# Deep dish rims-do they really make a difference?



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

I have Rolf Vigor wheels- 34 mm, factory claim weight of 1470 gr, & low spoke count. I think these are about as good, in terms of performance, as I will find in terms of aero, weight for an traditional clincher rim. Disclaimer: I'm not saying these are "better" wheels than some other brand or make.

The deep dish lust has struck. I do a few road races, a few ralley rides as though they were races and fast race team training rides several times a week. I'm no longer serious about racing, but like to hang with good riders as long as I can. The routes are flat to rolling. A typical Saturday 55 mile ride in the "hills" will have 1800-2400 ft of climbing. Nothing really long or steep. When riding in excess of 20 mph (last Thursday I lost a lung going 35.5 on the flats with no significant tail wind that I was aware of) would 50 mm CF rims make any noticeable difference in performance over the Rolfs? I guess I'm asking would I be able to ride the same speed (20+) and produce less watts at a leve I would be aware of? The wheels I'm thinking about are inexpensive (thanks to our friends in the far east) CF clinchers without Al braking rim and weigh 1630 grams.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Deep wheel advantage*

Before I answer the question, a quick rant -

_There is no such thing as a "deep dish" wheel! The dish of a wheel is due to the aligning the rim off-center from the flanges on a rear wheel (to correct the assymmetry of the flanges due to making room for the cassette on the drive side)! A "deep dish" is a style of pie, not a wheel!_

Your question really has two parts:

Q: Will deep rims make a difference?
A: Yes, deep rims can decrease drag, slightly increasing speed a given power, or reducing power at a given speed.

Q: Will the difference be noticeable?
A: Probably not. Speed increases/power reduction is quite small, so if often requires a stop watch to actually measure the difference. Compared a traditional wheel with a shallow rim and 32 spokes, the very best aerowheels will increase speed/reduce power by only a few percent. Given all the other variables involved in cycling (terrain, wind, pavement condition, or just how the rider is feeling that day) the improvements with the aerowheels can get lost in the noise.

You're Rolf Vigor wheels already have a fairly deep rim and a reduced number of spokes, so going to any even more aerodynamic wheel is likely to result in an even smaller, less noticeable difference.

If you want to ride faster (or ride at the same speed with less effort), a more cost effective way (i.e. more improvement per dollar) is to hire a coach to maximize the performance of your engine.


----------



## kyler2001 (Sep 8, 2005)

Mark McM said:


> If you want to ride faster (or ride at the same speed with less effort), a more cost effective way (i.e. more improvement per dollar) is to hire a coach to maximize the performance of your engine.


Well said...:thumbsup:


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

thanks. That's what I suspected. But I would look so much faster  Think I'll save the money and train harder.


----------



## Dizzy812 (Feb 20, 2007)

Of course the 'just get fitter/lighter' advice is valid.

However, this assumes riders are completely insensitive to technological improvement.

Your max speed will increase. Your average speed will increase. You may set a new speedrecord on your favorite 'rollout'. Certainly you'll be thrilled with improved acceleration at higher speeds. 

Areo rules and so does speed you can buy.


----------



## rger8 (Aug 27, 2004)

Don't kid yourself, looking fast is a great mental upper!  ( I have a great imagination! ) I just got my new Easton Vista SL Aero's and I feel way faster, although I'm probably not!  Did notice side wind effects though, not so good. I can really feel the wind push the rim. Really, it was a great upgrade from what I had and glad I spent the money. I noticed the smoothness of the hub more than anything. Upgraded from Alex 290 wheels.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

rger8 said:


> Don't kid yourself, looking fast is a great mental upper!  ( I have a great imagination! )


It sort of cuts both ways. Few things make you feel like more of a bad-a$$ than passing someone on a bike that's nicer than yours. 

I am skeptical of the physical advantages of big rims. However, nice wheels with quality hubs and bearings are significant.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Pablo said:


> I am skeptical of the physical advantages of big rims.


What are your feelings on this gravity thing?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

asgelle said:


> What are your feelings on this gravity thing?


It's a downer


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

asgelle said:


> What are your feelings on this gravity thing?


