# Carbon Wheel set can you feel a difference?



## jackmen (Jul 24, 2007)

I am a recreational rider and like ridding very nice bikes, usually 1500-2000 miles a year. I'm 53 and definitely not the fastest guy as I usually average 17-18 MPH on my long rides. I ride a nice current Monocoque Neuvation F500 with DI-2, and have always ridden aero alloy clincher wheels which are pretty light at 1450 grams. 

I see a lot of people going to the new carbon clinchers and wanted to ask if people really feel a difference. I am aware of the braking issues which seem to be better on the newer models, but most of the carbon clinchers look like they are heavier unless you spend ridiculous money for a wheel set (>$2000).

I am soliciting others opinions on what there experiences have been in using the carbon wheel sets.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

I'm 51. I ride nice bikes. Went the whole carbon wheel weight weenie route last year with Enve Smart System 3.4 clinchers and Tune hubs. They were not worth the money, IMO. Sold them on E-Bay within two months of owning them.

I prefer my HED Belgium rims/Alchemy hub wheels to the Enve wheels.

Resist the temptation. Carbon clincher wheels won't make you faster, or stronger, or make your riding easier or more comfortable.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

I'm with tvad. I ride at the Jack's speeds. I have a set of 50mm deep carbons. They're no faster than 24mm deep aluminum rims (spokes and hubs are the same) or my 27mm deep rims. I can't tell which wheelset I'm riding.

You don't tell us what weight you are Jack but if you're under 200lbs those 1450g wheels are going to be impossible to improve on - and by "improve" I mean "go faster or feel any appreciably better".

It's really hard to improve on 1450 - 1550g wheelsets for guys like us (I'm 170-175lbs). Choose your price point as extra cash just means better quality hub (hopefully).


----------



## billium v2.0 (Oct 22, 2012)

My experience same as tvad/Mike:

53 year old rec rider, 150 lbs, also under 20mph avg. speeds. 4 to 6k miles annually. Owned both Reynolds (Assault) and Easton (EC90SL), sold both. The braking was an issue, but the bigger issue for me was the ride quality (same tires/tubes/PSI/frame in both instances).

Am in the middle of build up of my fanatasy frame and am installing latest version of 1500g aluminum wheels that are tried and true standard for me.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

"_Carbon Wheel set can you feel a difference?"
_
No, unless you are routinely riding & racing at speeds in the mid-20s mph or faster, in which case deep (50+ mm) rim height is helpful for reducing aero drag.

You didn't ask, but a frequent related question is, 
_"Tubular vs Clincher tires - can you feel a difference?"
_to which I also respond "No - but tubular has some advantages when racing".


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I also agree with tvad. The carbon wheels are typically more fashion than function. Stick with the HED, C24 or the like wheels. These are tried and true, with none of the disadvantages of carbon (special brake pads, risk of de-lamination, high cost of repair, often heavier than advertised, etc). My carbon wheels just sit in the closet after buying a set of DA C2 wheels. In fact now I own two sets. The deep dish carbon might have some advantages on flat terrain but when you have hills, stick to the tried and true (unless you just have money to burn).


----------



## ringmaster (Mar 26, 2005)

This is a timely and eye-opening thread as I am contemplating going from 14XXg aluminum clinchers to $2500+ carbon clinchers that are more or less the same weight.

My thread: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/wh...e-3-4-vs-zipp-303-carbon-clincher-301334.html


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

NealH said:


> ... The deep dish carbon might have some advantages on flat terrain but when you have hills, stick to the tried and true (unless you just have money to burn).


Even a 50-60 mm deep, all carbon wheelset + _tubular _tires can be extraordinarily light and beneficial during a road race or uphill TT ... and on the downhill you'll pick up 1-2 mph ... but for training or general use I agree with you, stick with durable, shallower section, aluminum wheels.


----------



## Alex_C (Aug 21, 2006)

I'm with Tom. I race on Mavic Equipes and a set of tubular 46/66 Reynolds. I can definitely tell the difference. The alu set weighs 1900, the tubulars, about 1400. I think with tires and tubes the difference is 660g or so. Weight helps with the spin up, but the bigger difference is the aero difference at 27+ speed. 

I can feel the difference.


