# Learn Me All About Wheel Comfort!...



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Ok, situation is, I'm very likely going to have some handbuilt wheels made for me in the coming weeks. And, while I want them to be durable (I weigh 240ish, and dropping), I really _really_ want them to be COMFORTABLE. So, getting the right rims and build config are paramount, I'm assuming.

For those who say that all comfort is in the tires, um well, no, not in my experience (though tires and the psi I've chosen have made a big difference- just not all the difference. I've ridden mostly 25 and 28c for years, @ around 100 psi).

I rode box-section Araya rims in late-80s and 90s, and they were quite comfy. Later on (late '90s, IIRC) I tried to make the switch to some Rolf Vector deep section aero wheels (by todays' standards they'd be considered semi-aero).

These new wheels were HORRIBLY harsh-riding, and yes, the tires, tire pressure, and bike were all exactly the same as before. The difference was immediate and _extremely_ noticeable.  

And it wasn't a psychological or 'placebo' effect, as, at the time, I had no knowledge of deep section rims being stiffer. I was just "WTF? Why is this happening?".

So, I'm wondering... should my handbuilt wheelset be based off of true box-section rims, such as the Velocity Razor or Synergy? Or, can I expect some decent comfort from todays 'semi-aero' rims, like Mavic OP and DT Swiss R1.1?

What are your experience regarding rim comfort? How much have your spoke and spoke pattern choices affected comfort? Does the anodizing on your rims make any difference? etc.

Thanks for any help. You are literally saving my ass.  
.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

You will get more comfort from 25mm or larger tires. I ride 25mm Vittoria OC's. Like riding on a cloud.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

PS: If these fit any of my frames I would be investing in a few pairs.

http://www.universalcycles.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=24983


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> You will get more comfort from 25mm or larger tires. I ride 25mm Vittoria OC's. Like riding on a cloud.


I'm already there... Michelin Pro Race 2 25c. And I actually recently bought the Parigi-Roubaix tire you mention- have yet to ride it though.

The tire side of the equation I've already got down. I'm more worried about everything else, because the Rolfs were harsh with _28mm_ tires mounted! 

_edit-_ (Contis, if anyone's wondering)
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*no such thing*

I'm sorry to disagree, but I've had every kind of wheel made, and I can't tell the slightest difference in comfort. Lateral stiffness, yes, but that just affects precision and confidence in cornering. I think wheel comfort is a complete myth. The difference in vertical compliance in wheels versus tires must be a thousand fold. 

Nonetheless, if your theory is that some wheels can be more compliant than others, then I'd suggest an Araya 16B Gold tubular rim, with 12x 14/17/14 gauge Revolution spokes, 3 cross, tensioned to 80 pounds, small flange hub, and install a 28 mm tubular tire inflated to 90 psi. Good luck.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Fixed said:


> I think wheel comfort is a complete myth. The difference in vertical compliance in wheels versus tires must be a thousand fold.


I agree. I doubt the OP would notice a difference in wheels, but I bet he could tell a 23mm from a 25mm tire on the first bump.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Sigh. Guys, as I said, I'm not hallucinating, and I already have the tire comfort thing figured out (since the '80s, really).

Any actually helpful responses out there?
.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Sigh. Guys, as I said, I'm not hallucinating, and I already have the tire comfort thing figured out (since the '80s, really).
> 
> Any actually helpful responses out there?
> .


It sounds like you've got the rim thing figured out as well- go with the box rims if you really believe they're more comfortable. You already know what you like, so I can't see why you'd want to experiment with something else. 

You might also want to try a gel saddle, like a Terry Fly gel. 

And yes, you are hallucinating :ciappa:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, thanks guys for crapping all over the thread.

Guess I'll have to ask this question on another site to get some good input.
.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Box section rims are more comfortable, they are radially less stiff, the radial stiffness of deeper section rims are the very reason that they can be laced with fewer spokes. The Mavic OP I have found to have a nice ride, but it's also very light (read, made of less material). The Velocity rims you mentioned are both good choices. I've built a few sets of Velocity rims and they build up really nicely.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

davidka said:


> Box section rims are more comfortable, they are radially less stiff, the radial stiffness of deeper section rims are the very reason that they can be laced with fewer spokes.
> 
> The Mavic OP I have found to have a nice ride, but it's also very light (read, made of less material). The Velocity rims you mentioned are both good choices. I've built a few sets of Velocity rims and they build up really nicely.


Yay! Actual helpfulness! Thank you. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

SystemShock, try measuring the inner width of the rims that feel comfortable to you and those that feel harsh. Wider rims ride harsher. 

May also be the number of spokes, less spokes = more tension = harsher ride...though I know this will get crapped on by a number of wheel builders here because more spokes = more work.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Yay! Actual helpfulness! Thank you. :thumbsup:
> .


I see you got the same answers over on bikeforums.net. Well done. :cryin:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> I see you got the same answers over on bikeforums.net. Well done. :cryin:


Actually, there was one helpful guy over there (thus far). So, no need to weep, CS. :wink5:

It is funny how dogmatic some ppl are about the subject, though. They're just not willing to accept that some ppl feel a difference, sometimes a major one.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

mellowman said:


> SystemShock, try measuring the inner width of the rims that feel comfortable to you and those that feel harsh. Wider rims ride harsher.
> 
> May also be the number of spokes, less spokes = more tension = harsher ride...though I know this will get crapped on by a number of wheel builders here because more spokes = more work.


Hmm... the Rolfs were about the same width as the Arayas, actually, a tiny bit narrower. But they definitely did have fewer spokes, 20/24 vs 36.

Never thought of it in terms of spoke tension before... interesting point.
.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

I have a 32 hole 2x and a 24x deep section (Zipp 404) and they ride absolutely the same to me, as do my 32/3x box ambrosio and mavic box sections. Sorry to crap on your thread...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

function said:


> I have a 32 hole 2x and a 24x deep section (Zipp 404) and they ride absolutely the same to me, as do my 32/3x box ambrosio and mavic box sections. Sorry to crap on your thread...


It's okay Function, some ppl feel a difference and some don't. As I'm one of those who does, I guess I'm more interested in hearing from those who do, since I can actually do something with that info.

I mean, what am I supposed to do with the "there's no difference" comments? Convince myself that I don't feel a difference, when I do? Oh well.

But it's an interesting topic, and ppl just want to give their two cents regardless, I guess... it's understandable. So I'll try to be less combative.  
.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> It's okay Function, some ppl feel a difference and some don't. As I'm one of those who does, I guess I'm more interested in hearing from those who do, since I can actually do something with that info.
> 
> I mean, what am I supposed to do with the "there's no difference" comments? Convince myself that I don't feel a difference, when I do? Oh well.
> 
> ...


If you feel a difference, than you should know what rims are more comfy.:mad2:


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Wheel comfort comes from the tires.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> It's okay Function, some ppl feel a difference and some don't. As I'm one of those who does, I guess I'm more interested in hearing from those who do, since I can actually do something with that info.
> 
> I mean, what am I supposed to do with the "there's no difference" comments? Convince myself that I don't feel a difference, when I do? Oh well.
> 
> ...


I'd be interested in knowing how you feel it. I don't think anyone said there's no difference, just none that should be detectable after the rubber/air cushion of the tires. If it's not in your head then it's a real 'Princess and the Pea' poser.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> If you feel a difference, than you should know what rims are more comfy.:mad2:


Why? I certainly haven't ridden all the rims out there, so how would I know whether or not the rims I haven't ridden are comfy?  

I could assume on the basis of cross-section, but I'm hoping for more data.

I can tell you that box-section Arayas are much more comfy than Rolfs, but not what a Mavic OP or DT 1.1 or Velocity Synergy or Razor feels/rides like.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

California L33 said:


> I'd be interested in knowing how you feel it. I don't think anyone said there's no difference, just none that should be detectable after the rubber/air cushion of the tires. If it's not in your head then it's a real 'Princess and the Pea' poser.


I dunno, I don't think I'm uniquely-gifted here... other riders have reported deep aero rims as being harsh-riding. Though to be fair, nearly all of those are deeper profile than the Rolfs I've commented on. 

I agree that from a purely scientific pov, it "should not be", but not all phenomena are readily explainable by our current level of scientific understanding. We don't know it all, in fact, we don't even know what we don't know.

Perhaps in the future there'll be a good scientific explanation for what some riders are reporting here. Then we'll all smack our foreheads and go, "D'oh! Of course!"  
.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Just one problem*



SystemShock said:


> For those who say that all comfort is in the tires, um well, no, not in my experience.


I post this on a regular basis, but it must be time to post it again. Despite you're being sure that you can tell the difference (while others can't), MAVIC's own testing assures them that riders CANNOT tell the difference in wheel stiffness from the ride of a bike. Just saying.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Ok, situation is, I'm very likely going to have some handbuilt wheels made for me in the coming weeks. And, while I want them to be durable (I weigh 240ish, and dropping), I really _really_ want them to be COMFORTABLE. So, getting the right rims and build config are paramount, I'm assuming.
> 
> For those who say that all comfort is in the tires, um well, no, not in my experience (though tires and the psi I've chosen have made a big difference- just not all the difference. I've ridden mostly 25 and 28c for years, @ around 100 psi).
> 
> ...


You want comfy, go with MA40s Campy Omega XLs or the like in a true box section rim. No matter what the 'its all the same dummy' types try and tell you, a triangle flexes less than a box.

Could go something box-section in the back (where it matters more) and semi-aero in the front... Tho the old pros used to do it the other way 'cause they were skeered of the effects of sidewinds.

M


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

"MAVIC's own testing assures them that riders CANNOT tell the difference in wheel stiffness from the ride of a bike"

Unless you are some sort of Princess and the pea character who still believes in soft spoking, when getting wheels built.


----------



## SpamnRice (Nov 17, 2007)

After the R-Sys fiasco, I wouldn't think that anyone would place value in "Mavic's own testing"!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> I post this on a regular basis, but it must be time to post it again. Despite you're being sure that you can tell the difference (while others can't), MAVIC's own testing assures them that riders CANNOT tell the difference in wheel stiffness from the ride of a bike. Just saying.


Yup. And these are the same guys who made the R-SYS exploding wheelset.  

Just sayin'.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MShaw said:


> You want comfy, go with MA40s Campy Omega XLs or the like in a true box section rim. No matter what the 'its all the same dummy' types try and tell you, a triangle flexes less than a box.
> 
> Could go something box-section in the back (where it matters more) and semi-aero in the front... Tho the old pros used to do it the other way 'cause they were skeered of the effects of sidewinds.
> 
> M


Thanks M. :thumbsup: 

Wow. They still make Omega XLs? I think those were available in the '80s.
.


----------



## UrbanPrimitive (Jun 14, 2009)

Unfortunately I have no real data to add to the conversation. I do, however, have an observation that may alter the debate a bit. How many test groups have looked to see what a 240 pound rider can feel as opposed to a 150 pound rider? Speaking as a 6' tall and 135 pound rider I would be shocked if the OP and I had the same experience riding the same setup. Similarly, if comfort were solely a function of the tire, there would be no debate about frame or fork materials. But there is. In my mind a bike isn't a collection of top notch kit but a formulation of interrelated elements.

To the OP: Sorry I can't give you any good advice or suggestions, but as I said our experience would be totally different. What I call "responsive" you would likely call "bone crunching harsh". Good luck!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Thanks UrPr. 
.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> It is funny how dogmatic some ppl are about the subject, though. They're just not willing to accept that some ppl feel a difference, sometimes a major one.


I think you have it backwards. Dogma would be claiming that something exists without any evidence of it's existence... which is what you are doing. Feelings that are not shared by others, and are also lacking in theory and measurement, do not count as evidence.

AFAIK nobody has been able to quantify wheel comfort and correlate it to design parameters. It is a fact that wheels will only flex vertically less than 1mm even on a very hard hit, and there are many parts of the bike that will exceed this by an order of magnitude. So it seems unlikely that wheels could be made comfortable... or have a noticeable effect on comfort. 

On the other hand, if you are merely looking for placebo-induced annecdotes, then you should get a few of those if you persist.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

MShaw said:


> No matter what the 'its all the same dummy' types try and tell you, a triangle flexes less than a box.


Once you put it into a spoked wheel the difference becomes nil... and neither of them will flex vertically enough to notice.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

mellowman said:


> May also be the number of spokes, less spokes = more tension = harsher ride...though I know this will get crapped on by a number of wheel builders here because more spokes = more work.


If you can get away with low tension that is the easiest way to build a wheel.

Higher tension does not make any wheel stiffer... that is a function of rim and spoke stiffness... it just delays the point at which the spokes go slack and the wheel becomes unstable.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rruff said:


> It is a fact that wheels will only flex vertically less than 1mm even on a very hard hit


Imagine what happens to spoke tension if wheels did flex more than this. And my 25mm wide (and 25mm high) Michelin Pro tires can flex almost an inch before I pinch flat. Today I was gravel road riding on my Challenge Grifo tires that are 32mm wide and 31mm high. I had them pumped to 45-50psi. The comfort from those tires on the granite chip roads is astounding. That's where the comfort comes from - not a rim that's flexing maybe 0.75mm.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> I think you have it backwards. Dogma would be claiming that something exists without any evidence of it's existence... which is what you are doing. Feelings that are not shared by others, and are also lacking in theory and measurement, do not count as evidence.
> 
> AFAIK nobody has been able to quantify wheel comfort and correlate it to design parameters. It is a fact that wheels will only flex vertically less than 1mm even on a very hard hit, and there are many parts of the bike that will exceed this by an order of magnitude. So it seems unlikely that wheels could be made comfortable... or have a noticeable effect on comfort.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are merely looking for placebo-induced annecdotes, then you should get a few of those if you persist.


Y'know, I really hate _Friends_, and I do believe in evolution, but this one sums it up...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Mike T. said:


> Imagine what happens to spoke tension if wheels did flex more than this. And my 25mm wide (and 25mm high) Michelin Pro tires can flex almost an inch before I pinch flat. Today I was gravel road riding on my Challenge Grifo tires that are 32mm wide and 31mm high. I had them pumped to 45-50psi. The comfort from those tires on the granite chip roads is astounding. That's where the comfort comes from - not a rim that's flexing maybe 0.75mm.


No one is denying that tires don't have a major effect on comfort– hence my riding of 25c & 28c @100psi for many years, rather than the much-more-common [email protected] pressure. Eep.  

I'm simply stating that it's been my experience that the wheels affect comfort as well. You're not required to believe me, it's just what I've experienced– to my surprise as well.
.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Another experiment you might want to try regarding flex of bike parts... pump your tires up a normal amount and hold your bike on a solid surface (like concrete). 

Put both hands on the toptube where it meets the seattube, and push down hard. Feels very solid, eh? Note that your tires are flexing at least 10 times as much as your wheels, and you are also getting some flex in the rear of the frame... but none of this is very much.

Now push down hard in the middle of the saddle. Way more cush, right? The seatpost flex comes into play here, but most of it is the saddle itself... that well-damped flexible and padded (on most) piece of plastic that your put your butt on and is your contact point with the bike.

Now move to the front of the bike, and push down hard on the brake hoods. Whoa! Some major flex there! The handlebars, stem, and fork all noticeably contribute to this.

The moral of the story is that it's hard to even feel the tire flex compared to saddle, seatpost, bar, stem, and fork flex... and the wheel and frame flex is way lower than the tire flex. If the part doesn't flex, and is made up of metal pieces with little hysteresis, then how does it provide comfort?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Y'know, I really hate _Friends_, and I do believe in evolution, but this one sums it up...


