# Can a wheel provide a harsh ride?



## Hillbilly (Jan 9, 2016)

Hi

I'm quite new to road riding, my bike came with the new 3T Discus C35 pro wheels, they seem to roll well but without really lowering tire pressures they feel really harsh on slightly rough roads.

I wonder long term if I would be better swapping them out for a wheel with a lower profile? I tend to ride hilly rides about 20-30 miles. At 56 no spring chicken so won't be racing, just looking for advise if a plush feeling wheels exist and should I change the 3T out?
My tyres are GP4000's.

Cheers Phil


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Hillbilly said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm quite new to road riding, my bike came with the new 3T Discus C35 pro wheels, they seem to roll well but without really lowering tire pressures they feel really harsh on slightly rough roads.
> 
> ...


Oh I'm sure there will be some compliance differences in rim depths but look at it this way - a rim can only deflect so much before spoke tension is reduced to zero and at that point you're getting into trouble. So the deflection can probably be measured in thousandths of an inch or a millimeter or so.

Compare that to the average tire that can compress anywhere from half an inch to an inch or so. That's light years more than rim deflection.

Pneumatic tires were designed for a reason - to cushion the ride and we must use this fine feature. Tailor your tire pressures to you and your roads. For me at 175lbs and my roads and my 25mm tires that's about 80f/90r. It's comfort heaven.


----------



## Mr645 (Jun 14, 2013)

I'm certainly no expert, but when I switched from Oval 330 wheels to Shimano C50 wheels, the C50 has a much soother ride.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Mike T. said:


> Oh I'm sure there will be some compliance differences in rim depths but look at it this way - a rim can only deflect so much before spoke tension is reduced to zero and at that point you're getting into trouble. So the deflection can probably be measured in thousandths of an inch or a millimeter or so.
> 
> Compare that to the average tire that can compress anywhere from half an inch to an inch or so. That's light years more than rim deflection.
> 
> Pneumatic tires were designed for a reason - to cushion the ride and we must use this fine feature. Tailor your tire pressures to you and your roads. For me at 175lbs and my roads and my 25mm tires that's about 80f/90r. It's comfort heaven.


^^^This^^^

Contrary to what many may tell you, higher pressure isn't always faster. Because I ride a more upright position, I have found the sweet spot to be 75F/100R. Wider tires allow you to use lower pressures. If your bike came with 23mm tires, you may want to look at 25mm or 28mm, but make sure they will fit before you buy. Use this link below and fill in values in the 2nd box to get a guideline on what pressures you should be using:

Bicycle tire pressure calculator


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Mr645 said:


> I'm certainly no expert, but when I switched from Oval 330 wheels to Shimano C50 wheels, the C50 has a much soother ride.


Is that anecdotal "princess and the pea" evidence? I don't know where the built-in suspension would come from as tensioned spokes stretch about 1mm (that's just a rough illustration) and when that stretch is used up by rim compression then spoke tension becomes zero and the nipple loses contact with its seat. And rims, when not strengthened with spoke tension, are very weak structures.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Mike T. said:


> Is that anecdotal "princess and the pea" evidence? I don't know where the built-in suspension would come from as tensioned spokes stretch about 1mm (that's just a rough illustration) and when that stretch is used up by rim compression then spoke tension becomes zero and the nipple loses contact with its seat. And rims, when not strengthened with spoke tension, are very weak structures.




It sounds like A) The spokes on the Shimano C50 wheels aren't tensioned high enough or B) A placebo effect because you have new wheels.

If A, it won't be long before they go out of true or you have a spoke failure.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

There is, as Mike posted, no noticeable difference in ride quality between wheels. It's just about physically impossible for it to happen for the reasons he stated. It's either a difference in tire pressure and/or construction, or you're thinking that they ride better to justify the money you just spent on them. If they flexed enough to have a noticeable effect on ride quality you'd have a wheel w/ a bunch of totally loose spokes that would be unrideable. .


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

No, constructed wheels are too rigid vertically to provide any degree of comfort as they're under significant spoke tension.

Look to your tires and your tire pressure. Lower your pressure incrementally until you experience a degree of cushion. If you then begin to experience pinch flats, move up a tire size and repeat.