----------



## flatsix911 (Jun 28, 2009)

You will feel the difference above 20 mph on carbon wheels when the aero benefits take effect. 
Otherwise it is just fashion ... bling, bling. :thumbsup:


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

I sure am glad somebody finally asked a question about the pros and cons of carbon wheels. All these years on RBR and various online forums and other discussions of cycling topics, and this subject has never come up before. I am informed at last by your insights.


----------



## jackmen (Jul 24, 2007)

My weight varies some, but winter I usually get up to 215, and by the end of summer I am 200.

Do you think the neuvation R28sl's are ok for my weight? I don't notice any flexing when I am riding, and they seem to hold their true in the 1500 miles I have ridden them. 



Mike T. said:


> I'm with tvad. I ride at the Jack's speeds. I have a set of 50mm deep carbons. They're no faster than 24mm deep aluminum rims (spokes and hubs are the same) or my 27mm deep rims. I can't tell which wheelset I'm riding.
> 
> You don't tell us what weight you are Jack but if you're under 200lbs those 1450g wheels are going to be impossible to improve on - and by "improve" I mean "go faster or feel any appreciably better".
> 
> It's really hard to improve on 1450 - 1550g wheelsets for guys like us (I'm 170-175lbs). Choose your price point as extra cash just means better quality hub (hopefully).


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

jackmen said:


> My weight varies some, but winter I usually get up to 215, and by the end of summer I am 200.
> Do you think the neuvation R28sl's are ok for my weight? I don't notice any flexing when I am riding, and they seem to hold their true in the 1500 miles I have ridden them.


I don't think there is any free lunch when it comes to wheels and no wheels provide miracles. Less spokes and more body weight = faster metal fatigue for both spokes and rim holes. Less spokes = more Work Done by each spoke. More Work Done by each spoke = more effect one spoke has on wheel trueness. More effect one spoke has on wheel trueness = more the wheel goes out of true if one spoke breaks.

I just don't understand what actual useful benefit there might be for all but top-class racers with a following car with spare wheels.

I'm sure wheels with the least number of spokes possible would stand up to the weight of the heaviest person possible for a period of time. 

I'm also sure that some smart person could come up with a graph of two intersecting curves of bodyweight versus spoke numbers. Then it would be up to each of us to decide which side of the curves we prefer to be on.


----------



## jackmen (Jul 24, 2007)

So Mike you are saying that even though the R28sl's are 24/20 on the spokes, that you feel this is not enough in this weight of a wheel (less than 1500) for a big guy like me (200-215). 

I felt like the 24/20 was a better compromise from some of the smaller spoke count wheels like 16/16 with the thick bladed spokes. 



Mike T. said:


> I don't think there is any free lunch when it comes to wheels and no wheels provide miracles. Less spokes and more body weight = faster metal fatigue for both spokes and rim holes. Less spokes = more Work Done by each spoke. More Work Done by each spoke = more effect one spoke has on wheel trueness. More effect one spoke has on wheel trueness = more the wheel goes out of true if one spoke breaks.
> 
> I just don't understand what actual useful benefit there might be for all but top-class racers with a following car with spare wheels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

jackmen said:


> So Mike you are saying that even though the R28sl's are 24/20 on the spokes, that you feel this is not enough in this weight of a wheel (less than 1500) for a big guy like me (200-215).
> I felt like the 24/20 was a better compromise from some of the smaller spoke count wheels like 16/16 with the thick bladed spokes.


Read my sentence again that says "I'm sure wheels with the least number of spokes possible would stand up to the weight of the heaviest person possible for a period of time."

So I think that 8-spoke wheels (if they existed) would be enough for you for a while. But how long is "a while"? So we could go from their durability all the way up to wheels with 48-hole Phil Wood hubs. Where on the durability scale do you want to be? Only you can answer that question and answer whether 20/24 spokes are enough for you. They're not for me and I weigh 174lbs right now. But that's *my* tolerance level**. You decide on yours.

**My tolerance level ranges from 24/28 spokes to 32/32.


----------



## AlleganyBicycleShop (Dec 21, 2012)

I found the Heds to be extremely stiff and ruined the ride of the Serrota Ti bike I was on. I ran Zipps 303 tubulars and 404 Firecrest clinchers which were extremely fast and comfortable. I liked the 404 Firecrest better. You can find a lbs that has a set of loaner Zipps and test them out. That is a good way to really see if you like them. I currently run Giant's SLR carbon wheels which are almost half the price of the Zipps. Williams makes an inexpensive pair of carbon wheels, but I haven't ridden them and can't give input. 