Sums up that you have no understanding of science...


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

I like that.


----------



## proguy747 (Jul 26, 2009)

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/index.html


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> Sums up that you have no understanding of science...


Or that you're too arrogant to see any other possibility but the one you currently hold. Oh well.

But kudos to the four or five ppl who've posted useful info thus far. It's been helpful to me, and it takes courage to post the 'heretic' position. :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

PS- To the 'it can't possibly matter' squad: I know what I experience, and that isn't negotiable (to your consternation, yes, I understand).

However, if you can provide a plausible explanation of what I experienced other than "you're hallucinating", I'm happy to hear it.

Some theories I've heard thus far, here and elsewhere:

– the Rolf rims' inner width differed from the Araya box sections rims in a way that reduced the effective profile of the tires, thus making the ride harsher (i.e. some tires measure different on different rims)

– the Rolfs ran a much higher spoke tension than the Arayas

– the Rolfs were much stiffer _laterally_, so the harshness I felt was in turns only (actually, I'm pretty certain that isn't true, but it's interesting)

– I am an outlier/am uber-sensitive to differences in ride comfort 


Frankly, I'd much rather hear the comfort experiences of ppl who _do_ believe that wheels matter in that way, so I can better select the rims for my handbuilts, but I realize the unbeliever squad needs to chime in as well, so this is my way of trying to direct them to constructive ends.
.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> PS- To the 'it can't possibly matter' squad: I know what I experience, and that isn't negotiable (to your consternation, yes, I understand).
> 
> However, if you can provide a plausible explanation of what I experienced other than "you're hallucinating", I'm happy to hear it.
> 
> ...


You should only eat acid at Dead shows. Just an idea.....:thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> You should only eat acid at Dead shows. Just an idea....


You're funny.....
















































....... -looking. :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

VeloOrange just came out with a new polished box-section rim (the Paris-Brest-Paris), shades of the ole MA2. What do ppl think of these?:











*http://www.velo-orange.com/vopari.html*


Also... any experiences with Sun CR18 rims?
/


----------



## adauphin (Jul 31, 2009)

I'm not going to say one way or the other that a particular wheel is more comfortable than the other, i'm hardly an expert....but for sake of this thread which like others, does give useful info. 

Were not talking shock absorbers here or gel pads, it's rims that apparently give a measurable amount of comfort or take said comfort away. Since it's a fact that rims don't flex very much, less than the sole of your shoe when walking where is the noticeable comfort coming from?

Most runners prefer an asphalt surface over concrete if there is an option, asphalt absorbs more of the impact vibrations than concrete. If the OP is feeling a difference i'm going to have to say it's from the wheel absorbing or not transmitting as much vibration through the frame.

Bump in road is met with the tire, has to go through the rim and spokes to be felt by the rider, how well the wheel/frame transmit or absorb the bump or dissipate the vibration is key, alongside of what the tire can do but the tire is the only constant here based on the OP statements.

What about the bike? Has this been the same bike for these tests through the 80's and 90's? What bike is currently being used? 

I spent the last 3 days riding 4 different bikes and a few of them back to back numerous times, one thing I did notice is the frame makes a HUGE difference in riding comfort, bump compliance, vibration absorbtion, etc. Take a Tarmac and a Roubaix for example, basically the same full carbon, same wheelset but the Zertz in the frame REALLY make a huge impact on felt vibration.

So lets take the bike(s) in question for these tests...were they steel/alum/...carbon? assuming no carbon in the earlier years but need to know this.

All things being equal, with different rims, the only thing I can come up with is the way the wheels are absorbing vibrations. I'm also going to say a 150 lb rider will feel more than a 230 lb rider since the wheels/tires will have to do more work absorbing these vibrations.

Or I could be wrong...but that's the way I understand it.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Or that you're too arrogant to see any other possibility but the one you currently hold. Oh well.


I'd be ecstatic (really) to see another possibility, if you could give me either measurements or a plausible scientific theory.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> VeloOrange just came out with a new polished box-section rim (the Paris-Brest-Paris), shades of the ole MA2. What do ppl think of these?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


polished rims are way more compliant than non-polished ones.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Some theories I've heard thus far, here and elsewhere:
> 
> – the Rolf rims' inner width differed from the Araya box sections rims in a way that reduced the effective profile of the tires, thus making the ride harsher (i.e. some tires measure different on different rims)


Rolfs use narrow rims.



> – the Rolfs ran a much higher spoke tension than the Arayas


Wouldn't matter if they did.



> – the Rolfs were much stiffer _laterally_, so the harshness I felt was in turns only (actually, I'm pretty certain that isn't true, but it's interesting)


Rolfs are not laterally stiff anyway.



> – I am an outlier/am uber-sensitive to differences in ride comfort


Remote... you'd have to sensitive to less than 1 part in 100... and I doubt you controlled the other variables well enough for that to even be a possibility.

The more likely explanantion is that people tend to "feel" things that are not objectively there. Visual and auditory differences often become translated in the mind as a difference in feel. And there is no shortage of placebo induced effects when it comes to cycling. 

Frankly, I'd love to see a bike outfitted with accelerometers so we could get an objective measurement of this. But until then, since I haven't heard a single plausible explaination of "wheel comfort", I'll remain a skeptic.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*False comparison*



SystemShock said:


> Yup. And these are the same guys who made the R-SYS exploding wheelset.


Of course, you have already demonstrated that you are not really susceptible to logical argument, but the MAVIC tests I was refering to obviously were not about testing wheel durability, but about testing rider response to different wheels, where actual measurements of the wheels and rider perceptions showed no correlation. This kind of work has been done by others (Bicycle Quarterly magazine) in different ways and the answer is the same: rider perception is not a reliable way to determine wheel performance. I know that these facts will not deter you in the slightest, because "you know what you feel" but they might make you think a bit. Or not. Just saying.


----------



## skepticman (Dec 25, 2005)

I'vehad a couple sets of wheels that had a noticeable difference in comfort: the Ksyrium SL3 and Rolf Vigor RS.

I owned an Orbea Opal that had either a fork or front triangle that was punishingly stiff and unforgiving. It actually caused hand pain on longer rides, especially on rough, cracked roads. It came with the Ksyriums and I later got the Rolfs. They both had Michelin Pro2 Race 23c tires and I always inflated them to 100psi.

I swapped the Rolfs onto the Opal for a few rides here and there and I noticed there was a major improvement in comfort over cracked roads. My hands almost completely stopped aching. I also ran both wheels on my Vamoots and could still tell the difference, but it was not as apparent.

There is small a chance the serious hand pain or lack thereof was in my head, but I doubt it, and I am a skeptical person, hence my username. There may not be any logical, scientific explanation for the difference, but I'm confident I and most others could tell the difference in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled test.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

so combining your experience with the OP we can conclude that:
these wheels are HORRIBLE: 








But these are rather pleasant: 













skepticman said:


> I'vehad a couple sets of wheels that had a noticeable difference in comfort: the Ksyrium SL3 and Rolf Vigor RS.
> 
> I owned an Orbea Opal that had either a fork or front triangle that was punishingly stiff and unforgiving. It actually caused hand pain on longer rides, especially on rough, cracked roads. It came with the Ksyriums and I later got the Rolfs. They both had Michelin Pro2 Race 23c tires and I always inflated them to 100psi.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmess (Aug 24, 2006)

I bought a set of Reynolds DV46C ULs to replace my Rolf Vigor RS. I find the carbon Reynolds transmit less road chatter from chip sealed roads than the Rolfs did (Pro2 tires with same pressures). I really liked the Rolfs and still have them as my spare wheels. Other than the usual differences with braking and carbon wheels I prefer the Reynolds for my passive aggressive recreational riding.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> I'd be ecstatic (really) to see another possibility, if you could give me either measurements or a plausible scientific theory.


Considering that you've already branded me an enemy of science and yourself a friend of it, I'd say that task falls to you.

After all, I'm too busy dancing around the bonfire and sticking pins in my voodoo dolls... :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Kerry Irons said:


> Of course, you have already demonstrated that you are not really susceptible to logical argument...


Kerry, with respect, 'pissy' is not an attractive color on anyone.  

Far as the rest of your post goes, I'm well aware of the pov you lay out (I should be, I've heard it repeatedly, with flames added for special emphasis, lol). I just don't buy it. 

Hopefully you (among others) can accept that with good grace. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

skepticman said:


> I'vehad a couple sets of wheels that had a noticeable difference in comfort: the Ksyrium SL3 and Rolf Vigor RS.
> 
> I owned an Orbea Opal that had either a fork or front triangle that was punishingly stiff and unforgiving. It actually caused hand pain on longer rides, especially on rough, cracked roads. It came with the Ksyriums and I later got the Rolfs. They both had Michelin Pro2 Race 23c tires and I always inflated them to 100psi.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Skep. It's good to hear a story similar to my own. 

Though beware, 'round here, you might get burned at the stake for stating your experience. :lol:
.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

my personal experience is that a 32h 3x on box section with double butted spokes is a much more pleasant ride than the straight pull bladed deep aero wheelset i also have

i dont know why or how, but thats my experience

might have something to do with the DB spokes having a bit of 'give' in the non butted middle section


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

jmess said:


> I bought a set of Reynolds DV46C ULs to replace my Rolf Vigor RS. I find the carbon Reynolds transmit less road chatter from chip sealed roads than the Rolfs did (Pro2 tires with same pressures). I really liked the Rolfs and still have them as my spare wheels. Other than the usual differences with braking and carbon wheels I prefer the Reynolds for my passive aggressive recreational riding.


Well, of course, stating that you can feel a comfort difference between wheelsets is a recipe for getting yelled at. Even if it may be due to your rim material (carbon).

Which is odd, because for many years, many ppl have claimed to feel differences in comfort due to _frames_ made of different materials. But, since bike frames, like wheels, don't measure as showing much in the way of vertical compliance, I'm guessing that all those ppl will be dismissed as crazy as well.  
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

alexb618 said:


> *my personal experience is that a 32h 3x on box section with double butted spokes is a much more pleasant ride than the straight pull bladed deep aero wheelset i also have*
> 
> i dont know why or how, but thats my experience
> 
> might have something to do with the DB spokes having a bit of 'give' in the non butted middle section


SHHHHH! 

Oh noes Alex, now you've done it...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

den bakker said:


> so combining your experience with the OP we can conclude that:
> these wheels are HORRIBLE:
> 
> But these are rather pleasant:


I think combining Skep's and I's experiences is pretty misleading.

1- We're two different ppl, with likely differing tolerances for road shock
2- Skep was on a carbon fiber Orbea, I was on a steel Bridgestone
3- Skep was riding 23c tires, I was riding 28c 
4- We're likely different weights
5- We experienced two different Rolf wheelsets (Vector and Vigor RS)


Hm... not exactly the same, now is it? :idea: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> Remote... you'd have to sensitive to less than 1 part in 100... and I doubt you controlled the other variables well enough for that to even be a possibility.
> 
> The more likely explanantion is that people tend to "feel" things that are not objectively there


Incorrect. All other variables were the same... same bike, same fit and position (because it was... _the same bike_), same tires (not the same model of tire– literally, _the same tires_), and yup, same tire pressure.

But, at the same time, I find it difficult to believe that I'm some sort of uber-sensitive outlier/'freak of nature'. And, indeed, several other ppl in this very thread, which has only received a few hundred page views, have stated that they, too, feel differences in comfort between wheelsets.

Go figure.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

adauphin said:


> We're not talking shock absorbers here or gel pads, it's rims that apparently give a measurable amount of comfort or take said comfort away. Since it's a fact that rims don't flex very much, less than the sole of your shoe when walking where is the noticeable comfort coming from?
> 
> Most runners prefer an asphalt surface over concrete if there is an option, asphalt absorbs more of the impact vibrations than concrete. If the OP is feeling a difference i'm going to have to say it's from the wheel absorbing or not transmitting as much vibration through the frame.


That's an interesting point. I'm sure an asphalt surface has very little more in the way of measured vertical compliance on impact from a runner's foot than a concrete surface... yet, many runners do prefer running on asphalt. Are they all 'imagining things', or is there some sort of valid reason for that preference? Your theory on that is better than some, and as good as any.



> _What about the bike? Has this been the same bike for these tests through the 80's and 90's? What bike is currently being used? _


I rode the same bike with the Araya box-sections and the Rolf Vectors... a Bridgestone steel road bike. Same tires, same everything else.



> _I spent the last 3 days riding 4 different bikes and a few of them back to back numerous times, one thing I did notice is the frame makes a HUGE difference in riding comfort, bump compliance, vibration absorbtion, etc. Take a Tarmac and a Roubaix for example, basically the same full carbon, same wheelset, but the Zertz in the frame REALLY make a huge impact on felt vibration_.


But unless the Zertz (and corresponding dogleg seatstays- in some models) made a huge difference in terms of vertical compliance, your experience of there being a difference in ride comfort between the two bikes would likely be pooh-pooh'd as placebo effect/you 'imagining' things (not by me, though).

Even though many ppl report experiences similar to yours.
.


----------



## twinkles (Apr 23, 2007)

The same folks saying there is no difference in wheel comfort, say that ti and aluminum frames with the same geometry ride alike. If there is no difference from one wheel to another, why do the pros complain about riding full disk wheels cause they are so harsh. 

Are you hard on wheels? If you are not hard on wheels, I would go with something like 28 or 32 hole open pro with DT aerolite or sapim cx-ray spokes on front. I would use 32 or 36 open pros on the back with 14-15 drive side and aerolite or cx-rays on te non drive side.

The bladed areolite & cx-ray spokes are as light as a DT revolution, but are work hardened when they squish them and makes them take many more cycles til they fail. They are said to have a "tuned" ride quality like the revolution spokes because of the skinny midsection which allows them to be more elastic.

A few years ago I built up a set of wheels basically identical to my old wheels except I used Dt revolution spokes on the new ones. I could tell a noticable difference in ride comfort when ridden on the same hill on the same afternoon, and this was on a mountain bike. 

The only downside to the aerolite-cxrays is that they are expensive, especially on a high spoke count wheel. I'm suggesting the open pro rims because they are durable and seem pretty comfy. I've ridden the box rims back in the 80's but not on the same frame I've ridden the open pro rims on, so I can't comment on the difference between the open pro and omega rims. 

Good luck and lelt us know what the final review is on the wheelset.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Kind of building on what twinkles and someone who mentioned Zertz in the thread, (which really seems to make a difference, and you look at the stuff and it's just plastic, but applied to dampen vibration). I'm wondering if the difference some people feel in wheels could be from the wheel, as a system with its tensioned spokes, resonating in such a way that it cancels shock. It might explain why some people are so adamant they have felt a difference, and others can point to tests that show no difference between rim types- if they didn't test wheels with the correct characteristics they would have measured no difference. Of course this would still mean there's no difference in comfort based on rim shape, only on wheels with ideal components tuned correctly, which would make selection difficult.


----------



## adauphin (Jul 31, 2009)

removed for wrong location.


----------



## adauphin (Jul 31, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I'm sure an asphalt surface has very little more in the way of measured vertical compliance on impact





SystemShock said:


> But unless the Zertz (and corresponding dogleg seatstays- in some models) made a huge difference in terms of vertical compliance


Seems to be a pattern here and I believe I understand what you are getting at, but it's not always "vertical compliance" 

For example....to stop a cymbal from ringing all you have to do is touch it. Anything heard is a vibration, that will never change. You are not really going to hear all vibrations but you can surely feel it, the human ear can hear down to 20 Hz and sometimes less, an occasional bump in the road is what...1 Hz. I don't recommend doing this but try listening to a tone generator at around 40 Hz and see how your body feels after that, worse than a car stereo 20' away in traffic shaking your guts out and you don't know where it's coming from.

