbon rims are lighter still.

The other school of thought is that deep rims cut through sand and mud better. Having finished a race with all kinds of vegetation hanging from my Reflex rims and 64 spokes, I am inclined to think there is something to that.

Finally, pros are sponsored by companies who want to advertise their carbon wheels.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*On weight.*



bicycle12 said:


> I'm fairly certain that the carbon rims are not lighter than a Reflex . .


Edge 2.0 38mm 330g
Reflex 375g
Zipp 58mm 396g
Edge 2.0 68mm 410g

The deeper rims allow fewer, shorter spokes as well, which can easily eclipse the extra weight and give you a stronger wheel to boot.


----------



## bicycle12 (Apr 11, 2007)

Thanks, that is usefull info. It rather confirms my thoughts about the added expense though. At appox 5 grams per spoke, the difference between 20 and 32 spokes is 60 grams per wheel or 120 grams a set at a cost differential of at least $1,000. That's $8.33 per gram. Tough for me to justify.


----------



## crankles (Sep 25, 2007)

*Why I like my carbons...*

I have a pair of zipp pave 38mm laced up to hugi 240's w/ sapims. The wheelset weighs in at 1140g for the set. It's 300 to 400 gram lighter than either of my reflex wheelsets w/ comparable spoke count ( laced w/ DT revs to King hubs and DA hubs ). That's a lot of rotating weight. We don't have that many muddy races around here so I can get away w/ the 38mm. What I DO notice is the effort, or comparative lack there of, that it takes to spin them back up to speed. I would argue that this is one of, if not THE greatest benefit. The number and degree of accelerations and deccellerations (is that a even a word?) in cross are extreme relative say to crits or road races.


----------



## lithuania (Dec 22, 2007)

bicycle12 said:


> Thanks, that is usefull info. It rather confirms my thoughts about the added expense though. At appox 5 grams per spoke, the difference between 20 and 32 spokes is 60 grams per wheel or 120 grams a set at a cost differential of at least $1,000. That's $8.33 per gram. Tough for me to justify.


i could be wrong but i believe weight isnt the main reason people ride deep section carbon rims for cross.


----------



## camelbackkid (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't understand the aero wheels in cross, either. 

Every review in Cyclingnews praises their ability to "slice" through whatever and give better traction. With my limited experience with box rims in cross and lack thereof with aero rims, I'm not convinced this matters at all, especially compared to tire size and pressure. 

The contact patch doesn't change, but the rim can displace more mud/sand/snow, apparently creating greater bouyant force?  

Those rims certainly have plenty of room for decals though, which might have something to do with it...


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

There are a few advantages of which weight is the easiest to quantify. They are more aero, which is not huge but nice to have if you are getting it for free in terms of weight. I was never that convinced by the claimed "rudder effect". Someone here pointed out that sand, mud etc will be less able to collapse over a taller rim as it rolls through, which should reduce the effort needed to pull it back out.


----------



## lithuania (Dec 22, 2007)

mudd is less likely to build up on the rim making it heavier and if it does it wont affect braking as bad as a low rim i would imagine.


----------



## jhr (May 31, 2002)

You are correct there is an "aero" advantage that exists with a deep section rim even at the lower speeds of cross, its just not as pronounced. Further, not unlike a time trial you spend more time alone (ie not in the draft) in a cross race than in a crit or road race. Finally I feel like I am less likely to trash a deep section carbon rim in a cross race than a crit or road race. A 34 mm tire with 30lbs pounds of pressure offers a lot of cushion for the rim, and your less likely to go down in a 30 bike pile up (at least after the first half lap), the exception would be a course with a high speed bunny hop or some other spot where there is a chance for big impact at high speed.
Running a 58mm carbon tubie in a cross race (even a "C" race) makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than running the same wheels in a cat 5 crit. (around here cat. 5's are on Campy 11 while the cat 1's are scraping by with 105).


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

jhr said:


> (around here cat. 5's are on Campy 11 while the cat 1's are scraping by with 105).