I raced Cat2 up until 2010 and now I just have fun. Granted I still pick it up from time to time but I still like a good set of wheels. They excellerate quicker, handle better and provide improved aerodynamics. 

Another option I Like is the Mavic Ksyrium SL Wheelset. They are light, fast and strong. 

If you can test ride some wheels then you can really feel the difference yourself. I like the bling factor as much as the improved ride. Is it worth the money? That is your call. To me it is. I like my machine to be a precision performance machine and give me the best ride possible. Light Carbon wheels do this for me... and they look cool


----------



## wacomme (May 6, 2002)

Perhaps this isn't the best location for my post, but it's related to this thread and I don't have enough postings to create my own thread. 

Having spent my money on power meters (two Quarqs - road and tt bike) for training, I'm in need of wheels for my TT bike. I have an old set of Mavic Ksyrium SSL SL wheels that I haven't ridden for several years. But now with a new TT bike (bought used without wheels), I may give them a try. But I'm also thinking of selling them (going for about $350 used) and replacing them with something else for about the same price - but what? I can't afford aero carbon wheels right now (price for aero advantage is large), so I'm thinking about keeping the Ksyrium's and use them for training. For races I'd use a wheel cover for the rear wheel and use my Stan's 340 rimmed road wheel (my road bike front wheel) as my front racing wheel (an aero front wheel would be better, but . . .). This would circumvent using the decidedly non-aero Ksyrium's for racing and not cost me money (outside the wheel cover - which I would buy for any rear wheel). Is this a good plan? Is there a wheelset is the $350 price range that would work better for my needs? I weigh 160 lbs. 

Thanks. 

Michael


----------



## ClancyO (Mar 20, 2011)

44, 185-200lbs (currently 200lb), avg 17-18 on longer rides, but have held over 20 mph avg on shorter (20-25 miles) rides. I let the LBS owner to convince me that a full carbon wheelset 100% of the time was perfectly acceptable, but couldn't bring myself to drop the $$ on Zipp's (404 - his recommendation). Based on all the reading here, I resolved that Boyd 50's were that way to go, and was saving money (and trying to figure out how to sneak them by the wife) when Boyd upgraded his line and now they are a little more dear (44mm cincher 24/28 are 1420 - still 1k less than Zipp's). Then a few weeks ago I came into a set of Roval EL 45's for less than half of retail (< $600). They aren't that light - 1740 a pair (but only ~50 grams more than 404's). They have an alloy brake track and strange internal nipples making truing a PIA, but they were too cheap to pass up. 

I have maybe 200 miles on them so far (in about 4-5 rides). Impressions - braking is the same as an alloy wheelset (due to alloy track). Stiffness is GREATLY improved over the stock fulcrum 4's that came on the bike. No lateral flex at all when climbing out of the saddle. Ride is about the same, maybe a little more dampened, but I'm not sure how much of that is the wheel and how much is the tire - I was running the fulcrums ghetto tubeless at 85-90 psi, these are standard tubes and 105-110 psi). Crosswinds ... ?? ALL my rides recently have been WINDY!! 38 miles yesterday with 15-20 mph winds. They catch the wind, but then seem to 'bite' it back. This makes no sense as the wheel profile can't change, but I haven't felt the constant push from a crosswind like I did with regular wheels - it seems you get an initial push, correct the steering into it, and it takes a set and just goes on. Finally - over 20 mph, they really do feel like they are providing a benefit. On one mile relatively flat fast segment (i usually hit on my way home), I held > 27 mph without redlining my heart the other day. I'm convinced that once I lose the winter weight and get my fitness back up I can hold >30 on that same segment. If/when that happens, I'm swap out wheelsets and go back (the same day) and see if I can feel the difference...