I understand that big ol' rims and high tech wheels offer advantages, e.g. rotational weight blah, blah. However, I am skeptical about the significance of such advantages.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Pablo said:


> I understand that big ol' rims and high tech wheels offer advantages, e.g. rotational weight blah, blah. However, I am skeptical about the SIGNIFICANCE of such advantages.


Really?



Pablo said:


> I am skeptical of the PHYSICAL advantages of big rims.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

Geez, what is this, cross examination? I'm skeptical about the significance of the physical advantages of these rims. I used the word "physical" to distinguish from the mental and psycological benefits discussed by rger8 in post #6. What can I say, I'm a skeptical guy.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Pablo said:


> Geez, what is this, cross examination? I'm skeptical about the significance of the physical advantages of these rims. I used the word "physical" to distinguish from the mental and psycological benefits discussed by rger8 in post #6. What can I say, I'm a skeptical guy.


well, as long as we don't know what you mean by significant, the discussion is kinda moot.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

den bakker said:


> well, as long as we don't know what you mean by significant, the discussion is kinda moot.


It seems like for the vast majority of riders, including most competitive riders and racers, the advantage gained in speed from deep rims is minimal. This advantage seems very small and thereby would seem to be an insignificant factor in how fast a bike can be ridden and in accompanying competitive results. 

From what I understand, and my understanding is certainly not perfect in this area, deep rims decrease air restsience and rotational weight to a rather small degree that translates into very little extra velocity resulting from the different rim. So, it seems like if you had two riders, assuming all other things equal, which of course would never happen in real life, the guy with deep rims would only go a touch faster. In reality, it seems like you could make up this slight loss in speed through other means. 

Further, at least to me, and I understand that everyone has difference economic means and would do their own cost-benefit calculation, this benefit seems minor compared to the additional monetary cost. 

Of course, it's all subjective: my insignificance is others' significance.

I guess that's sort of what I mean by "significant" in this context.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

den bakker said:


> well, as long as we don't know what you mean by significant, the discussion is kinda moot.


Well, what I would mean as significant in (agreement with Pablo) is that the riders that drop me now would still drop me no matter what wheels I'm riding. - TF


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> Well, what I would mean as significant in (agreement with Pablo) is that the riders that drop me now would still drop me no matter what wheels I'm riding. - TF


well, the same is true no matter what hub or bearing you used but Pablo claims that is an important factor in a wheelset.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I was always under the impression that bearings make a bigger difference than rims. I may be wrong.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Pablo said:


> I was always under the impression that bearings make a bigger difference than rims. I may be wrong.


at around 15mph, wind resistance becomes the dominant source of resistance.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

But wouldn't bad bearings still slow you down no matter how fast you're going, like when you're going uphill, or in all conditions, like when there's a cross or tail wind?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Pablo said:


> But wouldn't bad bearings still slow you down no matter how fast you're going, like when you're going uphill, or in all conditions, like when there's a cross or tail wind?


yes but the term will still only be a linear fuction of speed, unlike drag which goes as the speed square.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

den bakker said:


> yes but the term will still only be a linear fuction of speed, unlike drag which goes as the speed square.


That I did not know. Hmmm. But bearings are still important, are they not?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Pablo said:


> That I did not know. Hmmm. But bearings are still important, are they not?


Well anything can be important if the differences you're concerned about are small enough. Drivetrain losses account for about 2% of total power. That includes chain deflection (by far the greatest contributor) jockey wheels, wheel, bottom bracket, and pedal bearings. So take that 2%, take the small fraction due to wheel bearing losses, take the small differences between different bearings, and I'd say there isn't a lot left to be important. Now, if you're competing in time trials where hundreths of a second over an hour might matter (0.001%), then yes, bearings might be important.

And a clarification: the force to overcome bearing friction is independent of speed, the force to overcome aero drag goes as speed squared. The power to overcome bearing friction is linear in speed, and the power to overcome aero drag is cubic in speed.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Pablo said:


> It seems like for the vast majority of riders, including most competitive riders and racers, the advantage gained in speed from deep rims is minimal. This advantage seems very small and thereby would seem to be an insignificant factor in how fast a bike can be ridden and in accompanying competitive results.
> 
> From what I understand, and my understanding is certainly not perfect in this area, deep rims decrease air restsience and rotational weight to a rather small degree that translates into very little extra velocity resulting from the different rim. So, it seems like if you had two riders, assuming all other things equal, which of course would never happen in real life, the guy with deep rims would only go a touch faster. In reality, it seems like you could make up this slight loss in speed through other means.
> 
> ...