Your body will react to these vibrations differently(not always 1Hz) either you just will flat out not enjoy a bumpy ride, possibly get annoyed running over a washboard surface, we're obviously not talking music hear but when you ride down a road and you feel a difference between a different wheelset, it's not because your bilsteins shock absorbers aren't going up and down as much.

When your foot slams the ground when running with ALOT of force, that impact is dampened by the asphalt, it really isn't going to "give" under your foot like you are thinking, maybe in some micro-amount but you surely aren't going to measure it with a ruler. Concrete on the other hand, will send that impact vibration or "shock wave" if you will, back in your foot and body more than asphalt will.

The Zertz inserts in the frame will dampen these vibrations or "dissipate" them...just like touching a cymbal, greatly reducing them before they get to your body. It's not just the lack of bloodflow that causes numbness, try holding on to a jackhammer for a while (i've done this) when your hands go numb after riding or probably any body part, you can surely contribute this to unwelcome vibrations.

Your wheelsets that feel different, very well could be as well as different tires. I'm also not going to say a wheel doesn't flex over bumps, I would love to see a high-speed video of this but mainly you can be sure that better vibration absorbtion will contribute to a smoother, more enjoyable ride.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Thanks M. :thumbsup:
> 
> Wow. They still make Omega XLs? I think those were available in the '80s.
> .


Nope. Yer gonna hafta hunt for em. I have 3 in nearly NOS condition that I'm waiting for 'that bike' to build into wheels. 

I have a pair of Mistral rims (for racing only!) on my bike now. Nice ridin wheelset.

I haven't kept up on new rims, so couldn't tell you who's makin what. :dunno

M


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Which is odd, because for many years, many ppl have claimed to feel differences in comfort due to _frames_ made of different materials. But, since bike frames, like wheels, don't measure as showing much in the way of vertical compliance, I'm guessing that all those ppl will be dismissed as crazy as well.


There have been double blind tests of this... how do you think it turned out?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

twinkles said:


> If there is no difference from one wheel to another, why do the pros complain about riding full disk wheels cause they are so harsh.


Do they complain?


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/archives/spokes/log0402/att-0003/01-FEA_for_spoked_bicycle_wheels.pdf

I haven't mastered the linking thing here. 

My theory is in short: a box-section rim will bend slightly more than a triangle-shaped rim ala radial tires when a specific section gets to the bottom (at the road). Some of us can feel that. Some of us can't. 

No, it isn't much, but it IS there. Unless y'all 'its the math, dummy!' types are gonna try and tell me that a triangle flexes the same as a box.

M


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Incorrect. All other variables were the same... same bike, same fit and position (because it was... _the same bike_), same tires (not the same model of tire– literally, _the same tires_), and yup, same tire pressure.


If you didn't get the tire pressure *exactly* the same, then this could matter more than the wheels.

Also, I know that I feel road roughness very differently depending on how I feel in general. Some days the same chipseal seems a lot rougher than others.

But we really need a blind test to check this out. Plastic covers could be used to disguise the wheels and the testers could be given blinders and ear plugs... I'd be very interested in the outcome.

In the meantime maybe something could be learned from bouncing different wheels on the ground and feeling the vibration response. Unfortunately, I don't have any handy that would fit the traditional description for "comfort" wheels.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Ok, situation is, I'm very likely going to have some handbuilt wheels made for me in the coming weeks. And, while I want them to be durable (I weigh 240ish, and dropping), I really _really_ want them to be COMFORTABLE. So, getting the right rims and build config are paramount, I'm assuming.
> 
> For those who say that all comfort is in the tires, um well, no, not in my experience (though tires and the psi I've chosen have made a big difference- just not all the difference. I've ridden mostly 25 and 28c for years, @ around 100 psi).
> 
> ...


I was able to definitely notice a difference in harshness between two front wheels I had. One was a traditional box section Torelli Master rim, 32-hole, 3x. The other was a Velocity Deep V, laced radially. Both used the exact same tire. At first, I thought it was my imagination, then I thought it must be a tire pressure issue. But after adjusting the tire pressure to be sure, I still noticed the difference. And I'd notice it without trying to notice it. Time and time again, riding over the same roads, I'd find myself suddenly thinking, "Man, I've got to decrease the pressure in these tires.", then remembering I was riding the Velocity wheels. What isn't clear to me is how much affect the profile had versus the affect the radial lacing had. 
I currently have an Open Pro wheel and a Velocity Synergy wheel. Measured with a pair of calipers, both have the same profile, around 18.55 mm. So I don't think you'd notice a difference between those wheels, provided they're laced the same. 
I have an R1.1 arrive shortly, and I'll measure it to see of it has the same profile. 
IMO, any of the three rims, OP, R1, or Synergy will ride so close, you won't notice a difference, and all three will ride closer to the old box section rims than the much deeper Rolfs.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

rruff said:


> Another experiment you might want to try regarding flex of bike parts... pump your tires up a normal amount and hold your bike on a solid surface (like concrete).
> 
> Put both hands on the toptube where it meets the seattube, and push down hard. Feels very solid, eh? Note that your tires are flexing at least 10 times as much as your wheels, and you are also getting some flex in the rear of the frame... but none of this is very much.
> 
> ...


The OP is expressing his honest, subjective feel of the "ride", his feel when he is mounted on a fully equipped bicycle, rolling along on real roads. 
I wouldn't put my absolute trust in examples than involve picking apart individual parts tested in isolation. Your hands aren't sitting on the saddle.
This logic would also say that because a saddle's foam padding compresses more than a tire pumped to either 85 psi or 120 psi, tire pressure is a complete non-factor in comfort. If the saddle is providing all the cushion, you shouldn't notice the difference in comfort between riding with a tire and on a bare rim. You wouldn't notice any comfort difference in riding a 32-spoke wheel versus a full disk wheel. This is where dogma enters the picture.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

rruff said:


> If you can get away with low tension that is the easiest way to build a wheel.
> 
> Higher tension does not make any wheel stiffer... that is a function of rim and spoke stiffness... it just delays the point at which the spokes go slack and the wheel becomes unstable.


What's instability? Does it have anything to do with stiffness? Can a stiff wheel be unstable?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> If you didn't get the tire pressure *exactly* the same, then this could matter more than the wheels.


TIre pressure was *exactly* the same– 100 psi. I'm picky like that. :thumbsup: 



> _Also, I know that I feel road roughness very differently depending on how I feel in general. Some days the same chipseal seems a lot rougher than others._


Wow, that's never been my experience... rough roads always feel rough, very rough roads always feel very rough, pretty smooth roads always feel pretty smooth. 

Do you have a bad back or something that acts up from time to time? Joint inflammation that's variable in intensity, day-to-day? That could account for your differing sensitivity.



> _There have been double blind tests of this... how do you think it turned out?_


As an audiophile, I'm somewhat familiar with double-blind tests, and I know it's pretty easy to fark them up and make it difficult for the test subjects to distinguish differences.

Put someone in an unfamiliar environment, with unfamiliar equipment, and then give them a very limited amount of time to get used to the situation/equipment and notice any differences... not a great recipe for a good double-blind, in any field.

Not saying that's the methodology of the double-blinds you're citing (since you haven't shared it with us), but, it wouldn't shock or surprise me. To 'do it right' often takes a lot of time, trouble and resources, and is generally a PITA.
.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> I post this on a regular basis, but it must be time to post it again. Despite you're being sure that you can tell the difference (while others can't), MAVIC's own testing assures them that riders CANNOT tell the difference in wheel stiffness from the ride of a bike. Just saying.


And Mavic's own testing of the Rsys wheels led them to sell a wheel that had to be redesigned, and then the redesigned wheel, which passed their second test failed. 
You phrased it like Systemshock is the only individual who felt a difference. You could just as well have written "...(while others can't, and still others can)". Regarding 23mm tires versus 28mm tires, I'm sure I can tell the difference (while others can't).


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*just think about it logically*



SystemShock said:


> Or that you're too arrogant to see any other possibility but the one you currently hold. Oh well.
> 
> But kudos to the four or five ppl who've posted useful info thus far. It's been helpful to me, and it takes courage to post the 'heretic' position. :wink5:
> .


Just think about this logically (but I think this has been run through many times).

For a wheel to be "more comfortable," it must be flexing, right? At the point where the tire meets the ground, the rim just above that must actually move or flex vertically, which means the spokes must detension or compress (both). Let's agree that for you to feel the difference, there must be some measurable flex -- that is, the radius of he wheel at 6 o'clock must be shorter when you hit an object than it is just rolling along. 

I'd like to ask you, how much do you think the rim needs to flex before you could feel it? 1 mm? 4 mm?

Also, the rim will flex only after or in combination with the tire flexing. We all know that even at 120 psi, a tire can flex/compress quite a bit, and I wouldn't doubt 20 mm when hitting a hard, sharp object at 20 mph. Further, the tire is designed to flex, that's what we all crave in tire construction. 

On the other hand, wheels are not designed to flex. If spokes are constantly tensioning and detensioning enough that it would be vertically measurable, you are going to have problems with that wheel. At minimum, there is additional fatigue at the spoke bend. 

Have you built wheels? In doing so, it has been my experience that about 90% of the final tension occurs with very little movement of the nipple, like less than 1 mm, once all of the nipples are pretty close to giving the wheel the correct alignment and shape. For a spoke to see even 1 mm of movement, nearly all of the tension on that spoke would be lost. 

I'd like to see a well designed experiment to see how much force it takes to observe measureable compression of a rim. Do something like lock a wheel with no tire mounted in a big vise, then start applying force at the rim. See how much force it takes to observe x amount of movement, shortening the wheel radius. 

Is there any other possibility than this? Can you think of any way a wheel could be more comfortable without the wheel radius being shortened under compression? If not, then there is a genuine reason to be skeptical of anyone's assertion that they can tell the difference, regardless of how sincerely they hold that belief. You could just as easily believe that you always ride faster when there is a full moon, but until there is a rational and confirmable explanation for the mechanism, don't be surprised if people are skeptical.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> Wow, that's never been my experience... rough roads always feel rough, very rough roads always feel very rough, pretty smooth roads always feel pretty smooth.
> 
> Do you have a bad back or something that acts up from time to time? Joint inflammation that's variable in intensity, day-to-day? That could account for your differing sensitivity.


Let's just say that cattle guard on the first lap of a race is less annoying than the exact same cattle guard on the last lap when you are on the rivet.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

rruff said:


> In the meantime maybe something could be learned from bouncing different wheels on the ground and feeling the vibration response. Unfortunately, I don't have any handy that would fit the traditional description for "comfort" wheels.


I'm not sure if this was in jest, or serious. It's doesn't sound like something coming from someone who puts trusts in scientific tests, being aware of constants and variables, etc. 
You could definitely learn how high that individual wheel bounces, completely void of any factors involved in it's attachment to a bicycle fork, which, in turn is attached to a bicycle frame, which in turn is being mounted by a human, which in turn is set in motion. I suppose I could learn _something_ about driving a car across state by rolling a car tire up my driveway.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

den bakker said:


> Let's just say that cattle guard on the first lap of a race is less annoying than the exact same cattle guard on the last lap when you are on the rivet.


I'm not sure that's what ruff was referring to:

_Some days the same chipseal seems a lot rougher than others.
_
He seemed to be arguing for a perceived day-to-day difference, a phenomena that I myself have not encountered (unless perhaps I was physically ill or injured- but I tend not to ride when ill/injured).
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> For a wheel to be "more comfortable," it must be flexing, right? At the point where the tire meets the ground, the rim just above that must actually move or flex vertically, which means the spokes must detension or compress (both). Let's agree that for you to feel the difference, there must be some measurable flex -- that is, the radius of he wheel at 6 o'clock must be shorter when you hit an object than it is just rolling along.
> 
> I'd like to ask you, how much do you think the rim needs to flex before you could feel it? 1 mm? 4 mm?


But that's just it... I think we all agree that wheels don't exhibit a great deal of vertical deformation. Yet, at the same time, neither does an asphalt surface when a runner's foot strikes it (to use Dauphin's example). Yet, even so, many runners prefer an asphalt surface to concrete, even though asphalt does not 'flex' or deform to what we'd tend to judge as a 'significant' degree.

How do we explain this? Is it just 'mass hallucination', or is there perhaps some other phenomena at work? Suppression of NVH? Something else that no one's thought of? :idea:

Regardless of whether or not we can identify it, I'm not simply willing to write off the experiences of many in this thread as them 'imagining things'. There's really no reason for anyone in this day and age to pre-judge a box-section rim superior in any way ('cept 'old skool' cred), in fact, the marketing, advertising, and 'cool factor' trends/image of aero wheels would all tend to bias ppl towards thinking the aero wheels were awesome in every way. 

Why do you think I bought the Rolfs? :wink5:
.


----------



## skepticman (Dec 25, 2005)

Fixed said:


> Is there any other possibility than this? Can you think of any way a wheel could be more comfortable without the wheel radius being shortened under compression?


1. The frequency and amplitude of the vibration from an impact transmitted through the tire, rim, spokes and fork/frame to the bars or saddle. Since objects have a frequency at which they resonate and the shape and composition of the object will affect how much of the vibration is transmitted or converted to heat, there will be variation from one wheel to another, one frame/fork to another, and from one bike as a whole to another.

2. The width of the rim and also the way that the bead of the tire is seated against the rim could make the footprint of the tire narrower or wider, or longer or shorter, or could change the sidewall height. This could reduce or increase the amount of deflection that the tire is capable of during an impact, admittedly probably by a small amount.

That's just a couple ideas off the top of my head.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> I was able to definitely notice a difference in harshness between two front wheels I had. One was a traditional box section Torelli Master rim, 32-hole, 3x. The other was a Velocity Deep V, laced radially. Both used the exact same tire. At first, I thought it was my imagination, then I thought it must be a tire pressure issue. But after adjusting the tire pressure to be sure, I still noticed the difference. And I'd notice it without trying to notice it. Time and time again, riding over the same roads, I'd find myself suddenly thinking, "Man, I've got to decrease the pressure in these tires.", then remembering I was riding the Velocity wheels. What isn't clear to me is how much affect the profile had versus the affect the radial lacing had.
> 
> I currently have an Open Pro wheel and a Velocity Synergy wheel. Measured with a pair of calipers, both have the same profile, around 18.55 mm. So I don't think you'd notice a difference between those wheels, provided they're laced the same.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jesse, this is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. :thumbsup: 

And I'm very interested to hear about what your comfort experience are with the DT R1.1s, as that's one of the rims on my short list.

I do worry though, as my old Rolfs weren't all that deep (by today's standards)– 25mm – and DT R1.1s aren't that far off, at 21mm. 
But of course, there may be more at work than just simple rim depth/cross-section.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*that, too*



SystemShock said:


> But that's just it... I think we all agree that wheels don't exhibit a great deal of vertical deformation. Yet, at the same time, neither does an asphalt surface when a runner's foot strikes it (to use Dauphin's example). Yet, even so, many runners prefer an asphalt surface to concrete, even though asphalt does not 'flex' or deform to what we'd tend to judge as a 'significant' degree.
> 
> How do we explain this? Is it just 'mass hallucination', or is there perhaps some other phenomena at work? Suppression of NVH? Something else that no one's thought of? :idea:
> 
> ...