All that said - I would still like to have a nice weight-weenie (1400ish) non-aero wheelset for heavy climbing days, but at the moment I think I've found a perfectly acceptable carbon/aero wheel that's good for all but the windiest of days (and on those days I'd probably rather stay inside on the trainer anyway as 30+ mph sustained winds and car traffic holds zero appeal to me) or 10,000+ ft climbing days (haven't experienced one of those yet). Perhaps, most importantly, the EL's look nice on my rig and they have that carbon sound over 17-18 mph. 

EDIT: - bottom line - if you can do it without breaking the bank, do it.


----------



## brs1986 (May 30, 2008)

I think the biggest factor that I noticed when going to carbon was the stiffness of the wheel. Maintaining momentum was the second advantage.


----------



## rjaquiss (Aug 8, 2012)

A (very generous) relative is buying me a gift bike to be built to my specs. LBS owner whom I trust has spec'd out same frame three ways - base=ultegra gruppo with HED Belgium rims for X dollars, mid-level=ultegra gruppo with Enve 3.4 Carbon for X+$1800, and high-end = DA 9000 gruppo with Enve 3.4 carbon for X + $3200.

I am 52 years old with chronically stiff back, am 180 lbs on 5.11 frame, and ride 50-100 miles/week nearly year round. Advice?


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

rjaquiss said:


> A (very generous) relative is buying me a gift bike to be built to my specs. LBS owner whom I trust has spec'd out same frame three ways - base=ultegra gruppo with HED Belgium rims for X dollars, mid-level=ultegra gruppo with Enve 3.4 Carbon for X+$1800, and high-end = DA 9000 gruppo with Enve 3.4 carbon for X + $3200.
> 
> I am 52 years old with chronically stiff back, am 180 lbs on 5.11 frame, and ride 50-100 miles/week nearly year round. Advice?


Base.


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

rjaquiss said:


> A (very generous) relative is buying me a gift bike to be built to my specs. LBS owner whom I trust has spec'd out same frame three ways - base=ultegra gruppo with HED Belgium rims for X dollars, mid-level=ultegra gruppo with Enve 3.4 Carbon for X+$1800, and high-end = DA 9000 gruppo with Enve 3.4 carbon for X + $3200.
> 
> I am 52 years old with chronically stiff back, am 180 lbs on 5.11 frame, and ride 50-100 miles/week nearly year round. Advice?


your question has nothing to do with this thread. nor do you discuss frame options.

having said that, those are reasonable good prices on the upgrades. if you want to feel good because you're "riding high end" then it is a no-brainer. however, neither of the upgrade options will make any appreciable differences in how far or how fast or how good you ride. 

regardless, I'd be taking option 3, especially if I wasn't paying out of my own pocket.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rjaquiss said:


> A (very generous) relative is buying me a gift bike to be built to my specs. LBS owner whom I trust has spec'd out same frame three ways - base=ultegra gruppo with HED Belgium rims for X dollars, mid-level=ultegra gruppo with Enve 3.4 Carbon for X+$1800, and high-end = DA 9000 gruppo with Enve 3.4 carbon for X + $3200.
> I am 52 years old with chronically stiff back, am 180 lbs on 5.11 frame, and ride 50-100 miles/week nearly year round. Advice?


None of that stuff will knock 30 years off your age, 30 lbs off your weight, add 200 miles to your mileage or 0.5mph to your average speed. But that doesn't matter. Base your decision on this - you're dead a long time; get what you want to get.

I had the same decision to make two years ago (and I'm 13 years your senior and have a very flexible back  ). I got what I wanted (even though I could have gone the DA route) and it was custom Ti and Ultegra. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## ClancyO (Mar 20, 2011)

I'm gonna’ have to throw out a vote for the BASE as well, or the DA bike with the HED wheels. Nothing against Enve - they are beautiful wheels and I'd love to have a pair, but I couldn't see making them my ONLY wheelset. I'd want something I can ride in the wet (or threatening wet) without worries over braking. And while 1490 grams is light, there are bomb-proof alloy factory wheelset’s in the same range without the concessions of carbon. In my mind at least, the main reason for going with carbon is to make deep section aero wheels that aren’t excessively heavy. If it’s a shallow section carbon wheel, then I expect it to be stupid light <1350. 

Then again, if someone else was picking up the tab … the sky’s the limit!!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

With all candor, here's the reason I suggested the base configuration...