Cat 5s spend their time making money while cat 1s spend their time riding a bike.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

they don't carry as much mud/crap when conditions are bad

they're generally lighter

if you've ever been run into by another rider and had your brake arm dive under your (box section) rim, you'll know how bad that sucks

lots of room for advertising (only matters for pros)

the small aero advantage when you're really going fast


and again, for pros...it's what comes on your 3-5 free team provided bikes


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

pretender said:


> Cat 5s spend their time making money while cat 1s spend their time riding a bike.


Right, but the point was that that nice equipment is much more likely to get trashed in a Cat 5 crit than a cross race. Cross is not at all hard on wheels compared to riding on pavement with 23c tires at 120-180 psi.


----------



## Hamner (Nov 15, 2008)

Because they are straight pimpin'. With a cross tire I'm not sure how much aero benefit you're getting.

My 1st and only race on my Easton EC90's, I won, so I say they are BAMFs. That race had a mud bog, 2 water crossings and 3 fast sections, I think I made the most time on the mud bog and following off camber chicane. 
Also (and this may be heresy) but I can pull the tires off, glue up some road tires and race them in triathlons.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Yeah, if you trust the photos, you would think that it is stupid to race anything but deep carbon rims. I love seeing pics of second tier WC level euro racers using Mavic Reflex wheels and kicking butt. Jonathan Page did that for years. Ksyriums? Simon Zahner often did Reflex until recently too. It's been refreshing to see Tim Johnson and Jeremy Powers, not to mention Sven Nys using the R-Sys wheels, which are NOT deep carbon rims. What, are they CRAZY??? Clearly it's not always the best choice, nor is it the magic potion to get a membership to the podium club.

Interesting to see that in the cyclocrossworld.com team's wheel stockpiles, the deep carbon rims were set up with the Typhoons or file tread (earlier in season) and the R-Sys appeared to have Rhinos. I would think it would be the opposite. (Maybe I am mistaken.) Considering that in the muddier races, they would choose the Rhino mud tires w/ the R-Sys rather than the deep rims w/ the Typhoons, it alludes to the relative benefits of each, and which variable is more important... the tire tread. If the deep rim was the critical equipment choice, it clearly would have been chosen for the deep mud of PDX's USGP.

Also interesting to see that Sven Nys chooses a varying setup depending on the type of course. Being sponsored by Mavic, its those R-Sys ones or the deep all carbon Carbone ones. I saw some shots from last weekend and he was actually on his old Shimano wheels.

I've been happy with my Reflex/DT240's/Revolution spokes. This is a pretty light wheel set (1400g), Reliable, AND affordable. The tire is the more useful place to invest the money, I feel. You can build up several pair of these wheels and have more options at your disposal.

On the flip side, this year at the Oregon state CX championships, the course was very fast and flat. Aside from a short mud bog section through an arena corral. There was some deep sticky stuff. It was interesting to look at photos of the racers w/ the deep rims, vs. those w/ standard box rims, side-by-side. You can see a widely spread wake w/ the deep wheels, and those riders with low box rims were having more muck accumulating and collapsing over the wheel. I felt ridiculously slow in that stuff compared to others that I would ordinarily be able to hang with. Having not ever tried the fancy carbon wheels, I can't say whether it is the rims that made the difference, but I am certainly intrigued to at least know first hand. I still haven't had a sip of the kool-aid. I still would likely not ever pay that much for wheels. Only if I were sponsored by a reliable source.


----------



## CouchingTiger (Mar 5, 2007)

lithuania said:


> i could be wrong but i believe weight isnt the main reason people ride deep section carbon rims for cross.


I can say for certain that the reason I ride deep section carbon tubulars (Reynolds Stratus DV46) for cross is the weight savings. My set weighs at least 200grams less than a comparable alloy rimmed wheel. The deep section wheel is also stiffer though they tend to use fewer spokes. I don't buy into any of the mud shedding or whatnot though I have honestly noticed that mud doesn't stick to them or freeze to them as badly as with alloy rims.

My $.02.