For example, I'm 130lbs. and run 23mm tires at 80-85psi., having to top off the pressure about once a week.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

This is one of my favorite articles of all times:

Debunking Wheel Stiffness - Slowtwitch.com

Pay attention to the way aluminum rim wheels deflect contrary to how deep profile carbons do and on how the "give" of the lateral deflection could be misinterpreted by the rider as an indication of comfort.


----------



## Hillbilly (Jan 9, 2016)

I'm 200lbs running 25 mm GP4000's at 85/95 - I'll try reducing the pressure.
I can fit a 28mm on the front on a GP4000 which really is 31mm.
Max that will go on the back is the 25mm.


----------



## FasterStronger (Jun 6, 2014)

Have you tried other tires? I have ridden on GP4000's and found them to be buzzy compared to michelin pro 4's and vittoria corsa. I know they are popular but it may be worth your while to try out another tire and see if you find any appreciable difference.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

FasterStronger said:


> Have you tried other tires? I have ridden on GP4000's and found them to be buzzy compared to michelin pro 4's and vittoria corsa. I know they are popular but it may be worth your while to try out another tire and see if you find any appreciable difference.


I think most people that find the Conti's harsher or buzzier than tires like Michelin and Vittoria probably over-inflate their tires. That said, I also think the tread compound on the Conti tires is harder than most others which is why they're durable. The durometer of the tread will definitely make a difference in feel, especially when the tires are new and it's at max thickness. So I can concur that the Michelin and Vittoria (especially the high end tires) will feel 'better' than Conti.


----------



## Roland44 (Mar 21, 2013)

Lombard said:


> B) A placebo effect because you have new wheels.


I couldn't agree more with this. I saw it happen over and over again not only in cycling but almost everywhere.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

I notice (imagine?) a smoother ride on some 55mm deep CF wheels. I wonder if the the rim itself compresses between the bead and the spoke bed with the thin walls of the rim bowing outward...maybe?


----------



## Hillbilly (Jan 9, 2016)

The Pro4 are currently on offer so ordered two 28s and will see how they go.
I'll keep deflating the tyre's and see where I end up.
I see no one mentioned going tubeless for lower pressures?

Thanks for the advise.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but when I inflated my Dura Ace to 100 PSI I found the ride too bouncy and hard. I'm not a 200 pound rider by any stretch. Lowering the PSI to 90 gave me the ride I want. And Dura Ace C-24's do not have a bad reputation with regard to ride quality. My take away is that playing around with inflation is an important consideration for the rider.


----------



## Jon D (Apr 11, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but when I inflated my Dura Ace to 100 PSI I found the ride too bouncy and hard. I'm not a 200 pound rider by any stretch. Lowering the PSI to 90 gave me the ride I want. And Dura Ace C-24's do not have a bad reputation with regard to ride quality. My take away is that playing around with inflation is an important consideration for the rider.


Absolutely I have found my just right pressures based on which wheels and tires by going up and down around a base setting. I have also found different tired have different feels and durability. Current best compromise like many others are GP4000s


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Jon D said:


> Absolutely I have found my just right pressures based on which wheels and tires by going up and down around a base setting. I have also found different tired have different feels and durability. Current best compromise like many others are GP4000s


For me its Michelin Pro -4 Endurance, although I think they just did a new series to replace.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

I haven't ridden the 700c tires yet but I've been riding the Compass 650b Baby Shoe Pass tires and really enjoy the ride. Next time I need to get tires for my 700c I'm going to give the Compass a try.


https://www.compasscycle.com/product-category/components/tires/700c/


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

velodog said:


> I haven't ridden the 700c tires yet but I've been riding the Compass 650b Baby Shoe Pass tires and really enjoy the ride. Next time I need to get tires for my 700c I'm going to give the Compass a try.
> 
> 
> https://www.compasscycle.com/product-category/components/tires/700c/


I ride Compass on my Firefly gravel bike. Heavily recommended by Signature Cycle in Greenwich.


----------



## Hillbilly (Jan 9, 2016)

Went out on 75/85 different bike felt plush, couldn't feel any difference in speed.
Restored my confidence in the bike. Will be interesting to compare the pro 4s when they arrive.