You're admittedly a recreational rider with hindered flexibility, who is no longer in racing shape, and who is probably at a sufficient fitness level to keep up with slower club riders. Maybe I'm wrong and you're a strong beast on the bike. I ride with a couple of those types. If so, congratulations!

IMO, if I'm correct about your fitness level, and if you're on the road with a Dura Ace/Enve rig, you're going to be constantly attacked by faster riders and you're going to be the subject of unflattering comments having to to with lots of money, but not the legs or fitness to justify the level of your bike.

If you don't care about what others think, then get the fully tricked out ride.

If you want to ride the bike that fits your present condition and use, then the Ultegra/HED set-up is everything you need...and a truly excellent build. 

Sorry for being so blunt...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

lots of fallacies in this thread - aero benefits don't 'kick in' over 20 mph. In fact, the slower you rider, the more absolute time you save due to reductions in drag. Weight savings aren't proportionally more important for lighter riders - the effect is independent of rider weight. 

The pros and cons of carbon clinchers has been well-documented, particularly with regard to brake heat dissipation. I've never met someone who thinks a nice set of wheels is going to make them a Tour de France contender - if you have realistic expectations about them and want them, buy them and ignore what others think. My training wheels are enve 45 tubulars (powertap) - life is short, ride on good stuff.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> lots of fallacies in this thread - aero benefits don't 'kick in' over 20 mph. In fact, the slower you rider, the more absolute time you save due to reductions in drag. Weight savings aren't proportionally more important for lighter riders - the effect is independent of rider weight. ...


Depends what you mean by "kick in".

Calculations of the forces on a typical cyclist,
Forces on Rider by Source 
show the total drag of the front+rear wheel is,

11.2 mph (5 meter/sec) : 6.5% of total resistance.
22.4 mph (10 m/s): 9.3% of total.
26.8 mph (12 m/s): 9.8% of total.

Independent measurements of wheel aero drag, eg at 
Great wheel test 2008 – Part 1 – Aerodynamics | Roues Artisanales
and 
Tour Magazine,
have shown the aero drag difference between very good rims (eg Zipp 404 or 808) and and "bad" shallow box rims, is about factor of 2x.
So 2x of what is already a small component, suggests at most 5% power savings at 26-27 mph and 3% at 11 mph, of a "good" vs "bad" wheel.

Unless you're racing (especially TT), I can't see how that's a big deal. 


re the assertion "_Weight savings aren't proportionally more important for lighter riders - the effect is independent of rider weight_."

Uphill speed on grades of more than about 3% is mainly limited by Power-to-Weight ratio. The weight being the total weight of rider + bike + all equipment (incl clothing).

For 2 riders of same power-to-body_weight ratio, a 120 lb rider will get more benefit from a 1lb reduction in wheel weight, then a 170 lb rider will.
This can be verified with simple examples. 

I did an exmpl where each rider is 3 watt/kg (of body weight) and total equipment weight is 9kg (20lb).

If 1 lb (0.5kg) is reduced off equipment weight with lighter wheelset , the light rider's _power-to-total_weight_ ratio improves 1.6%, but the heavier rider improves only 0.4%.

I've encountered cyclists who think by moving their 2 lb water bottle from the bike's bottle cage to their jersey, they've reduced the "bikes weight" and will climb faster, but that is just silly and woefully wrong. It's total weight that matters when climbing.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

yes, if they have the same power/body weight ratio. If they produce the same power, the heavier rider will actually save more time for an identical drop in total weight. Re 'kicking in' a slower rider will save more time with aero equipment

Slow vs. Fast Riders - Cervélo 



tom_h said:


> Depends what you mean by "kick in".
> 
> Calculations of the forces on a typical cyclist,
> Forces on Rider by Source
> ...