I have run track, cross country, marathons, and ultramarathons, and I never got the asphalt v. concrete thing, either. The force that your feet see equals change in velocity over time ("delta V" -- right?), and when a shoe hits the pavement, how much distance does the pavement move? For there to be a difference, for a given amount of mass pressing down on the pavement at a given speed, it must take longer for the change in velocity to take place. It can only take longer if the asphalt compresses more than the concrete, right? 

As pointed out in another post, I suppose things like vibration damping and rim width, which affects tire shape, could matter. I'll grant that. I have seen studies that show that carbon fiber really does damp vibration more than metal frames; I don't know if that would apply to carbon rims (for a given shape) and spokes, though. I don't think that is what you were asking about, though, and besides, typically carbon rims are deep section, which you'd think would be less forgiving than any box aluminum shape, even assuming the box aluminum does deform.

You and others keep repeating that there really is a detectable difference. If that's the case, then I think you can only go with what you know, because I'm not aware of any scientific basis for it, and a scientific basis is what it would take to have the ability to repeat and verify the conclusions.

I'll grant, however lacking in measureable significance it may be, that a 60 mm deep section, heavily constructed rim, with high tensioned spokes, would logically be less forgiving than a 20 mm lightweight aluminum box section tubular rim. 

BTW, how should a carbon fiber disk wheel feel?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Jesse D Smith said:


> I'm not sure if this was in jest, or serious. It's doesn't sound like something coming from someone who puts trusts in scientific tests, being aware of constants and variables, etc.


Serious... if you can bounce two different wheels (while holding them in your hand) with the same tires and tubes pumped to the same amount, and you can feel a difference in vibration attenuation, then that would tell us something... that vibration damping properties of a wheel might be large enough to feel. We know deflection is nil, so vibration damping is the only other possibility.

If that checks out, then it might make sense to investigate further.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*makes sense*



adauphin said:


> Seems to be a pattern here and I believe I understand what you are getting at, but it's not always "vertical compliance"
> 
> For example....to stop a cymbal from ringing all you have to do is touch it. Anything heard is a vibration, that will never change. You are not really going to hear all vibrations but you can surely feel it, the human ear can hear down to 20 Hz and sometimes less, an occasional bump in the road is what...1 Hz. I don't recommend doing this but try listening to a tone generator at around 40 Hz and see how your body feels after that, worse than a car stereo 20' away in traffic shaking your guts out and you don't know where it's coming from.
> 
> ...


I can buy the vibration theory, particularly with pavement, but what actually does damp vibration may be counterintuitive or masked by other factors. Carbon should damp better than metal, but isn't it a common belief that aluminum rims and steel frames give the most comfortable ride? 

My theory is that low profile aluminum rims, high spoke counts, with wider tires are more typically found on relaxed geometry "more comfortable" frame designs, with other components more oriented toward comfort. On the other hand, deep section carbon low spoke count wheels are more typically found on short wheel base, steep angled, racing or time trial bikes with designs and components more oriented toward pure speed than comfort. Therefore, there is a common belief that the wheels are the cause of the comfort.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

As it turns out I do have an old trainer wheel... 32h CXP22 that is cross laced on both sides, with a 23mm Rubino Pro... and I compared that to 24h Kinlin XR300 that laced 2x radial with a GP4000S.

Based solely on feel it is very hard to tell a difference in vibration... they both vibrate a little and this disappears after a few seconds. But the XR300 makes a noise that sounds like the rim ringing, and the CXP22 is relatively quiet.

Could the difference be largely acoustic?


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*bikes?*



twinkles said:


> If there is no difference from one wheel to another, why do the pros complain about riding full disk wheels cause they are so harsh.


What kind of bikes usually have disk wheels? Is there anything about them that might contribute to less comfort, other than the wheel itself?


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*final thoughts*



rruff said:


> As it turns out I do have an old trainer wheel... 32h CXP22 that is cross laced on both sides, with a 23mm Rubino Pro... and I compared that to 24h Kinlin XR300 that laced 2x radial with a GP4000S.
> 
> Based solely on feel it is very hard to tell a difference in vibration... they both vibrate a little and this disappears after a few seconds. But the XR300 makes a noise that sounds like the rim ringing, and the CXP22 is relatively quiet.
> 
> Could the difference be largely acoustic?


I think bouncing a wheel off the ground would tell me about as much about how it rides as bouncing a pair of handlebars off the ground would tell me about how they'd feel. Both are clamped and under the influence of outside stresses when they are used as intended. Different factors influencing their vibrational characteristics when bounced freely are both present and missing, versus when their clamped onto a bicycle and bearing the weight of a rider in motion.

I'm comfortable with trusting that some people can feel the difference and some people can't. I'm not comfortable making a conclusive statement that everyone can feel the difference or nobody can feel the difference. If I can or can't feel the difference, I'm not going to take it as a superior or inferior quality. 
I wish I _couldn't_ feel the difference. I'm not going to dogmatically hold onto a view that seems to limit my options. If I felt no difference, or the difference I felt didn't bother me, I could ride deeper section wheels which are stronger, with lower spoke counts, or open up options for weight savings, superior strength, etc. I wish I _couldn't_ feel the difference between 23 mm tires and 28 mm tires. I could save some rotational weight with the smaller tires. If I was comfortable on any saddle, I could opt for the lightest saddle instead of riding a heavy Rolls.

Now the differences I felt between the box section rims and the Velocity Deep V's was about ten years ago. I now know how to build wheels, so I have an opportunity to build some up and see if I still feel a difference. If I do, I'll post the results. If I had the money, I'd try to cover more variables, like building up two sets of Deep V's, one radial and one 3x. Then have two sets of Open Pros, Torelli Masters, or Ambrosio Excellence box section wheels, one radial and one 3x. But in the end, I'm confident any results I posted would still just be my own subjective feelings, and nothing objective, to be taken as a metaphysical certitude and followed by others.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*just realized something*

I just realized that there is a real solution, much similar to some inventions of Sheldon Brown: http://sheldonbrown.com/humor/index.html 

Doesn't it make more sense that tangential spokes will transmit less impact to the hub, and therefore the rider, than radial spokes? With a tangential spoke, when the impact is transmitted through the rim, the force is acting as a lever on the other end of the spoke, rather than being transmitted directly upward with a radial spoke.

Now, you may be thinking that opposing, leading and trailing, spokes would cancel each other out, but I believe there is a solution to that, with additional benefits.

Build the wheel with *only* trailing spokes on both sides. Then, every time you hit a bump, the force applied to the spokes actually helps to rotate the wheel forward, giving you additional speed! Check it out in the diagram (from Sheldon) -- as seen from the right, if there is a bump, the force works to rotate the wheel clockwise, causing accelleration, plus it's more comfortable!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> I can buy the vibration theory, particularly with pavement, but what actually does damp vibration may be counterintuitive or masked by other factors. Carbon should damp better than metal, but isn't it a common belief that aluminum rims and steel frames give the most comfortable ride?


Actually, I thought carbon bikes were allegedly the 'comfort kings'. Though it's hard to say whether that's just a marketing message, or ppl's true perceptions independent of said marketing message (some mix of the two?).

I would also think that differences in frame design would matter as much or more than differences in frame material... with the possible exception of aluminum, which due to its inherent properties (no fatigue limit), pretty much has to be overbuilt some to have long-term durability.



> _My theory is that low profile aluminum rims, high spoke counts, with wider tires are more typically found on relaxed geometry "more comfortable" frame designs, with other components more oriented toward comfort. On the other hand, deep section carbon low spoke count wheels are more typically found on short wheel base, steep angled, racing or time trial bikes with designs and components more oriented toward pure speed than comfort. Therefore, there is a common belief that the wheels are the cause of the comfort._


That's an interesting theory, and could explain the experiences of *some* ppl.

But, it doesn't really explain my experience, where I was noticing a huge comfort difference between two different wheelsets on the _same_ bike with the _same_ tires.

And some others in the thread also seem to have had that same experience– same bike, different wheelsets, significant comfort differences noted.
.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Jesse D Smith said:


> I think bouncing a wheel off the ground would tell me about as much about how it rides as bouncing a pair of handlebars off the ground would tell me about how they'd feel. Both are clamped and under the influence of outside stresses when they are used as intended. Different factors influencing their vibrational characteristics when bounced freely are both present and missing, versus when their clamped onto a bicycle and bearing the weight of a rider in motion.


Greater mass and more damping material means that the wheels will vibrate *less* while actually riding. I'm no vibration expert, but giving the wheels a sharp jolt and allowing them to vibrate at their natural frequency seems like a worst case scenario. 

Handlebars don't normally bounce on the ground, but wheels do. But still if you wanted to compare the vibration damping qualities of handlebars made from two different materials you could do something similar.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Actually, I thought carbon bikes were allegedly the 'comfort kings'. Though it's hard to say whether that's just a marketing message, or ppl's true perceptions independent of said marketing message (some mix of the two?).
> 
> I would also think that differences in frame design would matter as much or more than differences in frame material... with the possible exception of aluminum, which due to its inherent properties (no fatigue limit), pretty much has to be overbuilt some to have long-term durability.
> 
> ...


But what if it varies from wheel to wheel, with some wheels acting as resonant dampeners and some not? It would explain why you felt the difference, but others who tested wheels bases solely on rim shape found no difference. You had a 'tuned' wheel set (quite accidentally tuned) that dissipated shock. You switched to different wheels with a different rim shape; they didn't. So you logically think it has to do with rim shape, when it fact it's the whole wheel system- rim, spokes, spoke tension, everything. If others have noticed this, and if it's more likely that a box shaped rim gets that 'magic' accidental tuning because of spoke length or spoke number or some other factor, then I could see how it would become dogma that box rims are 'smoother' than aero rims. Naturally the aero rim makers think this is silly because they can prove box rims and aero rims deflect the same amount, but if every box rim doesn't end up tuned for resonant absorption, then they could easily conclude that it's just a 'myth.' That's the only way I can explain why you're so certain that your box rim wheels were easier on you than aero rims. If, on the other hand, you say that you've ridden a dozen sets of box rims and a dozen sets of aero rims and the box rims are always gentler, then I have no explanation.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*describe further?*



SystemShock said:


> Actually, I thought carbon bikes were allegedly the 'comfort kings'. Though it's hard to say whether that's just a marketing message, or ppl's true perceptions independent of said marketing message (some mix of the two?).
> 
> I would also think that differences in frame design would matter as much or more than differences in frame material... with the possible exception of aluminum, which due to its inherent properties (no fatigue limit), pretty much has to be overbuilt some to have long-term durability.
> 
> ...


I'm willing to keep an open mind, so could you play along and maybe try to describe the differences in feel? In other words, it is road buzz on chipseal; a cushy feeling v. harsh when riding over tar strips; something vague that you really can't pin down?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> I'm willing to keep an open mind, so could you play along and maybe try to describe the differences in feel? In other words, it is road buzz on chipseal; a cushy feeling v. harsh when riding over tar strips; something vague that you really can't pin down?


I still have the Rolf Vectors, so yeah, I could dig 'em out, put 'em on, and try to give you a more detailed description than "Wow, they're harsh."  

I'm booked up pretty solid for the next week or so though (am traveling out of state, am bringing a bike, am _not_ bringing the Rolfs, for obvious reasons), so it'll be awhile.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*that's alright*



SystemShock said:


> I still have the Rolf Vectors, so yeah, I could dig 'em out, put 'em on, and try to give you a more detailed description than "Wow, they're harsh."
> 
> I'm booked up pretty solid for the next week or so though (am traveling out of state, am bringing a bike, am _not_ bringing the Rolfs, for obvious reasons), so it'll be awhile.
> .


No need to bother. I thought it might have been a more vivid memory.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> No need to bother. I thought it might have been a more vivid memory.


Oh, it was vivid all right.  
.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> VeloOrange just came out with a new polished box-section rim (the Paris-Brest-Paris), shades of the ole MA2. What do ppl think of these?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not too encouraged with the statement-"We paid ..... a lot more for a high polish finish." 
Why would you pay anything to polish the brake surface which will be unpolished the very first time you apply the brakes? Would this have been a $40-$45 rim if they had not wasted money on a useless feature? Having a pair of these cost less than $100 including shipping would be a huge selling point, setting them apart from so many others. And the high polish seem to accomplish nothing but making it look like a Huffy's chromed steel boat anchors. Any retrogrouch who will appreciate a polished finish should be given the opportunity to get the satisfaction out of polishing them themselves with a Dremel tool on low speed and a fabric wheel. 
IMO, the Torelli Triumph is a better rim, same dimension, solid reputation, , and comes in gold, silver, or black. 
Still, $50 isn't a bad price for a quality double-wall, eyeletted rim.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

Well, I'm pleased the thread has evolved to a more active discussion of what it could be than the naysayers trumpeting old clichés.

I mean really, some "study" by Mavic who cornered the market on mass produced machine made lower spoke count wheels says people can't tell comfort. All I see is old marketing by Mavic trying to make you believe a wheel is a wheel in terms of comfort so why not buy our shiny low spoke count wheels and they have style vs those handbuilt ones.

There are quite a few threads like this one over the years with posters posting this same question about wheel comfort and given the lack of technical knowledge of how their bikes work, I'd say you can't get a better real-world blind study. Mavic can keep working on trying to sell R-Sys 3.0.

I agree with the attention being paid to vibrations vs vertical rim compliance. Vertical rim deflection or compliance is a non issue, so small not worth talking about. Vibrations on the other had is where it is at which is why I mentioned spoke tension earlier. I know spoke tension get no love here from the wheel builders but some seem to be open to the idea now so I'll give the following analogy.

For anyone that has ever hit a baseball with a hollow metal bat with little to no grip will appreciate how much a loose grip deadens the vibrations of the hit and how much a tight grip can actually hurt. This is the same issue with high tension spokes, they transmit the vibrations a lot more efficiently between the rim and the hub as they essentially have tighter grips on both.

Add in the tangential spokes idea shared by Fixed (BTW, I posted a thread about this a year or more ago and it got poopoo'd quick) and more spoke mass typical of higher spoke count but lower tensioned wheels to me is the answer to the OP's question....and possible rim widths too...I have no idea if late 90's Rolfs are as narrow as the ones sold today though.


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

Fixed said:


> Just think about this logically (but I think this has been run through many times).
> 
> For a wheel to be "more comfortable," it must be flexing, right? At the point where the tire meets the ground, the rim just above that must actually move or flex vertically, which means the spokes must detension or compress (both). Let's agree that for you to feel the difference, there must be some measurable flex -- that is, the radius of he wheel at 6 o'clock must be shorter when you hit an object than it is just rolling along.
> 
> ...


I have tested radial deflection on multiple wheels using a dial indicator and a sturdy test rig to hold the wheel in place. A measurable amount of deflection (to the order of .001") will occur with very little force (30lbs-40lbs) applied to the rim. Most wheels can handle 650lbs of force with no more than .05"-06" (1.27mm-1.52mm) of deflection. The difference I have measured between a flexy wheel versus a stiff wheel is no more than 1mm.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

ssauter said:


> I have tested radial deflection on multiple wheels using a dial indicator and a sturdy test rig to hold the wheel in place. A measurable amount of deflection (to the order of .001") will occur with very little force (30lbs-40lbs) applied to the rim. Most wheels can handle 650lbs of force with no more than .05"-06" (1.27mm-1.52mm) of deflection. The difference I have measured between a flexy wheel versus a stiff wheel is no more than 1mm.