Mike


----------



## lithuania (Dec 22, 2007)

i would love to have a set of deep section wheels but right now i would rather have 2-3 sets of reflex wheels instead.


----------



## Vegancx (Jan 22, 2004)

Logos are easier to read on high profile carbon rims. 

Clearly this marketing strategy works as carbon wheels abound in the 4 cross races around these parts.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*if you search really hard*

you can find Mavic CXP 30 Tubulars
cheaper than CF, heavier but have the dish


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

Yeah, but who wants a heavy deep section aluminum rim for cross? We have pretty much agreed that even if the depth is nice to have (be it for aerodynamics or mud slicing) the main reason to use deep carbon wheels is light weight and stiffness.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

CDB said:


> I've been happy with my Reflex/DT240's/Revolution spokes. This is a pretty light wheel set (1400g), Reliable, AND affordable. The tire is the more useful place to invest the money, I feel. You can build up several pair of these wheels and have more options at your disposal.
> 
> .


that's a really solid pair of wheels. the dt hubs are great.


----------



## matthewtucker (Aug 7, 2007)

Bumping this thread to late season 2009....

We've had tons of mud in the mid-atlantic this year and I feel as if on my shallow aluminum tubulars (EA70x - 25mm I think) get grabbed by the mud and also collect a ton of it. Our mud has been diverse - from soupy to mashed potatoes to the dreaded peanut butter. A pit bike would be nice...and a pit crew to wash every lap! 

But would deep CF wheels help? Do they 'slice' through this stuff? 

The weight is an obvious advantage, but you can get shallow section alloy tubulars down to about 1450 grams (ballpark) vs.1200 - 1330 or so for EA90 Aero's and DV46 's.. and 1400 - 1500 with the web guys (Williams, Revolution, Neuvation)..so the question is does the mud shedding/slicing factor make a big difference?

I'd love to hear from some folks who have experience racing on both in the mud. 

Also, there have been posts about the EA90 Aero filling with water, which would be a disaster. Does anybody have experience with this? Do all deep CF rims fill with water? Is it worse with some vs. others... Anybody have experience with the web brands...Williams, Neuvation, Revolution, etc...?


----------



## canelupo (Feb 25, 2005)

I've got two sets of mid-depth carbon rimmed wheels and a set of Ksyriums. I use the Ksyriums when I'm worried about busting up a wheel because of tricky course features, or when the mud is particularly abrasive. I used them, for example, at Wissahickon this year, and was happy I had when I realized my brake pads had been worn down by about half from the coarse sandy slurry in the horse ring there. 

As far as cutting through the mud, the weight difference really seems to dominate the whole comparison. The lighter rim makes it easier to keep the wheel turning and the momentum going. 

Water draining down the spokes is an issue with most rims, since the natural path for water to follow is out along the spoke and down through the spoke hole. The deep dish rims probably alleviate this effect some since the point of entry for water is actually a bit higher as the wheel moves through puddles. I've seen evidence of water damage to tubulars on both aluminum and medium dish carbon rims. 

From my own experience this year, pressure washers are a mixed blessing. My pre-race check list for muddy races now includes swabbing a little grease around the spot where the spoke or nipple penetrates the rim. We'll see if that makes a difference.


----------



## bicycle12 (Apr 11, 2007)

Since my original posting, I have purchased and been racing a set Easton ec90 slx and a set of Reynolds cross wheels that are 46mm deep. The carbon rims are lighter and as far as I can tell that is their only advantage. I have never felt that they were any better in sand or mud than my Mavic reflex's. Cyclocross magazine recently tested wheels in sand and found the deep rims to be potentially worse than the shallow rims.
I have had problems with the Reynolds taking on water when I wash the bike. The water seems to get between the stem and the hole in the rim as there is quite a bit of clearance. I took an old road inner tube and cut a 3/4" by 3/4" square out of it and then punched a hole through the center and slid it over the valve stem. The natural curve of the tube fits the shape of the carbon rim perfectly. End of problem.


----------



## matthewtucker (Aug 7, 2007)

bicycle12 said:


> Since my original posting, I have purchased and been racing a set Easton ec90 slx and a set of Reynolds cross wheels that are 46mm deep.