----------



## rjaquiss (Aug 8, 2012)

Sorry for the thread hijack - apologies to all, esp OP. And thanks very much to carlislegeorge for thoughtful comments


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

the only benefit you will notice by going to carbon is if there is a signigficant difference in the weight at rim. if you riding krysiriums as an example rims 465+g + tube 70g + tire 255g gatorskins + rim tape 15g = 805g versus 425g EC90+55g tube + 180g tire+ 12 tape = 672g , so a possible difference of 133g per tire of rotating weight could be saved. there is really very little weight difference between alum rim and and a nearly 40mm deep carbon clincher, most of the weight savings can be acomplished by going to lighter tire/tube/tape combos. if you want to see bigger weight savings at the rim go to tubulars. rims are closer or lower than 400g and tubulars can be 250g and lower. While your overall times/speed won't get better by much where you'll see the difference is in the spin up, from 15mph to 20+ will be quicker. Compare weights at the rim to guide you but do it. 

one of the reasons the tubeless concept is popular is because it removes the tube/tape weight 85g per wheel. The sealant and stem don't weight as much (12-20g) and you can run at lower pressures.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

cmg said:


> one of the reasons the tubeless concept is popular is because it removes the tube/tape weight 85g per wheel. The sealant and stem don't weight as much (12-20g) and you can run at lower pressures.


Tubeless tires weigh more than clinchers.

For example:
Hutchinson Atom Comp Clincher - 195 grams
Hutchinson Atom Tubeless - 270 grams

75 grams difference.


----------



## ScottsSupersix (Mar 25, 2012)

My personal experience, I switched from HED C2's to Zipp 404 Firecrest carbon clinchers this season, mainly because of all the great things I heard about these wheelsets, and also because most of the racers here use them. I have to say, everything they say is true, it is much easier to hold speed, especially over 23mph, and they are light enough to be okay for climbing. Then again, they cost as much as my bike, so definitely not worth it if you are not riding at the faster speeds. But they do look really cool!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

ScottsSupersix said:


> Zipp 404 Firecrest carbon clinchers...are light enough to be okay for climbing.


Zipp 404 Firecrest clinchers are 1662 grams/pair. 

That's not light enough in my world for climbing.

I'll take my 1388 gram/pair Hed Belgium/Alchemy clincher wheels any day over the Zipp 404 in the mountains...and I'll have much more confidence during the 18 mile descents, too.


----------



## GGW (Jul 13, 2008)

Post delete,


----------



## GGW (Jul 13, 2008)

I have a pair of c24 and they are great clincher for everything so i dont need carbon clincher that weight the same or more ...aero ? Perhaps if you have the watts to save a few second every 1 km.... But i also ride carbon tubular 50 mm 1250 gr Bontrager D3 with 27 mm wide rims on Vittoria evo cx 25 . I spend most of my time climbing and those lighter rims spin up great , yes i feel some aero in a group or while descending and alone its there but marginal ,not enough to change my speed average ,perhaps keep this av longueur because all along the ride i save some énergy. Handling on these wide rims and tubular tyre is crasy compare to my c24. Yes there is a difference with carbon tubular ...but on carbon clincher i dont see why my two cent


----------



## carbonconvert (Apr 12, 2009)

An unscientific perspective-25 years of all types of cycling. A good pair of aluminum or carbon wheels will make you a better rider-if your current stuff is crap. Sew ups are somewhat old tech but, they will always be the racing standard and the most plush ride.
I'm not sure where the "sweet spot" is, but diminishing returns like many things comes into play. I have 1k alum. clinchers that feel relatively the same as my 2.5 k carbon hoops.
IMO, a 1500 gram alum set on sale somewhere for everyday riding is fine. You can find something like that for less than $500?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I race on ~50mm carbon tubulars, unless it's a TT, when I go with a rear disc, or a climbing-intensive course, where I go with a solid set of 24/28 aluminum clinchers.

I train exclusively on aluminum clinchers. Which vary in spoke count from 24 to 36 spokes per wheel. I've done the low spoke count thing (Neuvation M28s), and will never do it again. Break one spoke, and you'll probably see why. My 36 hole Open Pros get beat up badly and never go out of true, even if a spoke breaks. Gotta like that when all you want to do is ride. A bombproof aluminum wheelset may not be sexy, but it's not nearly as dorky as walking home. 

Why do I run the carbon rims?
1.) I really like the way they look. I'm old enough to not be ashamed about that.
2.) The tubulars with sealant are more reliable for me than clinchers. If I have to change a tube, usually I'm out of the race in any meaningful way.
3.) There is an aerodynamic advantage.
4.) Other riders drool over them. I'm not exactly sure why, but I do my best to encourage that reaction. I'm old enough to not be ashamed about that, and the shop that sponsors my team can use the impulse buys.
5.) I really like the way they look.