What we don't know for sure is whether that one millimeter can be felt by any one rider once it completes whatever process of transmission occurs from rim deflection to the rider's body as a whole. Again, we're left with each individual rider's subjective feelings.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Going down the 'vertical compliance isn't enough to matter' road, let me ask a Q:

Say person A falls off a building. In this scenario, they hit a surface that de-accelerates them to zero while giving 1mm.

Then we have person B. They fall off of a building of the same height, and hit a surface that de-accelerates them to zero in 2mm.

All else being equal, does person B then experience half the G-force de-acceleration on impact of person A? 

Don't know the answer, but was curious.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*sure*



SystemShock said:


> Going down the 'vertical compliance isn't enough to matter' road, let me ask a Q:
> 
> Say person A falls off a building. In this scenario, they hit a surface that de-accelerates them to zero while giving 1mm.
> 
> ...


Yes, you might change from 1000 g's at 1 mm to 500 g's at 2 mm (change in speed over time), both of which would turn you into a puddle.

However, do you think anything other than a catastrophic impact with a rim, taking into the compression of the tire and vertical movement of the entire bike/rider, will produce a force sufficient to compress a rim/wheel even 1 mm?

Anyone want to spring for one of these? http://www.allproducts.com/machine/chunyen/Product-20086101552.html


----------



## Zachariah (Jan 29, 2009)

Does riding on a 20mm tire feel like riding on bare rim?


----------



## connie (Jul 30, 2006)

I think the running analogy is the same debate. I have heard many runners advocate asphalt over concrete. However, I am unaware of any study that would demonstrate any difference in the compression of standard, worn street asphalt over concrete at the force levels that a human foot might apply. Given the shock absorbing capacity of the shoe materials spread out over the point of impact my experience would tell me there is no way that either road material has any difference in "give." There does just not appear to be enough force generated. We know there is some flex in every wheel. If the max. flex of a standard rim is in the area of 1mm the difference in flex between wheels must be less given the same force applied. The available difference would on the surface appear to be insubstantial.

I take you at your word, but you must realize that there are probably only a handful of people in the world that are as sensitive as you, and therefore the amount of assistance that you can expect to receive will be limited as well. Your personal experience is probably the only valid guide you have.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> But, it doesn't really explain my experience, where I was noticing a huge comfort difference between two different wheelsets on the _same_ bike with the _same_ tires.


You should go with what you think you know. Everyone has an opinion, I guess.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*tires?*



ssauter said:


> I have tested radial deflection on multiple wheels using a dial indicator and a sturdy test rig to hold the wheel in place. A measurable amount of deflection (to the order of .001") will occur with very little force (30lbs-40lbs) applied to the rim. Most wheels can handle 650lbs of force with no more than .05"-06" (1.27mm-1.52mm) of deflection. The difference I have measured between a flexy wheel versus a stiff wheel is no more than 1mm.


If there is a tire mounted and pressurized to 100 to 120 psi, can you still measure any deflection of the rim? Does the load applied to the tire spread the force out sufficiently over the rim such that it deflects less? 

Also, recall that we are discussing the differences between wheels. If all deflect 1 mm, then you would not discern one from another. If one deflects 1 mm and another 3 mm, particularly with a tire mounted, then I'd grant that someone might be able to tell the difference.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*mass*



rruff said:


> Greater mass and more damping material means that the wheels will vibrate *less* while actually riding. I'm no vibration expert, but giving the wheels a sharp jolt and allowing them to vibrate at their natural frequency seems like a worst case scenario.
> 
> Handlebars don't normally bounce on the ground, but wheels do. But still if you wanted to compare the vibration damping qualities of handlebars made from two different materials you could do something similar.


For what it's worth, Damon Rinard, as reported by Sheldon Brown, did a lot of testing of lateral stiffness in various wheels, and found that 2 mm straight guage spokes are significantly stiffer than double butted thin guage spokes. Further, spoke tension did not matter much, until the spoke was nearly without tension. 

Now, that's purely lateral stiffness. He did not address vertical compliance, but it may be reasonable to conclude that vertical compliance, if measurable, would follow the same tendencies.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm

How this affects vibration, I have no idea. Does higher mass damp vibration more or transmit it more? Does it depend on the frequency?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

rruff said:


> Greater mass and more damping material means that the wheels will vibrate *less* while actually riding. I'm no vibration expert, but giving the wheels a sharp jolt and allowing them to vibrate at their natural frequency seems like a worst case scenario.
> 
> Handlebars don't normally bounce on the ground, but wheels do. But still if you wanted to compare the vibration damping qualities of handlebars made from two different materials you could do something similar.


What if their natural frequency is equal but opposite the original jolt, kind of like a Hemholzt Resonator in acoustics, which is a passive system of tensioned membranes that can cancel even very low frequency waves larger than the resonator itself? Obviously I'm not suggesting that the wheel is an actual Hemholzt Resonator, just that a system of tensioned metal might be acting similarly to passively cancel road vibration and bumps, albeit accidentally- built as a bike wheel, but when certain sizes, shapes, and tensions are used, happens to cancel road vibration. That would explain the 'wheel comfort' that some people swear they feel.


----------



## UrbanPrimitive (Jun 14, 2009)

Fixed said:


> Build the wheel with *only* trailing spokes on both sides.


Wouldn't that require the spokes to withstand tension and compression? I understand that as long as there is acceleration the energy of the hub pulling the rim would work in that layout. Unfortunately when the wheel is at rest or, heaven forbid, you jam in a skip-stop, all that energy is converted from tension to compression on the spokes. Wasn't this part of the problem with the R-Sys? It'd be cool if you're right, I'm just not sure it works.

***scratching head***


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*serious?*



UrbanPrimitive said:


> Wouldn't that require the spokes to withstand tension and compression? I understand that as long as there is acceleration the energy of the hub pulling the rim would work in that layout. Unfortunately when the wheel is at rest or, heaven forbid, you jam in a skip-stop, all that energy is converted from tension to compression on the spokes. Wasn't this part of the problem with the R-Sys? It'd be cool if you're right, I'm just not sure it works.
> 
> ***scratching head***


Please check out the link to Sheldon Brown's inventions, then reconsider (the seriousness of) your question. ;-)


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> *Yes, you might change from 1000 g's at 1 mm to 500 g's at 2 mm* (change in speed over time), both of which would turn you into a puddle.


Well, of course, that depends on the height of the building. If it's only a three-story, I doubt anyone's getting internally liquified on impact... which does happen if the fall is long enough.  

But what I'm thinking about is the following– and I'm no physicist, so this could be the wrong way to think about it:

The common way to think about vertical compliance on the bike system comes across as it happening all at once... a bump or road deformation is hit, the bike system flexes, say, 12mm, most of which is in the tires... so nothing else but the tires are considered to really matter in terms of comfort. Rims, spokes, frame, seatpost, saddle, all of these flex vertically only a little bit each, so they _can't possibly_ have an effect on comfort (keeping NVH suppression/damping out of it for the moment).

But that's almost like thinking about the impact happening simultaneously throughout the entire system. Is there– and again, this is from the non-physicist pov–any reason I shouldn't think about it in more sequential terms?  

As in, bike hits a bump, tires flex, and a force of X g's is transmitted to the rims. The rims flex– only a tiny bit– but as we've seen from the falling-off-the-building example, flexing a tiny bit vs flexing half-of-a-tiny-bit can make a difference in the amount of G's transmitted.

Then some reduced amt of G's are transmitted to the spokes, which flex in response, again, a tiny bit. But this still reduces the G's transmitted some... at least more than if they flexed half-of-a-tiny-bit. Same thing happens at the frame. Then the seatpost. Then the seat. Finally, whatever amt of G's are left are transmitted to the rider.

I don't know if this 'sequential filtering of G's' can be significant, but, going back to falling off a building... if I fall off a building, and we assume the fall is of any kind of survivable height, and I have the choice, I want to land on hard-packed dirt instead of concrete, correct? Even though the hard-packed dirt is going to give only a small amount. 

Just thinking out loud here. It's possible that the whole thing is just an NVH-damping exercise, but I'm trying to see a conception/way-of-thinking of the problem that satisfies both the science buffs _and_ the ppl who've experienced things (in both wheel and frame comfort) that don't fit the commonly-accepted model.

Again, I'm not a physicist, and the attempt may be in vain.
./


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

Ride more and post less 20 paragraph posts on this thread. You will get in better shape and your wheels will feel more comfy.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Ride more and post less 20 paragraph posts on this thread. You will get in better shape and your wheels will feel more comfy.


Well, while we're all dispensing advice CS, I'd say try to cut back on the pithy wisecracks you seem so addicted to... you'll find that ppl will shun you less. :wink5:
.


----------



## UrbanPrimitive (Jun 14, 2009)

<--- slaps forehead

Nevermind. Funny though!


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

Topolinos.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Well, while we're all dispensing advice CS, I'd say try to cut back on the pithy wisecracks you seem so addicted to... you'll find that ppl will shun you less. :wink5:
> .


Petty wisecrack? Seemed like good advise.:thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Petty wisecrack? Seemed like good advise.:thumbsup:


You mean good "advice". But, if you mistake 9 paragraphs for 20, not sure anything I can come up with is going to help you.
.


----------



## jmess (Aug 24, 2006)

So now we have wheels that with spoke ends that can rotate on the hub as they flex.

http://www.velonews.com/photo/96322


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> You mean good "advice". But, if you mistake 9 paragraphs for 20, not sure anything I can come up with is going to help you.
> .


I had no idea I was doing so poorly in the RBR popularity contest. 

Thanks for *advising* me.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> Ride more and post less 20 paragraph posts on this thread. You will get in better shape and your wheels will feel more comfy.


I'm going to agree with this, i ride a "stiff" cervelo carbon soloist with 404wheels daily as well as on 5hr+ days and to me it feels ultra plush. I never quite understand where the harshness and bone jarring stuff comes from.Even my aluminium cannondale feels comfy. When i first started riding, i used to get really sore and uncomfortable after about 2hours, i got fit and all of this went away.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

Here's Jobst Brandt on the topic:

Considering that spoke elasticity accounts for about 1/100 the radial
(vertical) motion of the hub (in a 36 spoke wheel) with respect to the
road and that differences among wheels varies as the number of spokes
in the load affected zone, the person who can feel this would need to
be able to feel a bump when riding over a sheet of copier paper
(0.003").

http://www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-374549.html

Lew Wheels used to have something in their FAQ dismissing the whole idea of wheel comfort but their new site doesn't seem to have a FAQ


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> As in, bike hits a bump, tires flex, and a force of X g's is transmitted to the rims. The rims flex– only a tiny bit– but as we've seen from the falling-off-the-building example, flexing a tiny bit vs flexing half-of-a-tiny-bit can make a difference in the amount of G's transmitted.


This is more like landing on a big air cushioned bag. Does it matter if the bag is on concrete or asphalt? 

In the case of the wheels we've already shown that the deflection is very tiny compared to other parts of the bike. If your comfy wheels are 1% of the total deflection when you hit a bump, then even if your wheels were solid as a rock, you'd only be losing 1%.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

California L33 said:


> What if their natural frequency is equal but opposite the original jolt, kind of like a Hemholzt Resonator in acoustics, which is a passive system of tensioned membranes that can cancel even very low frequency waves larger than the resonator itself? Obviously I'm not suggesting that the wheel is an actual Hemholzt Resonator, just that a system of tensioned metal might be acting similarly to passively cancel road vibration and bumps, albeit accidentally- built as a bike wheel, but when certain sizes, shapes, and tensions are used, happens to cancel road vibration. That would explain the 'wheel comfort' that some people swear they feel.


Now if you could only develop a theory around this, test it for efficacy, and produce a model to custom tune wheels that will cancel out vibration for a particular rider, bike, and road conditions...

Like I said, I'm no expert on vibration... but when we have stuff like air-filled rubbery tires with butyl tubes in the system, I'm skeptical of rigid metal parts being able to offer much of significance in the way of damping.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> I had no idea I was doing so poorly in the RBR popularity contest.
> 
> Thanks for *advising* me.


Now you're getting it. :wink5:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> This is more like landing on a big air cushioned bag. Does it matter if the bag is on concrete or asphalt?


What if the inflated bag was less than an inch-thick, and highly pressurized? And the choice of surfaces was more like concrete vs hard-packed dirt? Could it matter then? Would the g-forces transmitted to the person falling be exactly the same in that case? 



> _In the case of the wheels we've already shown that the deflection is very tiny compared to other parts of the bike. If your comfy wheels are 1% of the total deflection when you hit a bump, then even if your wheels were solid as a rock, you'd only be losing 1%._


You're just re-iterating the mainstream theory I already re-iterated in the '20-paragraph' post (with apologies to CS :lol. I'm aware of what the mainstream view says – with all the re-iterations of it, I think we all are by now– I'm just trying to come up with a different conception, _any_ conception, that could possibly explain what so many ppl, runners, bikers, etc, are experiencing.

Maybe it's just NVH suppression/damping? Differing spoke tension? The tire profile being changed by differing rim widths? Small amounts of flex actually making a difference in the g-forces transmitted once the lion's share of the bump has been dealt with by the tires? :idea: 

Come to think of it, you style yourself the 'scientist', while I allegedly am stickin' pins in voodoo dolls ... perhaps you have some original thinking that could be useful here?

Otherwise, all we really have is this:

'Science' guys: We don't believe you, for the commonly-accepted theory tells us so.

'Experience' guys: Well, be that as it may, we know what we're experiencing, so we're just gonna have to assume science can't explain it yet and continue to go with what works for us.


But y'know, lots of disagreements in this sport are of a 'tastes great, less filling nature' (tubular vs clincher, CF vs steel, 53-39 vs compact vs triple), and go on forever, no matter how adamantly or scientifically they're argued. Same as it ever was, and this thread won't resolve it.

All I wanted was some good rim-buying advice from the segment of the populace that does believe they make a diff in comfort. I've gotten some of that, but I've gotten three parts debate (and flames) to one part useful advice thus far. Guess that's just biking forums for ya.








.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> But, lots of disagreements in this sport are of a 'tastes great, less filling nature' *(tubular vs clincher, CF vs steel, 53-39 vs compact vs triple)*, and go on forever, no matter how adamantly or scientifically they're argued. Same as it ever was, and this thread won't resolve it.


The two examples you just gave have noticeable difference in feel to most any rider who has tried both. What you're asking in this thread is what you call "voodoo" and is in your head. Understand the difference. Because there is a huge difference.

When you find the magic carpet rim, let us know. I'll buy a set and lace um up w/ 06 record hubs I have stashed away...:thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> The two examples you just gave have noticeable difference in feel to most any rider who has tried both. What you're asking in this thread is what *I would consider* <del>you call</del> "voodoo" and *in my opinion* is in your head.


Fixed that for ya. :wink5:

Srsly CS, I believe in science, not voodoo. In fact, I believe in science so much that I believe there's a perfect scientific explanation for what so many are experiencing... it's just that we don't seem to have found it yet.

But 'til then, I guess the frustrated 'science guys' are just going to have to continue to write it off as mass hallucination. That is the easiest answer.
.


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

Fixed said:


> If there is a tire mounted and pressurized to 100 to 120 psi, can you still measure any deflection of the rim? Does the load applied to the tire spread the force out sufficiently over the rim such that it deflects less?
> 
> Also, recall that we are discussing the differences between wheels. If all deflect 1 mm, then you would not discern one from another. If one deflects 1 mm and another 3 mm, particularly with a tire mounted, then I'd grant that someone might be able to tell the difference.