The only issue which remains is they get blown about a lot in the wind and I live in a hilly exposed area with lots of wind.
So now the only remaining issue is if I go for a lower rim?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Hillbilly said:


> Went out on 75/85 different bike felt plush, couldn't feel any difference in speed.
> Restored my confidence in the bike. Will be interesting to compare the pro 4s when they arrive.
> 
> The only issue which remains is they get blown about a lot in the wind and I live in a hilly exposed area with lots of wind.
> So now the only remaining issue is if I go for a lower rim?


If it's that much of an issue get a lower profile front wheel. The rear wheel has very little effect in cross winds. The women ALWAYS use a disc at the rear in time trials no matter how windy it is. If a 115lb woman can manage to not get blown over...


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Hillbilly said:


> The only issue which remains is they get blown about a lot in the wind and I live in a hilly exposed area with lots of wind.





Hillbilly said:


> Hi
> 
> I'm quite new to road riding, my bike came with the new 3T Discus C35 pro wheels...


The 3T Discus C35 Pro wheels are only 32mm deep. That's on the shallow side of available wheels, and should not be the cause of wind buffeting unless you're very light weight and the wind is gusting appreciably.

If you get blown around, then you probably need to go to a shallower 24-26mm rim (H Plus Son Archetype, HED Belgium, Pacenti SL23).

FWIW, I own a set of HED Belgium wheels with 25mm Vittoria tires. I presently weigh 160lbs and run tire pressures of 80f/90r. This is a super comfy ride.


----------



## Hillbilly (Jan 9, 2016)

cxwrench said:


> If it's that much of an issue get a lower profile front wheel. The rear wheel has very little effect in cross winds. The women ALWAYS use a disc at the rear in time trials no matter how windy it is. If a 115lb woman can manage to not get blown over...


Thats a great idea, today it was the front that got hit as the bike got exposed to a big gust as I passed a farm gate causing the bike to move about a foot to the right.
I could just dump a low front on for windy days and have it pre built with disc's and tyre.


----------



## fast ferd (Jan 30, 2009)

My experience runs a little contrary to what others wrote here. I ride PR4's at 110psi on both my main rides, and notice a considerable difference between my DA C24 tubeless and conventional 3-cross 7700 hubs/Mavic Open Pro wheels. Not just the frameset, either, because on a couple occasions I put the 7700 set on my better ride. I also noticed greater stiffness with the C24 versus the DA 7850 tubeless used previously on the same frameset. At first, the stiff ride bothered me a little, but I grew accustomed to it eventually.


----------



## dracula (Mar 9, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> Is that anecdotal "princess and the pea" evidence? I don't know where the built-in suspension would come from as tensioned spokes stretch about 1mm (that's just a rough illustration) and when that stretch is used up by rim compression then spoke tension becomes zero and the nipple loses contact with its seat. And rims, when not strengthened with spoke tension, are very weak structures.


This has been the consensus on rec.bicycles.tech for the last 20 years. Not just wheels as it will also apply to the frame (there is not much in a diamond shaped frame which will flex).

However, I wonder if someone could discern a full disc wheel from a normal wheel in a blind test; both wheels shall have the same weight.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

dracula said:


> This has been the consensus on rec.bicycles.tech for the last 20 years. Not just wheels as it will also apply to the frame (there is not much in a diamond shaped frame which will flex).
> 
> However, I wonder if someone could discern a full disc wheel from a normal wheel in a *blind test*; both wheels shall have the same weight.


That would be interesting...and you'd have to wear ear plugs too, the discs are pretty noisy and unique sounding.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Interesting what riders have come up with understanding wheel stiffness and comfort, viz. good shock absorbtion.

I'll put it straight: there's nothing more comfortable than a box section rim spoked 32 or 36. Properly tensioned to make a musical note when plucked, about a middle C, such a wheel will not deflect laterally, will not hit the brake pads, when jamming up a hill. The spokes, the more of them and the longer the better, will do the job of soaking up road buzz much better than a thick "aerodynamic" rim with minimal spoking to the hub. 