Not a whole lot of concrete reasons why I would run them, other than looks. I was considering running aluminum/carbon hybrids, but the weight penalty made me shy away from them. Around here, they would pretty much end up TT wheels. If it were flatter, I would probably end up with a pair of Shimano C50s or the lower line models. Again, it would come down to looks.

If I hadn't gotten screaming deals on my carbon wheels, I would likely be racing exclusively on my HED Kermesse wheelset, and probably be just as slow. Buy what makes you happy, but go in with your eyes wide open as to the benefits/liabilities of each.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> I race on ~50mm carbon tubulars, unless it's a TT, when I go with a rear disc, or a climbing-intensive course, where I go with a solid set of 24/28 aluminum clinchers.
> 
> I train exclusively on aluminum clinchers. Which vary in spoke count from 24 to 36 spokes per wheel. I've done the low spoke count thing (Neuvation M28s), and will never do it again. Break one spoke, and you'll probably see why. My 36 hole Open Pros get beat up badly and never go out of true, even if a spoke breaks. Gotta like that when all you want to do is ride. A bombproof aluminum wheelset may not be sexy, but it's not nearly as dorky as walking home.
> 
> ...


A post full of honesty on carbons and low-spokes! Thanks for that AM. You leave behind a great resource for Newbies and those hoping for miracles.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

Alaska Mike said:


> I race on ~50mm carbon tubulars, unless it's a TT, when I go with a rear disc, or a climbing-intensive course, where I go with a solid set of 24/28 aluminum clinchers.
> 
> I train exclusively on aluminum clinchers. Which vary in spoke count from 24 to 36 spokes per wheel. I've done the low spoke count thing (Neuvation M28s), and will never do it again. Break one spoke, and you'll probably see why. My 36 hole Open Pros get beat up badly and never go out of true, even if a spoke breaks. Gotta like that when all you want to do is ride. A bombproof aluminum wheelset may not be sexy, but it's not nearly as dorky as walking home.
> 
> ...


Great post, brought a smile to my face.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I don't understand the anti-low spoke stuff. I train 300+ miles a week on various wheels that have at most 24 rear spokes (one 20 spokes) over some lousy roads. I'm focusing on track racing so currently weigh 180 lbs with gym work. I break at most a spoke every couple of years on rides but carry a multi-tool that has a spoke wrench built in and have never had any issues doing a quick adjustment to make the wheel rideable. 

Many shallow depth rims with low spokes do nearly as well as deep section wheels on aero tests, are often lighter, and cheaper. 

I have a powertap built into a 24 spoke kinlin 300. Even with the limitations of that hub, the wheel has been bulletproof. Light enough to race on too. 

How many spokes are you guys breaking on low spoke stuff?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Here's what I found (based on a highly precise sample study of two riders):
Ridng style and terrain does play a factor. The bike paths and roads around here can be pretty chewed up from frost heaves, potholes, and root bumps. Throw in a few curbs and other bumps, and the chances for excessive impacts exponentially increase. A heavier rider has a greater impact over the miles than a lighter rider, even in the best of circumstances. Hammering up climbs out of the saddle puts all kinds of stress on a wheel, especially one where the spokes are already at a higher tension.

When I rode a lower spoke wheelset, I weighed around 200lbs (I'm much lighter now). Since I was commuting on the M28 Aero3s, there were times when I was dog tired and didn't react fast enough. It happens. I broke one spoke on the front 16 spoke wheel, which immediately pulled the wheel into the fork and ended the ride. I couldn't adjust it out enough to make it safely rideable. Being 10 miles out, I tried. I walked home and replaced the spoke, but the rest of the spokes were compromised and they started breaking one by one. I replaced all of the spokes, but I never trusted the wheelset again and ended up giving it away.

A buddy of mine has M28s, which finally started pulling spokes through the rim after a couple years. He probably weighs in the range of 220lbs, which is considerably more than I did when I rode them. He generally rides "lighter" than I do, and fewer miles, but even when the wheels were new he was flexing them all over the place. He didn't notice it or believe it until I loaned him my 32/32 Open Pros, and the difference was pronounced and visible (wheels flexing into the brake pads). He will be riding my old set of Open Pros this year, and is now among the converted.