What are your opinons of the 2 wheelsets? I have some EC90 SLX that I've used exclusively for road racing, but did not mount for cross this year. Will likely mount them next year. I'm also interested in the Reynolds DV46 (pick the version) as a 46mm deep would be a good addition for both road and cross and they can be had for $1000. Which Reynolds wheels do you have? What tires did you mount on each and why? 




bicycle12 said:


> The natural curve of the tube fits the shape of the carbon rim perfectly. End of problem.


did you tape the piece of inner tube down with electrical tape? This seems to make sense...

thanks for the thoughts.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Saw the CXM testing of deep vs. shallow in sand and it makes sense to me. However, sand doesn't really stick to stuff in the same way mud does. I'd be curious to see them do a similar experiment with mud, maybe even different consistencies of mud. Soupy, PB, etc.


----------



## bicycle12 (Apr 11, 2007)

Both wheelsets have been great and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other. My Reynolds are the dv46 cross specific ones. They have a few more spokes than the standard ones and handle my 190# without a problem. The Eastons are very slightly lighter by 25 grams or so-----nothing meaningful.
No tape used---I made the hole with a screwdriver smaller in diameter than the stem so it stays in place without any help.
I have played with tires quite a bit this year. On the rear I have used a Pipistrello, Typhoon and a Fango. The Pip is almost useless in anything but dry flat courses. It is terrible in wet grass and off camber situations. The Typhoon is ok in most conditions but great in none. The fango is very good at off camber and hard lean angles but gives up in muddy conditions but no worse than most In the front I use the Typhoon and Rhyno and I greatly prefer the Rhyno. I find that it corners much better than the Typhoon.
I race in the Chicago area where grass and occasional sand is the norm. This year has been much wetter than last year and the grass has been squishy soft and the corners reduced to slippery mud after the first class goes off more often than not.


----------



## matthewtucker (Aug 7, 2007)

bicycle12 said:


> Both wheelsets have been great and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other. My Reynolds are the dv46 cross specific ones. They have a few more spokes than the standard ones and handle my 190# without a problem.


Good to know. I like my EC90 SLX wheels alot, but people seem to drool over the DT hubs on the reynolds wheels. I'm 155 or so, so seems like both will be durable enough for cross.



bicycle12 said:


> I have played with tires quite a bit this year. On the rear I have used a Pipistrello, Typhoon and a Fango. The Pip is almost useless in anything but dry flat courses. It is terrible in wet grass and off camber situations. The Typhoon is ok in most conditions but great in none. The fango is very good at off camber and hard lean angles but gives up in muddy conditions but no worse than most In the front I use the Typhoon and Rhyno and I greatly prefer the Rhyno. I find that it corners much better than the Typhoon.
> I race in the Chicago area where grass and occasional sand is the norm. This year has been much wetter than last year and the grass has been squishy soft and the corners reduced to slippery mud after the first class goes off more often than not.


Good info on the tires..I've been running vittoria XGs tubulars (220 tpi) and have been not very pleased in the mud, but they are not mud tires and we've had lots of mud...They are fine when it is dry and you run low pressure. That's what you get with 1 pair of tubies... Thanks!


----------



## lithuania (Dec 22, 2007)

mabra racing this year has convinced me i need a real pit bike more than i need deeper wheels


----------



## dc.cyclocross (Oct 5, 2007)

camelbackkid said:


> I don't understand the aero wheels in cross, either.
> 
> Every review in Cyclingnews praises their ability to "slice" through whatever and give better traction. With my limited experience with box rims in cross and lack thereof with aero rims, I'm not convinced this matters at all, especially compared to tire size and pressure.
> 
> ...


it seems to me like deep section rims were a bit of a fad. 