Whether a tire is mounted on the rim or not, deflection should be nearly identical for a given force. The tire does not spread the force out. The tire only slows the acceleration down when you hit a bump so that less force reaches the rim.
I have tested OP rims, DT 1.1 rims, deep V rims, and zipp 404 carbon rims for radial defection with varying spoke counts and spoke types. the largest variance I have gotten between the stiffest wheel I ever tested and the flimsiest wheel is about 1.6mm.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

SystemShock said:


> Thanks Jesse, this is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. :thumbsup:
> 
> And I'm very interested to hear about what your comfort experience are with the DT R1.1s, as that's one of the rims on my short list.
> 
> ...


The DT rim came today. It's 20.8 mm tall. I've read discussions in this and other forums regarding possible durability issues with the rim. This rim comes in two versions. One version has stainless eyelets on the spoke holes of the inner wall. Another version has stainless eyelets that cover both the inner and outer wall. Some people have reported problems with the eyelets pulling through on the version with the single wall eyelets. I have this single eyeletted version in a 28-spoke model (I got it for $40, so what the hell.)
I'm going to go ahead and build this up with a Dura Ace 7900 rear hub, using Wheelsmith DB 14 spokes. I only weigh about 140 lbs, so I may be able to get away with using a bit less tension, which may help prevent the spokes pulling through. Any report on my experience would be limited to that specific build, but if any difference in ride quality is obvious, I'll speak up.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ssauter said:


> *Whether a tire is mounted on the rim or not, deflection should be nearly identical for a given force. *
> 
> The tire does not spread the force out. The tire only slows the acceleration down when you hit a bump so that less force reaches the rim.


If that's true, then perhaps we should be more concerned with the _speed_ of any deflection (i.e. g-forces transmitted), rather than just the amount.
.


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> If that's true, then perhaps we should be more concerned with the _speed_ of any deflection (i.e. g-forces transmitted), rather than just the amount.
> .



The only thing that increased acceleration does is increase the force on the rim. A wheel will deform the same whether a force is applied gradually or the same force is applied suddenly thus speed really won't help answer your questions. The only theory I could come up with where speed could play a factor is in harmonics of the wheel, but I don't know enough about harmonics to elaborate on that theory.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Henry Chinaski said:


> Here's Jobst Brandt on the topic:
> 
> Considering that spoke elasticity accounts for about 1/100 the radial
> (vertical) motion of the hub (in a 36 spoke wheel) with respect to the
> ...


Its not the spokes, its the rims deforming. Or didn't y'all look at the link I posted up?

I'm gonna add to this by dragging the forks into the discussion since we've gone to harmonics and stuff. I had a TET cross bike with a steel fork and an S-Works with a carbon fork. The big hits felt the same on both, but the carbon fork had less 'zing' coming thru to the bars. Carbon damped the vibrations but didn't do anything for the feeling coming thru the bars when I hit say a stick.

M


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*both?*



MShaw said:


> Its not the spokes, its the rims deforming. Or didn't y'all look at the link I posted up?
> 
> I'm gonna add to this by dragging the forks into the discussion since we've gone to harmonics and stuff. I had a TET cross bike with a steel fork and an S-Works with a carbon fork. The big hits felt the same on both, but the carbon fork had less 'zing' coming thru to the bars. Carbon damped the vibrations but didn't do anything for the feeling coming thru the bars when I hit say a stick.
> 
> M


If the rim is deforming, wouldn't the spokes attached to the rim detension at that point of impact? 

Spokes stretch under tension, so if they are detensioned, the should compress, down to the point of their original length with no tension at all. Beyond that pont, with additional deforming of the rim, the spoke nipple would extend downward toward the tube, or the spoke would bend. 

Has anyone measured how much spokes stretch for a given tension? I understand that thin gauge spoke stretch more than a standard 2 mm straight gauge spoke, but how much different? 

Seems to me that if you wanted a "more comfortable" wheel, you would want to use thin spokes that are stretched more when tensioned during the build, so they have a greater capacity to compress (returning to their original length) upon detensioning from impact. So, DT Revolution spokes should be more comfortable than straight gauge spokes, right?


----------



## DeLuz (Aug 1, 2008)

Maybe another possibilty is the way the tire seats to the box rim vs the Rolf deep section rim. If the tire is sitting deeper into the rim, there would be less tire that could compress. This is something you could simply measure with a ruler. I also have a general belief that different wheels do not vary noticably in comfort. This is often given as a reason why two different bikes / frames have different ride comfort. I have noticed a difference in tires such as the GP4000s being bumpier than a Pro2. I am not sure if this difference is real or imagined.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ssauter said:


> The only thing that increased acceleration does is increase the force on the rim. A wheel will deform the same whether a force is applied gradually or the same force is applied suddenly thus speed really won't help answer your questions.


Well, you stated that the rim deflects pretty much the same amount whether a tire is mounted for not. Accepting that as true, it seems to me that there'd be a major comfort difference riding on bare rims vs riding with tires mounted.

So, as you seem to be saying, comfort comes from attenuating the g-forces involved, by slowing down the deflection, not lessening the _amount_ of the deflection. The rims deflect the same amount regardless (again, as you said), but how fast they deflect would seem to matter... again, bare rims vs tires mounted.

If that's true of tires, could it be true elsewhere in the bike system? Things don't deflect much elsewhere in the bike system, but if they can attenuate the g-forces transmitted somewhat, could that be of some help, comfort-wise? :idea: 

Again, just thinking out loud.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*relationship*



function said:


> I'm going to agree with this, i ride a "stiff" cervelo carbon soloist with 404wheels daily as well as on 5hr+ days and to me it feels ultra plush. I never quite understand where the harshness and bone jarring stuff comes from.Even my aluminium cannondale feels comfy. When i first started riding, i used to get really sore and uncomfortable after about 2hours, i got fit and all of this went away.


I think there is a direct relationship between harshness and how much you ride. The more I ride, the plusher my bikes get, even to the point of being comfortable doing double centuries on a track bike. Maybe the more you ride the more numb you get? ;-)


----------



## daniyarm (Aug 19, 2008)

So i'd like to offer another theory of deep vs box rims.

If you look at the cross section of the rim you will see that deep section rims are designed in such a way that if you apply force to the outside of the rim, most of it will be carried into the spoke. On a shallower rim that force will most likely be less on the spoke and much more on the rim material itself. So I would expect the shallow rim itself to deform under load and not transfer as much of that force to the spoke and therefore the bike. Plus increasing the number of spokes on shallow rim means distributing less force to each spoke, adding lower tension would definitely result in a more comfortable wheel.

I am surprised that so few people can tell the difference between wheelsets. I am not anywhere near a pro level, but at 185 lbs I can certainly tell if the wheel is comfortable or not, and not just flexy.

With your weight you should build yourself a wheelset with something like DT 1.1 double eyelet 32 spokes front and back using DT Revolution, maybe DT swiss 240 hubs. And get yourself some Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX tires and you'll will feel like you are riding a full suspension mountain bike.


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> Well, you stated that the rim deflects pretty much the same amount whether a tire is mounted for not. Accepting that as true, it seems to me that there'd be a major comfort difference riding on bare rims vs riding with tires mounted.
> 
> So, as you seem to be saying, comfort comes from attenuating the g-forces involved, by slowing down the deflection, not lessening the _amount_ of the deflection. The rims deflect the same amount regardless (again, as you said), but how fast they deflect would seem to matter... again, bare rims vs tires mounted.
> 
> ...


I am sorry, but I am having trouble clearly understanding what you just said. From what I gathered, you are saying that according to me, rims deflect the same amount regardless of whether or not there is a tire involved for a given force. There for, since it is obvious that riding on bare rims is not nearly as comfortable as riding on a tire, the speed at which the deflection occurs would cause a difference in comfort.
I think you are on the right track, but you have to take acceleration into consideration. If you are riding with a tire on a smooth surface and hit a 1" step in the road what is your vertical acceleration going to be versus if you were riding on bare rims assuming the bikes are traveling at the same speed? Since a bare rim is much more rigid than a tire its vertical displacment as it is traveling over the 1" step is much more per unit of time than a rim with a tire. This is because the tire deforms, slowing down the vertical movement of the bike over the bump per unit of time. So since a bare rim will see much higher vertical accelerations, the force on the rim will be higher causing a greater deflection than a rim with a tire. This is also why hitting a curb at 2mph will have drasticly different results on a wheel than hitting the same cub at 15mph. Because the amount of time for the wheel to get over the curb is so much less when moving at 15mph the acceleration is much greater causing a much larger force to be applied to the rim. Hope this makes some sense.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ssauter said:


> I am sorry, but I am having trouble clearly understanding what you just said. From what I gathered, you are saying that according to me, rims deflect the same amount regardless of whether or not there is a tire involved for a given force. There for, since it is obvious that riding on bare rims is not nearly as comfortable as riding on a tire, the speed at which the deflection occurs would cause a difference in comfort.
> I think you are on the right track, but you have to take acceleration into consideration. If you are riding with a tire on a smooth surface and hit a 1" step in the road what is your vertical acceleration going to be versus if you were riding on bare rims assuming the bikes are traveling at the same speed? Since a bare rim is much more rigid than a tire its vertical displacment as it is traveling over the 1" step is much more per unit of time than a rim with a tire. This is because the tire deforms, slowing down the vertical movement of the bike over the bump per unit of time. So since a bare rim will see much higher vertical accelerations, the force on the rim will be higher causing a greater deflection than a rim with a tire. This is also why hitting a curb at 2mph will have drasticly different results on a wheel than hitting the same cub at 15mph. Because the amount of time for the wheel to get over the curb is so much less when moving at 15mph the acceleration is much greater causing a much larger force to be applied to the rim. Hope this makes some sense.


That's pretty much my understanding. But thanks for illustrating it well.
.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

i dont have 10 hours to read the whole tgread but have you guys taken into account the forces on the hub dropouts from the fork?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

daniyarm said:


> So i'd like to offer another theory of deep vs box rims.
> 
> If you look at the cross section of the rim you will see that deep section rims are designed in such a way that if you apply force to the outside of the rim, most of it will be carried into the spoke. On a shallower rim that force will most likely be less on the spoke and much more on the rim material itself. So I would expect the shallow rim itself to deform under load and not transfer as much of that force to the spoke and therefore the bike. Plus increasing the number of spokes on shallow rim means distributing less force to each spoke, adding lower tension would definitely result in a more comfortable wheel.
> 
> I am surprised that so few people can tell the difference between wheelsets. I am not anywhere near a pro level, but at 185 lbs I can certainly tell if the wheel is comfortable or not, and not just flexy.


Yet another person who readily notices comfort differences between wheelsets. There's more of us than I thought. 




> With your weight you should build yourself a wheelset with something like DT 1.1 double eyelet 32 spokes front and back using DT Revolution, maybe DT swiss 240 hubs. And get yourself some Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX tires and you'll will feel like you are riding a full suspension mountain bike.


That exact rim is on my short list. I have to wonder though... DT Rev spokes, at my weight? I understand dbl-butted is the way to go, but I thought it'd be more like Competitions (2.0/1.8/2.0) or maybe Super Comps, rather than the Revs (2.0/1.5/2.0). Can they really stand up to my weight (240 lbs)? :idea: 

DT 240 hubs, I dunno, that's like $2.50 per gram saved over ultegra... I admire the quality design but they're not the most cost-effective things in the world. 

I am curious about those Vittoria tires though... I hear nothing but good things about 'em, even though I'm pretty happy so far with my Mich ProRace 2 25Cs, and am just now trying out a Challenge Parigi-Roubaix on the rear.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*no*



alexb618 said:


> i dont have 10 hours to read the whole tgread but have you guys taken into account the forces on the hub dropouts from the fork?


no...


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> I am curious about those Vittoria tires though... I hear nothing but good things about 'em, even though I'm pretty happy so far with my Mich ProRace 2 25Cs, and am just now trying out a Challenge Parigi-Roubaix on the rear.
> .


To get a taste of what the Vittorias ride like, go get some Vredstein Fortezza SEs from Performance Bikes. $30-ish ea insteada $60-ish ea. The Vredsteins don't ride quite as nice as the Vittorias, but they ride a lot nicer than them Michelins.

I'm not even gonna drag Ti spokes into this one! I always felt like I was riding a flat tire when I was riding that wheelset

M


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I am curious about those Vittoria tires though... I hear nothing but good things about 'em,.


Those tires (the best clincher IMO) will add more comfort then any rim, They are dreamy. I just got the Challenge Parigi-Roubaix. I will see how they compare this weekend..


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

As a fellow Clydesdale I understand your pain. Tires do make a big difference in your ride comfort but so does the type of wheel you ride. I ride Velocity Deep Vs for their strength (second to none) but they are a bit too stiff. I now ride 700x25 tires to soften the ride. You can ride semi-aero wheels but note that anything under 28 spokes will be stiff. My advice: avoid aero wheels. they are in deed stronger rim wise but you can get similar strength from a higher spoke count semi aero or box rim. The rims aren't as stiff and they will be very durable if built right. Also, these two choices can be built lighter than comparable aero-wheels. Sure they won't have as much bling but they will deliver the goods and they will still ride well with a good pair 700X 23 tires. This is proven by the36 spoke Mavic Open Pros that I also own. i thought that the whole stiffness thing was hogwash, but I run 23s on the OPs and they feel like the Deep Vs with 25s. As a Clyde, you probably feel the difference more than the average cyclist. I can't say whether it's fact or myth but it makes sense.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

terbennett said:


> As a fellow Clydesdale I understand your pain. Tires do make a big difference in your ride comfort but so does the type of wheel you ride. I ride Velocity Deep Vs for their strength (second to none) but they are a bit too stiff. I now ride 700x25 tires to soften the ride. You can ride semi-aero wheels but note that anything under 28 spokes will be stiff.
> 
> My advice: avoid aero wheels. they are indeed stronger rim-wise but you can get similar strength from a higher spoke count semi aero or box rim. The rims aren't as stiff and they will be very durable if built right. Also, these two choices can be built lighter than comparable aero-wheels. Sure they won't have as much bling but they will deliver the goods and they will still ride well with a good pair 700X 23 tires. This is proven by the 36-spoke Mavic Open Pros that I also own.
> 
> i thought that the whole stiffness thing was hogwash, but I run 23s on the OPs and they feel like the Deep Vs with 25s. As a Clyde, you probably feel the difference more than the average cyclist. I can't say whether it's fact or myth but it makes sense.


Thanks bennett, this is exactly the kind of info I'm curious about/am lookin' for. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

just had another wheelset built, 32h 3x laced... DA 7800 hubs and DT 1.1 rims

the difference in 'comfort' between these and the aero/radial spoked wheels they replaced is very noticeable

any doubter is welcome to come over to my house and compare


----------



## kef3844 (May 30, 2008)

Whew still going eh.....
my wheelsets in my percieved order of flexy to stiffy

Ambrosio Crono f-20 28fr/32r record hubs; conti sprinters 22
Velocity escapes 28/fr/rear record hubs; conti sprinters 22
Open pro 28fr/32 r record hubs; maxis columbiere 23
kinlin 25 mm tubular 20 /24 rol hubs; veloflex carbon 22
kinlin 27 clincher 20/24 WI hubs .. both the kinlin sets feel pretty much the same , maxis colubiere 23
Edge 38 tub, 20/24 dt 240 hubs.; veloflex carbons 22

I usually run about 105 front, 110 rear. 

All these are comfortable, but they do feel different hitting a pot hole, bump etc. They also feel ALOT different on a fast tech descent. ie, I don't ripp through corners on the Cronos, well I did once but that was the last time..
I think people confuse comfy and flexy. I'm 140 lbs so I don't stress too much of anything. Maybe big guys feel different things. dunno.