No wheel is indestructable, but fewer spokes and higher spoke tension just results in a wheel that can't take the same amount of abuse as a higher spoke count wheel. Do I need 36 spoke wheels? Not at all, but they were cheaper than the 32 spoke wheels and a heavier commuting/foul weather training wheel was exactly what I was looking for. My sweet spot for racing seems to be a 24/28 set for aluminum, 20/24 for carbon. For training, I add a few more spokes and don't worry about the added weight or drag (which is fairly insignificant compared to the extra weight on the rider).

Since adding a few spokes, I have not had a ride or race end due to wheel failure. For me, that's the goal. I'd rather be riding than wrenching. If a spoke is loose or broken, I'd rather hear it than see and feel the effects of it.

Ride what works for you. Form follows function, but that doesn't mean you should completely ignore form. Lower spoke count wheels are sexier, and have some marginal peformance benefit. I've never lost a race because of a few more spokes, but I have lost because of one too few. For me, the cons outweighed the pros. YMMV.


----------



## BugMan (Feb 16, 2004)

alleganybicycleshop said:


> ...i raced cat2 up until 2010 and now i just have fun. Granted i still pick it up from time to time but i still like a good set of wheels. They excellerate quicker, handle better and provide improved aerodynamics... I like the bling factor as much as the improved ride. Is it worth the money? That is your call. To me it is. I like my machine to be a precision performance machine and give me the best ride possible. Light carbon wheels do this for me... And they look cool


this!


----------



## duffin (Jun 11, 2012)

I am approach my first year anniversary being a road bike rider. I am 198 lbs (235 when I started) and ride the back roads of West Marin County which are rough, smooth and full of good climbs.

Up until a week ago, I was running a stock pair of Mavic Kysrium Equippe that would flex on climbs (brake rub). Then I took my bike into SF on the roof and a parking attendant who sees it every AM during my training had a brain fart and drove it into an I-beam.

Insurance is paying for a 2103 Cannondale Evo Hi-Mod Red Racing that comes stocks with Vision TC24 carbon tubulars that weight 1200 grams. I have been training 4-5x a week putting in 125+ miles down and now ready to try some racing. 

But I am not comfortable taking the tubulars out on long rides or group rides and carrying a spare. I will save the Vision's for certain situations like races or rides with good SAG.

Before discovering this thread all the more experienced people around me have been telling me there is no advantage of carbon over aluminum in the clincher world. I've read the new Mavic carbon clincher review on this site and looked at all the numbers and can't sway myself away from a good alum clincher set.

So after day 1 at Sea Otter, I stumbled around and found the new HED Ardennes+ to be too cool to pass up. With a wider rim profile of 25mm outer/21mm inner, tubeless ready and hub convertible to future disc while being 1400 grams, I think my search has ended. 

In the booth they had a rim to play with and dared me to bend it. I could not. Sold. Or was that snake oil? lol

When I have the kids college and my retirement paid for, then I will go buy sexy to be the Enve of all.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

I have carbon wheels....I wish I'd spent the money on a power meter....


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

tom_h said:


> ....
> ....
> 
> I've encountered cyclists who think by moving their 2 lb water bottle from the bike's bottle cage to their jersey, they've reduced the "bikes weight" and will climb faster, but that is just silly and woefully wrong. It's total weight that matters when climbing.


Sidenote:

While the weight/power ratio is an important factor, there is another factor at play too, and that is moment. A bottle water locked in the frame is considered static weight, and it moves with the frame (when you swing the bike side to side) which may not be desirable. However, the same water bottle strapped to your body would be somewhat more dynamic because you can manipulate its moments by manipulating your body (by not swing your body side to side as much as the bike). 

In other words, weight distribution can be important too as it tends to affect the handling part. In the 2,4-wheeled motorized world, weight distribution can be even more more important than power/weight ratio.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

jackmen said:


> I'm 53 and definitely not the fastest guy as I usually average 17-18 MPH on my long ride.QUOTE]
> 
> I always thought that is a pretty good average speed for a long ride. Especially if you are alone.


----------



## 2Slo4U (Feb 12, 2005)

Newnan3 said:


> I have carbon wheels....I wish I'd spent the money on a power meter....


there is a lot of truth to this statement!


----------