Flex in terms of absorbing shocks is too small to be measured in millimeters. Its a function mostly of materials and load distribution. The spokes don't go slack upon rolling through the low spot. In any case, the top spokes are the ones that take up the slack. They're the ones that support the load as they "tighten," increase tension, not compress. The spokes in the middle of the rim also increase tension to keep the wheel, which wants to go egg shaped, round.

A thick TT rim is much stiffer than a flat box section rim because of its greater mass and surface area. Therefore it will not absorb shocks, instead transfer them to the spokes. The spokes, being short, will faithfully transfer the shocks to the hub and you have a rough riding wheel. 

A flat rim laced up to properly tensioned long spokes provides the best shock absorption vertically, while not giving up lateral stiffness. The rim will absorb shocks better because of its lesser mass and surface area. The spokes will absorb much of the remaining shocks along their lengths; the longer the spoke, the better it will attenuate the shock waves.

So if I were trying to compare comfort in wheels, I'd air the tires up the same, 90-100 psi, depending on how much weight is loaded onto them, and ride both vertically thick rimmed TT wheels and box section 32 or 36 spoked wheels. I think the difference in ride harshness will immediately become apparent.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Interesting what riders have come up with understanding wheel stiffness and comfort, viz. good shock absorbtion.
> 
> I'll put it straight: there's nothing more comfortable than a box section rim spoked 32 or 36. Properly tensioned to make a musical note when plucked, about a middle C, such a wheel will not deflect laterally, will not hit the brake pads, when jamming up a hill. The spokes, the more of them and the longer the better, will do the job of soaking up road buzz much better than a thick "aerodynamic" rim with minimal spoking to the hub.
> 
> ...


You can think whatever you'd like, but you'll never feel the difference between rims and spokes. The tire, even at overly high pressure will deflect at least 100 times more than the rim.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> You can think whatever you'd like, but you'll never feel the difference between rims and spokes. The tire, even at overly high pressure will deflect at least 100 times more than the rim.


But Fredrico has been to the mountain.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

velodog said:


> But Fredrico has been to the mountain.


At least once. In the 80s. 

1880s, I believe. 

Those High Wheelers had lots of spokes.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> You can think whatever you'd like, but you'll never feel the difference between rims and spokes. The tire, even at overly high pressure will deflect at least 100 times more than the rim.


Well, I'm relating observations about overall construction of TT wheels and "training wheels." Airing up the tires won't eliminate rims hitting brake pads. Yes, they'll absorb most of the shocks, but spreading out the shocks among more spokes does a better job of attenuating shock than concentrating them in fewer, shorter spokes. Comfort is not only about deflection but also shock absorption. Good wheels absorb shock without "flexing." I think it has something to do with frequencies, wavelengths, of vibrations.

I've felt the difference in comfort each time I've rebuilt different shaped rims on the same wheels. The aero rims were always harsher riding than the flat rims. I guess with the scarcity of 32 spoked wheels, that's no longer common knowledge. Pros still choose them for "training" because they perform just as well as "race wheels" but are more comfortable.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Well, I'm relating observations about overall construction of TT wheels and "training wheels." Airing up the tires won't eliminate rims hitting brake pads. Yes, they'll absorb most of the shocks, but spreading out the shocks among more spokes does a better job of attenuating shock than concentrating them in fewer, shorter spokes. Comfort is not only about deflection but also shock absorption. Good wheels absorb shock without "flexing." *I think* it has something to do with frequencies, wavelengths, of vibrations.
> 
> I've felt the difference in stiffness and comfort each time I've rebuilt different shaped rims on the same wheels. The aero rims were always harsher riding than the flat rims. *I guess *with the scarcity of 32 spoked wheels, that's no longer common knowledge. Pros still choose them for "training" because they perform just as well as "race wheels" but are more comfortable.


And there you have it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> And there you have it.


Why do you suppose the new bling is "wide," that is flatter, rims? Why not stick to the tried and true massive, v-shaped rims of the last 10 years? Because the new stuff is better at attenuating shock waves? :ihih:

My guess is if you've never ridden wide rims laced to 32 spokes, you take the latest stuff as normal. Could that be why riders like to go with softer tires?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> Why do you suppose the new bling is "wide," that is flatter, rims? Why not stick to the tried and true massive, v-shaped rims of the last 10 years? Because the new stuff is better at attenuating shock waves? :ihih:


I thought it was because wider rims handle better and are more stable, not because of comfort.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> Why do you suppose the new bling is "wide," that is flatter, rims? Why not stick to the tried and true massive, v-shaped rims of the last 10 years? Because the new stuff is better at attenuating shock waves? :ihih:
> 
> My guess is if you've never ridden wide rims laced to 32 spokes, you take the latest stuff as normal. Could that be why riders like to go with softer tires?