I have a freaking stiff carbon bike (Parlee Z4) / and a Moots and neither bike feels more or less comfy with any of the above wheels...


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*Update*




Jesse D Smith said:


> The DT rim came today. It's 20.8 mm tall. I've read discussions in this and other forums regarding possible durability issues with the rim. This rim comes in two versions. One version has stainless eyelets on the spoke holes of the inner wall. Another version has stainless eyelets that cover both the inner and outer wall. Some people have reported problems with the eyelets pulling through on the version with the single wall eyelets. I have this single eyeletted version in a 28-spoke model (I got it for $40, so what the hell.)
> I'm going to go ahead and build this up with a Dura Ace 7900 rear hub, using Wheelsmith DB 14 spokes. I only weigh about 140 lbs, so I may be able to get away with using a bit less tension, which may help prevent the spokes pulling through. Any report on my experience would be limited to that specific build, but if any difference in ride quality is obvious, I'll speak up.


I built the wheel up using an Ultegra hub, DT double-butted spokes, 3x. I was able to get this wheel "truer" in less time than any other wheel I've built, +/- 0.004mm. That pretty much jives with what others have said about DT Swiss rims.
Took it for a couple 45-mile rides, purposefully over some rough roads, and it hasn't budged. I used a bit less tension than with other wheels, just to be safe with the single eyelets. 
To address the original topic, I can't notice a comfort difference between this and the 32-spoke, 3x Ambrosio Excellence wheel it replaced, using the exact same tire at the same pressure.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I have Ksyriums on 700x23c and Cosmics on 700x20c

I noticed a clear difference in comfort.

I switched the Cosmics to 700x23c. 

No more comfort difference.

My commuter is on Open Pros 32x3, they feel indeed more comfortable but they are on 700x30c, I could experiment running them on 700x23c and probably the "feel" would be similar to the other 2.

It's the tyres IMHO


----------



## kef3844 (May 30, 2008)

yes, I added tires to my post, I agree it and psi are big factors.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

alexb618 said:


> just had another wheelset built, 32h 3x laced... DA 7800 hubs and DT 1.1 rims
> 
> the difference in 'comfort' between these and the aero/radial spoked wheels they replaced is very noticeable
> 
> any doubter is welcome to come over to my house and compare





JesseDSmith said:


> I built the wheel up using an Ultegra hub, DT double-butted spokes, 3x. I was able to get this wheel "truer" in less time than any other wheel I've built, +/- 0.004mm. That pretty much jives with what others have said about DT Swiss rims.
> Took it for a couple 45-mile rides, purposefully over some rough roads, and it hasn't budged. I used a bit less tension than with other wheels, just to be safe with the single eyelets.
> To address the original topic, I can't notice a comfort difference between this and the 32-spoke, 3x Ambrosio Excellence wheel [17.5mm rim depth] it replaced, using the exact same tire at the same pressure.


Great info on the DT 1.1s guys. :thumbsup:

I do hear that it's hard to mount tires on 'em, though. Any truth to that?
.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> Great info on the DT 1.1s guys. :thumbsup:
> 
> I do hear that it's hard to mount tires on 'em, though. Any truth to that?
> .


About as much truth as feeling a comfort difference from wheel to wheel.:mad2:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> About as much truth as feeling a comfort difference from wheel to wheel.


Oh, so a lot then. Thanks. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*mounting*



SystemShock said:


> Great info on the DT 1.1s guys. :thumbsup:
> 
> I do hear that it's hard to mount tires on 'em, though. Any truth to that?
> .


I run Rolly-Poly's, which are easy to mount on Open Pros, Ambrosio's, Torellis, and were no problem on the DT's, so that's more of a statement about the tires than the rims.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Great info on the DT 1.1s guys. :thumbsup:
> 
> I do hear that it's hard to mount tires on 'em, though. Any truth to that?
> .


i have so far used vittoria open pave, veloflex pave and a cheap rubino and they have all gone on with no problems at all


----------



## Pokey (Apr 15, 2006)

Wow! what a heated thread.... unreal!

I have two wheelsets - 09 Mavic equipes and 09 Roval Roubaix 322cx.

I run the exact same tires on each at the exact same tire pressure (115 PSI) which I check before every ride

The box-section, cross-laced roubaix wheels are noticeably more verticaly compliant than the mavics. No question about it. The Roval Roubaix's are my wheel of choice and I really wanted to hate them so I could buy some blingy wheels.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Pokey said:


> Wow! what a heated thread.... unreal!
> 
> I have two wheelsets - 09 Mavic equipes and 09 Roval Roubaix 322cx.
> 
> ...


 You're right, it shouldn't be a heated thread... but I think it's fair to say some ppl have a difficult time accepting that others feel differences that they themselves cannot or that 'shouldn't be' according to the current scientific model.

Thing is, scientific models don't always remain static... new data and new ways of conceptualizing things come along, and we sometimes find out that what was dogma before is actually partially or entirely wrong. The earth, it turns out, really wasn't flat, even though almost everyone said it was for centuries and we persecuted those who disagreed. C'est la vie.

Taken to an extreme, this kind of dust-up becomes unintentionally humorous... on a forum on another site, I got repeatedly attacked by a guy who was furious at me for 'spreading the myth' that wheels can affect comfort. He couldn't see that he was being a tool, and that's there's a way of disagreeing agreeably, but some ppl can't help themselves I guess. 

I guess the point is, live and let live. Some ppl can, some can't.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*skeptics*



SystemShock said:


> You're right, it shouldn't be a heated thread... but I think it's fair to say some ppl have a difficult time accepting that others feel differences that they themselves cannot or that 'shouldn't be' according to the current scientific model.
> 
> Thing is, scientific models don't always remain static... new data and new ways of conceptualizing things come along, and we sometimes find out that what was dogma before is actually partially or entirely wrong. The earth, it turns out, really wasn't flat, even though almost everyone said it was for centuries and we persecuted those who disagreed. C'est la vie.
> 
> ...


You're right, there is not need for it to be heated, much less empassioned, but I think many of us skeptics on this issue might be more open minded if anyone could articulate any phsics or engineering principles that would account for vertical compliance, much less discernable differences in vertical compliance among wheels. I don't think anyone has done that. Barring that, and even without empirical confirmation, it is very difficult to accept someone's assertion that some wheels are more vertically compliant than others. Then again, maybe some of us are just too numb from too much riding to tell the difference... ;-)


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

I still don't get it. If you have this special ability to decipher comfort from wheel to wheel, why ask the crazy mortals of this board? Not to mention another board you started the same thread with almost exact results?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ClassicSteel71 said:


> I still don't get it. If you have this special ability to decipher comfort from wheel to wheel, why ask the crazy mortals of this board?


 That's just it... I have no 'special' ability at all, as many others have reported the same thing, both in this thread and elsewhere– that they too notice comfort differences between different wheels.

Therefore asking those who can feel it (since there's a lot more of 'em than just lil' old me) would make sense... as I haven't ridden every wheel out there. 

Wish I had that kind of budget, but I don't. 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> You're right, there is not need for it to be heated, much less empassioned, but I think many of us skeptics on this issue might be more open minded if anyone could articulate any phsics or engineering principles that would account for vertical compliance, much less discernable differences in vertical compliance among wheels. I don't think anyone has done that. Barring that, and even without empirical confirmation, it is very difficult to accept someone's assertion that some wheels are more vertically compliant than others. Then again, maybe some of us are just too numb from too much riding to tell the difference... ;-)


 You're right fixed, and it is a conundrum for the science-heads among us... the current model can't explain what many ppl are feeling/experiencing, but there's no widespread alternative scientific model to explore that might. I feel your pain. 

FWIW, I wish that the industry and enthusiast magazines would put more time and resources into this issue. Maybe it's not just a matter of vertical compliance, but how quickly that compliance 'happens', i.e. g-forces. Has that been measured in any comprehensive way regarding this exact problem? I haven't even heard this mentioned, much less seen a study, if there is one out there. 

Or perhaps it's a simple NVH issue? Any of a number of other possible explanations?

I understand where the skepticism comes from, I guess what I don't understand is the assumption that, if the current model can't explain it, then it does not exist. Because that assumes that the current model and way of conceptualizing the issue is perfect. 

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but why do we just assume it is? :idea:
.


----------



## Jesse D Smith (Jun 11, 2005)

*Good read from a pro builder*

http://nyvelocity.com/content/equipment/2009/rich-sawiris-master-wheelbuilder
"So balancing stiffness characteristics with respect to how it corners, *versus vertical compliance*, are definitely in the DNA of each type of cross section of rim and something that we really try hard to take into account."


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Jesse D Smith said:


> http://nyvelocity.com/content/equipment/2009/rich-sawiris-master-wheelbuilder
> "So balancing stiffness characteristics with respect to how it corners, *versus vertical compliance*, are definitely in the DNA of each type of cross section of rim and something that we really try hard to take into account."


Heh... looks like some master wheelbuilders do indeed believe that wheels can differ in comfort. Some additional comments from Sawiris:



> _ Looking at wheels, people want a wheel to ride really well, handle really well, corner really well, brake in the wet, be lightweight, and you want it to have excellent durability. There aren’t many wheels that can do all of that.
> 
> So if you say you don't care if it jars your back, this is just a crit wheel, and you weren't going to race it in the wet, then you'd ride around on a very stiff deep section carbon rim. It feels awesome under race conditions , but if you go over any cobbles it rattles your teeth._


That's very much contrary to the crap I took at another site on this subject, where I'd get a couple of guys saying, "Well, _I'm_ a wheelbuilder, and what you are sayin' you experienced is voodoo and must be your imagination 'cuz it doesn't agree with what I think" blah buh blah. Looks like the wheelbuilder community might be as divided on this issue as riders are.

Nice score, Jesse.  
.


----------



## giosblue (Aug 2, 2009)

As a newcomer to the forums, but not to cycling, I'm exaclty the same has to OP. I ride 25 front 28 rear. I have ditched my Ksyriums and Elites and have been using CXP rims with Ultegra hubs for years. I don't normally believe in something unless it can be scientifically proven..
I don't know whether it can or not.But I rekon Handbuilts have the edge. I wouldn't say one knocks the crap out of you and the other doesn't though.
If frames ride differently (and they do ) why not wheels ?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Heh... looks like some master wheelbuilders do indeed believe that wheels can differ in comfort.


It's easy enough to say. I've heard wheel builders expound on all sorts of voodoo (often contradictory) that makes no sense at all. It does however give many listeners the impression that they have special knowledge.

This is science... or rather a lack of it. Vertical compliance is a measurable quantity and so small as to be nil in all normal wheels. 

If there is a difference between the vertical comfort of different wheels I've yet to hear a plausible explanation of why.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

giosblue said:


> If frames ride differently (and they do ) why not wheels ?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> It's easy enough to say. I've heard wheel builders expound on all sorts of voodoo (often contradictory) that makes no sense at all. It does however give many listeners the impression that they have special knowledge.
> 
> This is science... or rather a lack of it. Vertical compliance is a measurable quantity and so small as to be nil in all normal wheels.
> 
> If there is a difference between the vertical comfort of different wheels I've yet to hear a plausible explanation of why.


I understand where you're coming from, but... there's lots of things science can't explain. Doesn't mean they don't exist or that the phenomena is not occurring.









Scientific explanation or no, I've felt enough of a difference consistently enough that my next wheelset definitely won't be built up with deep dish aero rims. 

Maybe if I got into time-trialing or triathlon, it'd be different. But those still wouldn't be my everyday wheels.
.


----------



## ClassicSteel71 (Mar 5, 2009)

giosblue said:


> As a newcomer to the forums, but not to cycling, I'm exaclty the same has to OP. I ride 25 front 28 rear. I have ditched my Ksyriums and Elites and have been using CXP rims with Ultegra hubs for years.* I don't normally believe in something unless it can be scientifically proven..
> I don't know whether it can or not*.But I rekon Handbuilts have the edge. I wouldn't say one knocks the crap out of you and the other doesn't though.
> If frames ride differently (and they do ) why not wheels ?


Huh? What?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Scientific explanation or no, I've felt enough of a difference consistently enough that my next wheelset definitely won't be built up with deep dish aero rims.


I'm open minded about this... ie some explanation may be found... or we could have a double blind test in which it could be proven that people really can tell a difference. In the meantime, my TT bike which has an aluminum frame and deep rims (everything about it screams "vertically rigid") feels at least as "plush' as my carbon road frame with shallow rims. It might be the tires, which even though they are inflated to a higher pressure, are thin and light and have latex tubes.


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

do Spinergy's PBO spokes make the wheels more comfortable?


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

Redad my post in general - aluminium vs carbon fibre for wheel comfort...

Fixed: You have no idea. That is all sir.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> I'm open minded about this... ie some explanation may be found... or we could have a double blind test in which it could be proven that people really can tell a difference. In the meantime, my TT bike which has an aluminum frame and deep rims (everything about it screams "vertically rigid") feels at least as "plush' as my carbon road frame with shallow rims. It might be the tires, which even though they are inflated to a higher pressure, are thin and light and have latex tubes.


Double-blind testing can be good, but such tests have to be conducted properly or they tend to blur or eliminate the differences between the things being tested.

Put someone on an unfamiliar bike, on an unfamiliar wheelset, on an unfamiliar road, and let them test for only a very limited amount of time, and the differences would have to be pretty marked for everyone to consistently report that there's a diff... the processing of all the unfamiliar data can swamp what it is you're really testing for. 

I remember this kind of stuff from my audio days... do A-B testing right, and ppl can surprise you with what they can pick up. Do it wrong, and absolutely everything tends to sound the same, even stuff that obviously isn't.
.


----------



## Cracka (Jul 20, 2009)

rruff said:


> If there is a difference between the vertical comfort of different wheels I've yet to hear a plausible explanation of why.


Lol good on ya mate... You're like a racing horse with blinkers.

IMHO you should either shut up and listen/read more, go study mech eng, or get off the bike and back to church and forget about anything technical or scientific as its beyond you.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Cracka said:


> Lol good on ya mate... You're like a racing horse with blinkers.
> 
> IMHO you should either shut up and listen/read more, go study mech eng, or get off the bike and back to church and forget about anything technical or scientific as its beyond you.


I don't know who you are, but maybe you know who I am and are just being "funny"... eh?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Double-blind testing can be good, but such tests have to be conducted properly or they tend to blur or eliminate the differences between the things being tested.


I think if it is difficult to tell a difference, then it isn't big enough to worry about. Of course it would be best to do it on a rough road. I don't know of anyone who has tried to do this kind of test with wheels though.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> I think if it is difficult to tell a difference, then it isn't big enough to worry about.


That's the usual justification given for botched double-blind testing methodology. Sorry, doesn't really hold up IME.

For example, again going back to my audio days, you could set up a double-blind in such a way that many ppl would have a hard time hearing the difference between a vinyl record and a CD. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.

If you're gonna do it, might as well do it right.
.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

In that case what do you suggest... other than testing on a rough road with normal tire inflation?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> In that case what do you suggest... other than testing on a rough road with normal tire inflation?


Think it's pretty simple... ppl testing on their roads, with their bikes, for long periods of time, with the only variable being the wheelset(s).
.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Eyorerox said:


> do Spinergy's PBO spokes make the wheels more comfortable?


Yeah. ...and more flexy sideways too!

Least they did on the front SPOX wheel I got and stuck on my mtn bike! With a 'normal' suspension fork, the combo was skeery flexy. Stuck it in a C-dale with a Headshok and it was better, but not as stiff as the steel-spoked wheels I had been using.