I've seen a lot of low profile rims when I watch the world cup races on video (not sure if the deep rim would come out in super muddy races- I'm keeping a lookout)

anyway, check out the wheels of the guys in the front row of koksijde:

http://ccx.nathanspear.com/?q=content/world-cup-round-4-koksijde

a 17:43 one guy in the back has a deep rim. but from 18:00-~19:00 they show the wheels of the front row guys- nys has super low profile, and the others are all low

-marc


----------



## cyclevt (Aug 6, 2004)

*I did this!*



atpjunkie said:


> you can find Mavic CXP 30 Tubulars
> cheaper than CF, heavier but have the dish


I literally found a CXP30 Tubular rim, 28h laced to an american classic sealed bearing hub... ALL new... traded a pile of bike parts to a guy on Craig's List.

This is my front race wheel.. 

I think I believe the crap about the rudder effect through sand, etc.... It's not the lightest wheel, but in tubular form, it is still lighter that a clincher/tube Ksyrium elite buy 150gr.

I tried in vain to find a matching rear rim and went with a Kinlin TB25.


----------



## joness (Dec 6, 2006)

I'm running Velocity Escape rims, DT 240 hubs, revolution spokes - 28 spokes two cross F, 32 spokes three cross R and alloy nipples. They came in at 1380 grams and are only about $150 to rebuild as opposed to the $600 Reynolds wanted to rebuild the broken carbon wheel last year.

I'd rather have two sets of wheels glued up with different tires than one set of carbons. If you can afford them and can afford to rebuild them then I see no problem racing carbons. I can't afford to rebuild them anymore, so I don't.


----------



## hoogerland (Sep 18, 2009)

Lighter, slicing through mud/soup and more aero seems like an upgrade to me. If a set of DV46cx can be had for $1000 and are pound lighter than my Easton EA70s, then you have my attention. Not that I can afford them right now. But, I would use them for both road/cross racing which seems economical in the end.

The thing with the Reynolds cross wheels is, aren't they just the road wheels with more spokes and a different lacing pattern? Not sure, but I believe they have a relatively narrow channel. The new Zipp 303 CX wheels are actually wider than the road wheels, thus more specific to cross. I'm not a fan of the Zipps because a. the stickers are ugly and b. the dimple thing seems like a gimmick. But, if I was going all in on a set of deep carbon tubulars I would look at the Zipps and perhaps a set of custom Edge Composites.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

because wheel companies pay pros to ride them

because the average racer just does what the pros do 

because the average racers think they can buy themselves a podium place

the only difference deep carbon wheels will make to anyone on this forum is a transaction on the visa card statement that really doesnt need to be there


----------



## law (Feb 18, 2007)

For what it is worth, I am 188 lbs (started the season at 198) and raced primarily on Easton EC90 SLX wheels. They have been raced and even used occassionally in training. They have been marvelous. I still have a set of Neuvations C50's that I bought last season and raced all last year on them and this year by myself on my SS bike and a by a friend. They have done well also, they just weigh about 300 grams more. I haven't noticed a reason to go with deeper carbon wheels over shallow carbon wheels other than looks. I am a back 1/3 Master B rider--definitely not the fastest guy out there...take the info for what it is worth.


----------



## Magdaddy (Feb 23, 2007)

*justification...*



alexb618 said:


> because wheel companies pay pros to ride them
> 
> because the average racer just does what the pros do
> 
> ...




is the responsibility of the buyer, and the buyer only! 

I bought WAAAAY too much road bike this spring. I own the slowest sub 15lb full carbon wunderbike in the world. No slightly chubby 48 year old recreational cyclist should own one. The mere act of throwing my chubby thigh over the top tube should cheapen the brand! But, it's what I do, I could afford it, so it's justified.

When I built up my latest crosser(leftover Salsa Las Cruces), I wanted a disc bike. I almost had Renyolds build me a very beautiful wheelset-deep dish carbon road rims/mtn disc hubs, about 1450grams if I remember, and about a $ per gram. I ended up having Dave Thomas at Speed Dream Wheels build me a killer wheelset-Velocity disc specific VXC rims(orange to match the Salsa), DT 240 hubs, and his bizarre lacing arangement
2x, or 3x depending on drive or disc side, etc...for half the Renyolds money. The carbon wheels sure would look trick tho...