Because the flat sided v-shaped rims aren't as aerodynamic as the new wide rims. Next...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> Because the flat sided v-shaped rims aren't as aerodynamic as the new wide rims. Next...


But flat sided V shaped rims were marketed precisely because they were supposed to be more aerodynamic than the old wide rims they replaced!


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Lombard said:


> I thought it was because wider rims handle better and are more stable, not because of comfort.


What constitutes handling better and stability? Transmission of forces, no? Wide rims transmit forces over larger lateral area, thereby spreading the torsional forces out in a wider plane, and ergo, shocks reach the hub more attenuated and the ride is more comfortable. Haven't you guys noticed this?

Point is, construction of wheels has a lot to do with shock absorption and therefore comfort. How about disc wheels, as an extreme example? Nobody's going to convince me a full disc wheel is as comfortable as a spoked wheel, at the same 90 psi tire pressure. ut:


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> But flat sided V shaped rims were marketed precisely because they were supposed to be more aerodynamic than the old wide rims they replaced!


Haven't you been paying attention to what's been going w/ rim shape lately? Just look at Zipp, Bontrager, Enve. Wider, blunt leading edge. Not flat sided w/ a sharp leading edge. I'm sure the flat sided rims like Reynolds and the old Edge/Enve classic and pre-Firecrest Zipp were more aero than box section rims but they pale in comparison to the current shapes. 
Just like current tt bikes are much more efficient than the bikes of 10 years ago.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cxwrench said:


> Haven't you been paying attention to what's been going w/ rim shape lately? Just look at Zipp, Bontrager, Enve. Wider, blunt leading edge. Not flat sided w/ a sharp leading edge. I'm sure the flat sided rims like Reynolds and the old Edge/Enve classic and pre-Firecrest Zipp were more aero than box section rims but they pale in comparison to the current shapes.
> Just like current tt bikes are much more efficient than the bikes of 10 years ago.


I've been riding on these "blunt leading edge" rims for 30 years!  They've always bounced much nicer than the ugly V shaped rims that replaced them. If they bounce better, could it be they also absorb shocks better and therefore are more comfortable? :idea:


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^Good golly, Frederico, enjoy your Hi Wheeler in ignorant bliss.

You are the definition of a cycling Luddite. Every advancement after 1886 has been a step backward.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> I've been riding on these "blunt leading edge" rims for 30 years!  They've always bounced much nicer than the ugly V shaped rims that replaced them. If they bounce better, could it be they also absorb shocks better and therefore are more comfortable? :idea:


Just give up on this, you're starting to sound silly.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

tvad said:


> ^Good golly, Frederico, enjoy your Hi Wheeler in ignorant bliss.
> 
> You are the definition of a cycling Luddite. Every advancement after 1886 has been a step backward.


Not at all! I do point out, however, that frames, wheels, and components come and go, and that the latest stuff isn't always "better." Half the time, it comes down to style. 

I have to smile when the rims we all rode back in the 80s are now being touted as "new," and go WTF when they're touted to be MORE aerodynamic than the ugly V section rims they're now replacing. How about that!

So nobody'll take me up on V section rims being "harsh riding" compared to these "wide" rims?  

All I'm trying to say is, in response to "can a wheel provide a harsh ride?" is "Sure," albeit to a much lesser degree than tire pressure, granted. Wheels same as carbon frames and carbon handlebars vs. aluminum. Rider feels the difference, however subtly, even if only appreciated after a long ride.

I rest my case.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Fredrico said:


> ... frames, wheels, and components come and go, and that the latest stuff isn't always "better." Half the time, it comes down to style.