Ti spokes felt like I had a flat tire, but didn't seem to flex sideways as much. (I'm pretty sure I've posted this last little tidbit in this thread before.) If someone wants to build a wheel out of my old Ti spokes, I have em for a GL330/Ultegra rear wheel. Try em yerself. Pay me shipping and they're yours.

M


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Think it's pretty simple... ppl testing on their roads, with their bikes, for long periods of time, with the only variable being the wheelset(s).


That will give us the same "data" that already exists in this thread...


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Think it's pretty simple... ppl testing on their roads, with their bikes, for long periods of time, with the only variable being the wheelset(s).
> .


doG bless ya for tryin to convince the 'its the math, dummy!' types, but IME, they don't wanna believe there's more'n numbers out there, so they won't get it regardless whether its true or not.

Tell me you can't hop on an SL (steel) bike and tell the difference in ride between that and say a carbon bike. Neither of em flex in the vertical plane very much, but there's a world of difference in the ride quality (beyond materials!) 

At one time, I had an SL steel Battaglin, an SLX steel Battaglin, an M2 Road Pro, and a few more bikes besides. They ALL rode differently. That SL Battaglin was a dream on long rides but wasn't nearly stout enough to sprint on effectively. I could watch the BB going thru a 1cm/side arc! The SLX wasn't as forgiving on longer rides, but the stiffness was better thru the BB. etc.

I still go back to my argument that you can't tell me a triangle is going to bend as much as a box... 

or

...if a tube is better at resisting flex, why are bike manfacturers spending all this $$ on making triangular, box section, folded/spindled/mutilated tubesets? It can't be ALL marketing!

Read Sheldon Brown's take... http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm

Manufacturers like Ridley (watch the videos here: http://insider.bikeradar.com/) study FEA when designing their frames in order to get the ride quality they want, what makes y'all think that rims don't deform the same way? See my question above about triangles and boxes...

I'm interested to see what y'all think about this... (again and again and again)

M


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rruff said:


> That will give us the same "data" that already exists in this thread...


Not really. Most ppl have long-term access to only a couple of wheelsets, for example. With a test, they could be testing several, a dozen, whatever. Plus, the note-taking and recording of results would be a lot more rigorous. 

And, you could have a sample size of testing riders that'd be large enough to minimize outliers.

So no, I don't believe it'd be 'the same', though it's certainly possible that such a large and rigorous test might return conclusions that you personally don't like. But, by the same token, it may return results I don't much like either. :wink5:

The key thing would be to do it right, regardless.
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

MShaw said:


> doG bless ya for tryin to convince the 'its the math, dummy!' types, but IME, they don't wanna believe there's more'n numbers out there, so they won't get it regardless whether its true or not.
> 
> Tell me you can't hop on an SL (steel) bike and tell the difference in ride between that and say a carbon bike. Neither of em flex in the vertical plane very much, but there's a world of difference in the ride quality (beyond materials!)


That's a good point Shaw... even many ppl who think wheels all ride the same accept the fact that different frames ride differently... even frames made of the same material (Roubaix vs Tarmac for example, or regular-size steel vs OS steel, or old-school Cannondales vs other aluminum bikes).

Yet, bike frames have very little vertical compliance too... the #1 reason given by the 'wheels all ride the same' folks for believing as they do. Contradictions...

That study you linked to was a good read too.
.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> That study you linked to was a good read too.
> .


Heck! I even got into an argument with Jobst Brandt about this whole thing. He still didn't/couldn't understand my point...

I'm going to bet $$ that the actual time spend COMPLETELY vertical when riding a bicycle is about nil. If you look, I'll bet that most of the time, the bike/rider is slightly off to one side or another. Not by much, but enough that vertical compliance isn't the single 'active ingredient' in how wheelsbikes ride. 

I wonder what would happen if we tried to test this with a completely immobile headset? Anyone have a roached bike they wanna try'n ride this way? (The closest thing I can think of are high wire types, and they have long poles to keep em balanced...)

Something for the 'its the math dummy!' types to ponder. I'm willing to be proven wrong. I have been before!

I don't think that static tests are the answer to what we're feeling. 

Something to ponder...

M


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*test?*



MShaw said:


> Heck! I even got into an argument with Jobst Brandt about this whole thing. He still didn't/couldn't understand my point...
> 
> I'm going to bet $$ that the actual time spend COMPLETELY vertical when riding a bicycle is about nil. If you look, I'll bet that most of the time, the bike/rider is slightly off to one side or another. Not by much, but enough that vertical compliance isn't the single 'active ingredient' in how wheelsbikes ride.
> 
> ...


So, would one way to test this be to install a very sensitive accelerometer on a bike, then ride over a controlled surface with irregularities to simulate various road surfaces, using various wheelsets? Would that do it once and for all?

EDIT: Think we can get Mythbusters to do this?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> EDIT: Think we can get Mythbusters to do this?


Probably not. There's nothing to crash or blow up. :nonod:

Also, they probably don't know anything about bikes, it'd be like getting Consumer Reports to do it. 

On a side note, this subject continues to fascinate ppl, it seems... there's about 240 threads in the Wheels & Tires forum, and this is now the third most-viewed. That was a little surprising to me.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*great threads*



SystemShock said:


> On a side note, this subject continues to fascinate ppl, it seems... there's about 240 threads in the Wheels & Tires forum, and this is now the third most-viewed. That was a little surprising to me.
> .


The best internet squabbles are about things where no one can objectively prove who is right, like Campy v. Shimano, steel v. carbon, Brooks saddles, tubulars v clinchers, the classic stuff. What better to fight about than "feel?" No one can win, but everyone has an opinion. It makes for long, emotionally charged threads.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Whoa. I never thought a "Wheels and Tires" thread might need to be mod'd. SystemShock, you never cease to animate!


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> Whoa. I never thought a "Wheels and Tires" thread might need to be mod'd. SystemShock, you never cease to animate!


LOL. You should seen the thread I did on this on another site... guys were insulting me right and left for saying there was a comfort difference and for standing my ground on the matter. All so very emo/melodramatic.

One was even angry with me for 'spreading myths', and was saying that he was performing a community service by debunking/arguing with me. That still makes me chuckle... he was like a jihadi. :lol:

RBRers are, by contrast, the souls of maturity and common-sense restraint*. Kinda weird, 'cuz if you only post on RBR, you might not see it that way. 


_*exception: PBB. He hated me so much I almost think he wanted to kill me to death. You should've seen some of his deleted posts... I broke his mind or something.

*exception dos: My Rivendell poll thread ('Why won't you buy a Rivendell?'). The Riv-heads mistook me for a Riv-hater, and freaked out. That was interesting. _
.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> LOL. You should seen the thread I did on this on another site... guys were insulting me right and left for saying there was a comfort difference and for standing my ground on the matter. All so very emo/melodramatic.
> 
> One was even angry with me for 'spreading myths', and was saying that he was performing a community service by debunking/arguing with me. That still makes me chuckle... he was like a jihadi. :lol:
> 
> ...


Have you noticed a common factor here?


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*experiment*

Let's take the emotion and feel out of it. Describe for us an experiment, where you would accept that there are no discernible differences in comfort, if the results show less than an x% difference in g's transmitted via the wheel as a bike rides over bumps. If you can articulate what you would accept as disproving your position, then we can make headway.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> Have you noticed a common factor here?


Yes. Some ppl can't disagree agreeably? :idea: 
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> Let's take the emotion and feel out of it. Describe for us an experiment, where you would accept that there are no discernible differences in comfort, if the results show less than an x% difference in g's transmitted via the wheel as a bike rides over bumps. If you can articulate what you would accept as disproving your position, then we can make headway.


We would need to know first how much of a difference in g-forces the typical rider is able discern/feel, probably both in isolated (single-bump/shock) cases and over the course of a long ride (i.e. how much roadshock/g-force exposure does it take to make a rider begin to feel more fatigued/beat-down over the course of a long road ride... what's the 'threshold' for that). 

I don't have that data. In fact, that might even be a whole 'nother experiment... probably is. :idea:

You start to see the challenges.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*yes, but*



SystemShock said:


> We would need to know first how much of a difference in g-forces the typical rider is able discern/feel, probably both in isolated (single-bump/shock) cases and over the course of a long ride (i.e. how much roadshock/g-force exposure does it take to make a rider begin to feel more fatigued/beat-down over the course of a long road ride... what's the 'threshold' for that).
> 
> I don't have that data. In fact, that might even be a whole 'nother experiment... probably is. :idea:
> 
> ...


I don't think you necessarily need to know that, depending upon what results you get. 

If the results show no statistically significant differences in g's transmitted, then it doesn't matter what a rider can feel, does it?


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

Fixed said:


> I don't think you necessarily need to know that, depending upon what results you get.
> 
> If the results show no statistically significant differences in g's transmitted, then it doesn't matter what a rider can feel, does it?


What's statistically significant? What's that to you? What's it to me?

The acclerometer in my behind may be different than the one in yours... Weight, riding style, gear, etc.

Feel is subjective. Why else would say pro baseball players insist on certain wood for their bats?

M


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*statistics*



MShaw said:


> What's statistically significant? What's that to you? What's it to me?
> 
> The acclerometer in my behind may be different than the one in yours... Weight, riding style, gear, etc.
> 
> ...


It's a meaningful term in statistical analysis. When you get a bunch of data, you analyze it to determine whether the data shows real differences, or are you looking at a distribution of results that cannot show a meaningful difference. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

If you get test results that, when a statistical analysis is applied, shows no meaningful difference, then the conclusion might be whatever you think you feel, it is not because of these factors. For example, if your results shows a .01 g's difference between two wheels, but the range of results from both wheels is .50 g's, then you can't conclude there is a meaningful difference, even if you think your particular butt can discern a .01 g's difference.

Looking at it another way, let's say you want to know the difference in length of two objects that are about a yard long, and you can't hold them up to each other. If the only measuring device you have is a piece of string, which is stretchy and a bit ambiguous, frayed at the ends, then if the two objects show an average of .1 inches difference on average, but every time you measure your results vary by .5 inches, then you can't really tell which one is actually larger using that device. On the other hand, if you have a large dial caliper, graded to .001 resolution, and you get results like .101, .100, .999, etc, for one, and .200, .201. .199, then you can say there is a statistically meaningful difference.

If we agree that an experiment that measures g's transmitted through the wheels is a valid test for wheel "comfort," then you certainly should be able to devise an experiment to objectively conclude whether there is a significant difference. If "comfort" or "feel" is affected by some other variable, then this may not work.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Fixed said:


> I don't think you necessarily need to know that, depending upon what results you get.
> 
> If the results show no statistically significant differences in g's transmitted, then it doesn't matter what a rider can feel, does it?


You're thinking of only one possible outcome, i.e. the test is conducted, and there's no stat-significant difference in transmitted g-forces.

What if there _is_ a stat-significant diff in g-forces? Do we then automatically conclude that there IS a comfort difference?

If we do, then comes the refrain from the 'there's no difference' camp: "Well, it's probably not ENOUGH of a difference to make a difference. This proves nothing." And then we're right back where we started. Yay. :frown2:

Then there's the flip side of the coin... what safely constitutes a 'not statistically significant' difference? What's the standard there? Sure, there's some very obvious data sets that could easily be eliminated as such, but what if there's a consistent but quite small difference? Does it automatically get dismissed? Or what if it ends up being true from the _other_ experiment I'm talking about that riders can indeed tell small differences in g-forces transmitted? 

Again, if you're gonna do it, might as well do it right.

That said, I'm not sure I see any cycling publications or independent research labs leaping up to take this one.
.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*confusion*



SystemShock said:


> You're thinking of only one possible outcome, i.e. the test is conducted, and there's no stat-significant difference in transmitted g-forces.
> 
> What if there _is_ a stat-significant diff in g-forces? Do we then automatically conclude that there IS a comfort difference?
> 
> ...


No, what I"m saying is that the first thing to do is test and see if the tests show any difference. For all we know, the results will be exactly the same. I'd assume if they are *exactly* the same, then you have to concede there could be no difference in comfort, or you'll have to identify another source for the difference, other than acceleration transmitted through the wheel. 

Another possibility is that there are differences, but you get inconsistent results. One wheel type shows less g's transmitted on one trial, then it shows more transmitted on another trial. At that point, you subject your results to a statistical analysis, assuming you have done enough trials, to see if you even have meaningful results. At this point, you have not even addressed whether the results show something that a ride could feel. You are simply looking at data, and determining whether you have any meaningful data.

Another possibility is that you have what looks like a clear difference between two wheel types. You still run a statistical analysis to determine if the difference is enough, and consistently enough, to conclude that there is, in fact, a difference between the wheel types. If you do, then, and only then, do you then move on to the next step and then analyze whether the result also allows us to conclude that a person could, in fact, discern whatever difference you found. However, if you never get that far, you never determine that there is actually a measureable difference, then you never get to the second phase of the analysis and ask whether that difference is enough for someone to feel. 

But I loop back to whether there is any measureable difference at all. Assuming you have an acceptable accelerometer, which has the precision and reliability required, and you use an acceptable test protocol, you should be able to determine whether two wheels transmit different amounts of acceleration when they hit a bump. If you cannot determine that there is any meaningful difference, and assuming the accelerometer is more precise than your butt, then I think someone has to admit that there are not differences in comfort in wheels that are affected by acceleration transmitted. If there is another source of comfort, like vibration transmitted, for example, then we'd have to measure that, too. However, my belief is that if there is a difference in comfort, it likely would be due to the shock, or g's, transmitted at the wheel rolls over bumps. If there is no measureable difference in that, then, as for me, I'd conclude there can be no difference in comfort, either. 

Now, for all I know, there could be a major difference in test results. I'm not eliminating that potential, but I'm just saying that if there is no measureable difference, then we're done.


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

IMO you'll hafta repeat the tests, not only vertically, but off a degree or two as well to determine whether lateral flex has any impact on the data. 

Damon Rinard did a test on the lateral stiffness of wheels. Sheldon Brown was hosting it on his site. Interesting read.

Just read the edited version of yer reply above: mo bettah. IME I've ridden a bunch of different wheelsets at the same time. Usually with the same tires on em. I'm a cheap SOB and when I find good training tires, I tend to go buy a bunch. Last bunch like that were the Michelins that PBS was selling for $20-ish ea. I had 4-5 wheelsets with them things on em. Didn't ride real nice, but man! did they last a LONG time! 

So... at one time, I had 1st gen Shamals, MA40s, Reflexes, Ritchey Pro wheels, Aeroheads, and some tubulars (Zipp 404s, 303s, and GL330s) with different tires on em. The Shamals were the fastest and harshest riding, the Pro wheels were surpisingly fast and comfy, and the MA40s were definitely not fast, but you could ride em all day. (I feel that wheels are like tools: you don't try and hammer a screw, why not ride the right wheel for the ride: climbing rides that don't go real fast? GL330s. All day LSD rides? MA40s. Regular training? Pick one of the rest. Go fast with few accelerations? Shamals definitely! Go fast WITH stop and go (crit corners)? Ritcheys I don't have one set of wheels, I've usually got 2-ish wheelsets/bike to pick from)

The Shamals were also a real bear to get spun up when I did the Street Sprints at the North End Classic in Yuma a few years back. By the time I got on top of em, I was behind in the sprints. I swore that the next time, I was gonna bring some GL330s for that particular race! But this is another argument! 

I do remember my arse and back being sore after riding that race, on those roads, on that wheelset.


----------