Anyway, justification is simple, when passion is involved. If we only bought just enough bike that we NEED, there wouldn't be a profit margin in it for any business to be successful, would there?


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

its ok, i buy high end/pro stuff too

but like you, i dont go around claiming i bought these items for weight reduction/better aero/because it cuts through mud better

i am happy to admit i like to spend money on nice things that i like and that give me no performance gain


----------



## dc.cyclocross (Oct 5, 2007)

people had theories why deep rim were supposedly better, but now the top pros seem to have gone back to low profile rims.


https://www.sport.be/media/photos/fotospecial/5903/BELGA-PICTURE-16819787.jpg

https://www.sport.be/media/photos/fotospecial/5903/BELGA-PICTURE-16819796.jpg


----------



## cxrcr (Jul 21, 2002)

When carbon rims first became available, deep dish rims were predominately used as they offered the best mix of light weight and strength for cross. As companies gained more experience in the different carbon layups required for rim manufacture, we've seen higher strength low profile rims. Many of the top european pro's are running a mix of Shimano 24mm and 35mm rims. Still carbon, still light, just not high profile.


----------



## hoogerland (Sep 18, 2009)

dc.cyclocross said:


> people had theories why deep rim were supposedly better, but now the top pros seem to have gone back to low profile rims.
> 
> 
> https://www.sport.be/media/photos/fotospecial/5903/BELGA-PICTURE-16819787.jpg
> ...



It looks like he is running file treads in the first pic, so it obviously isn't a muddy day...thus no need for deep wheels. They probably chose those wheels because of weight savings. The pro's have the luxury of having several wheel/tire combo's at their disposal and I've seen photos of them on both deep/shallow. 

For me, deep wheels aren't going to mean much to my results. My fitness is my achilles heal. However, if was challenging for "Best Rider", an upgrade or had a shot at state's then I could justify paying $$$ for something that might give me an advantage over my peers. I am sticking with my Easton's for now, but if a deal comes up I may splurge.


----------



## Germany_chris (Sep 9, 2009)

cyclevt said:


> I literally found a CXP30 Tubular rim, 28h laced to an american classic sealed bearing hub... ALL new... traded a pile of bike parts to a guy on Craig's List.
> 
> This is my front race wheel..
> 
> ...


I have a pair but they are clincher and laced to 600 hubs...I have them because they are far stiffer than box..I weigh 240ish so weight is not a even a little bit of a concern but stiffness is..


----------



## dc.cyclocross (Oct 5, 2007)

cxrcr said:


> When carbon rims first became available, deep dish rims were predominately used as they offered the best mix of light weight and strength for cross. As companies gained more experience in the different carbon layups required for rim manufacture, we've seen higher strength low profile rims. Many of the top european pro's are running a mix of Shimano 24mm and 35mm rims. Still carbon, still light, just not high profile.


that seems to be what I'm seeing in Sven Nys's gallery- at some races, rims are very shallow, others they are a little deeper, but not high profile. (pict below says "Dura Ace C35" on the side)

https://www.sport.be/svennys/en/fotos/

low profile in the mud:

https://www.sport.be/fotospecial/4672/nnys4.jpg

deeper dura ace in mud:

https://www.sport.be/media/photos/fotospecial/5843/BELGA-PICTURE-16572399.jpg

looks like in these photos that he races dura ace in newer picts- in older, it was Mavic R-sys and carbones

https://www.sport.be/fotospecial/4607/svenvalt2.jpg

https://www.sport.be/fotospecial/4594/nysaa.jpg

anyway- given what I see the pros racing in the videos I watch, I don't get spending a lot of money on very deep rims for CX...


----------



## Zach-dk (Oct 6, 2006)

What kind/brand of brake pads do you use carbon wheels/cantibrakes?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Swiss Stop Viking yellows


----------



## mudge (May 15, 2010)

lithuania said:


> i could be wrong but i believe weight isnt the main reason people ride deep section carbon rims for cross.


It's not the weight, it's the incredible braking performance in wet conditions of carbon fiber rims.


----------