You're so out of touch it's not funny, it's sad.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> I've been riding on these "blunt leading edge" rims for 30 years!  They've always bounced much nicer than the ugly V shaped rims that replaced them. If they bounce better, could it be they also absorb shocks better and therefore are more comfortable? :idea:


A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> A picture is worth a thousand words.


Well, some discussion. :frown2: All you 3 can do is make personal humor, deftly skirting around the OP's question.

So y'all swear there's no difference in performance, handling, and yes, "harshness," between discs and spoked wheels? They all bounce along the road the same, one indistinguishable from the other? 

Its no fun arguing with someone who goes, "Nyah, nyah, nyah. I don't hear you!"  Usually a sign he has nothing to say. So he withdraws, touting his "authority." 

Weak, boys. We can do better.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

In terms of aerodynamics, wide box section rims < deep/narrow v rims < deep/wide u rims


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cobra_kai said:


> In terms of aerodynamics, wide box section rims < deep/narrow v rims < deep/wide u rims


But which ones bounce along better?


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

velodog said:


> But which ones bounce along better?


I wouldn't know I generally try to avoid bouncing along when I'm riding a road bike


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cobra_kai said:


> I wouldn't know I generally try to avoid bouncing along when I'm riding a road bike


Yep, This is the answer that I was looking for. 

Paying attention Fredrico?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> But which ones bounce along better?


The box section rims, obviously. They have more parallel surface to the pavement, which spreads out the shock waves wider, thereby attenuating them. The shockwaves dissipate into thin air, rather than travel up the spokes and into the hub, which gives a harsh ride.

Not to mention springing deftly over the bumps. The most comfortable rims I ever rode were Weinman concaves [below]. They looked like "I" beams.

You guys have no appreciation for the subtle variations in handling and performance of wheels, probably because you've never ridden "retro" 32 or 36 spoked wheels. Try 'em out! Then we can talk.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

cobra_kai said:


> In terms of aerodynamics, wide box section rims < deep/narrow v rims < deep/wide u rims


There's hardly any difference. I'll give up that minuscule aerodynamic advantage for predictable handling and comfort any day.


----------



## cobra_kai (Jul 22, 2014)

Fredrico said:


> There's hardly any difference. I'll give up that minuscule aerodynamic advantage for predictable handling and comfort any day.


I could just as easily say the inverse: there's hardly any difference. I'll give up that minuscule handling and comfort advantage for aerodynamic improvements any day. At least aerodynamics can be measured and quantified, so you know exactly what you are gaining. Whether those gains are worth the cost are an individual decision but there is no denying them.

Regarding stability, take a look at this: November Bicycles: Race smart. - November Bicycles Blog - November in the wind tunnel: Steady as she*goes

It's the only set of results that I'm aware of but it would suggest that deep u rims are actually _more_ stable that shallow box rims. There is a ton of good and interesting info on November's blog.

The comfort aspect sounds as if it is relying on your 'butt dyno,' which is about as useful as another substance that comes out of the same area. 

For the record, I don't own a set of deep aero wheels because the cost has not been worth it to me so far.



Fredrico said:


> The box section rims, obviously. They have more parallel surface to the pavement, which spreads out the shock waves wider, thereby attenuating them. The shockwaves dissipate into thin air, rather than travel up the spokes and into the hub, which gives a harsh ride.


This is just pure nonsense.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cobra_kai said:


> The comfort aspect sounds as if it is relying on your 'butt dyno,' which is about as useful as another substance that comes out of the same area.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess that the "butt dyno" develops "seat of the pants data", or as you say, nonsense.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Fredrico said:


> The box section rims, obviously. They have more parallel surface to the pavement, which spreads out the shock waves wider, thereby attenuating them. The shockwaves dissipate into thin air, rather than travel up the spokes and into the hub, which gives a harsh ride.
> 
> Not to mention springing deftly over the bumps. The most comfortable rims I ever rode were Weinman concaves [below]. They looked like "I" beams.
> 
> You guys have no appreciation for the subtle variations in handling and performance of wheels, probably because you've never ridden "retro" 32 or 36 spoked wheels. Try 'em out! Then we can talk.


The more you post the sillier you sound.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> The more you post the sillier you sound.


I think he's pullin' yer collective legs with most of his comments.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

This thread has long exhausted any trace of usefulness. Let's move on!


----------