Minimal, small, insignificant, very little, touch, minor. All words with absolutely no meaning. Why use these vague meaningless descriptions when there is verified quantitative data available from which people can make informed decisions. Switch from the standard 32 spoke box section rim to a 50 mm aero rim, and you'll go about 0.5 mph faster. There it is. Now decide if it's worth it to you based on your competitive and financial situation. There's no one right answer to fit everynbody, and it's absurd for anyone to try to tell somone else what is or is not minimal, small, significant, minor, ...


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Minimal, small, insignificant, very little, touch, minor. All words with absolutely no meaning. Why use these vague meaningless descriptions when there is verified quantitative data available from which people can make informed decisions. Switch from the standard 32 spoke box section rim to a 50 mm aero rim, and you'll go about 0.5 mph faster. There it is. Now decide if it's worth it to you based on your competitive and financial situation. There's no one right answer to fit everynbody, and it's absurd for anyone to try to tell somone else what is or is not minimal, small, significant, minor, ...


I don't agree that they have absolutely no meaning, although they lack an absolute meaning. It's all relative. That's pretty much what I said previously ans summed up as: "Of course, it's all subjective: my insignificance is others' significance." Moreover, it's no so absurd to opine on this subject when someone requests such opinions in a thread.


----------



## ghostzapper2007 (May 22, 2007)

Schneiderguy said:


> I have Rolf Vigor wheels- 34 mm, factory claim weight of 1470 gr, & low spoke count. I think these are about as good, in terms of performance, as I will find in terms of aero, weight for an traditional clincher rim. Disclaimer: I'm not saying these are "better" wheels than some other brand or make.
> 
> The deep dish lust has struck. I do a few road races, a few ralley rides as though they were races and fast race team training rides several times a week. I'm no longer serious about racing, but like to hang with good riders as long as I can. The routes are flat to rolling. A typical Saturday 55 mile ride in the "hills" will have 1800-2400 ft of climbing. Nothing really long or steep. When riding in excess of 20 mph (last Thursday I lost a lung going 35.5 on the flats with no significant tail wind that I was aware of) would 50 mm CF rims make any noticeable difference in performance over the Rolfs? I guess I'm asking would I be able to ride the same speed (20+) and produce less watts at a leve I would be aware of? The wheels I'm thinking about are inexpensive (thanks to our friends in the far east) CF clinchers without Al braking rim and weigh 1630 grams.



A deeper profile wheel will offer you some aerodynamic advantages, particularly in non drafting events like a time trial or the bike portion of a tri race. Whether the speed improvements are worth it to you or not only you can judge. In amateur racing I really do not see the point of these wheels, yes they will make you a bit faster, but did you end up faster because you trained harder or performed better? No. What you did was you used a credit card and purchased some additional speed, that's it. If you had finished a minute slower on standard clinchers would that result suddenly become shameful compared with your Reynolds Stratus result which was 60 seconds faster due to the wheels aero advantage? No.

Personally, in amateur races I'm a bit surprised that racing authorities do not put some type of reasonable limit of rim depth since a real deep aero wheel is obviously going to be a faster TT wheel than say a standard clincher and not all amateurs can afford Zipps or Reynolds deep profile carbon wheels. These are afterall, amateur events, not pro races and it seems a bit disingenuous in my mind that a person can essentially buy a 1 minute plus time advantage over another amateur competitor in these events. Obviously, racing authorities can't put limits on all equipment or else you'd have the guy running Centaur complaining about the guy running Record, but wheels and in partiucular deep profile TT type wheels seem like an awful unfair advantage particularly in in amateur TT and triathlete events, to those competitors who can't afford them. Unlike pros who have to ride this stuff for sponsorship and marketing purposes, amateur competition at its sole is supposed to be about the competitors and their efforts, not how much extra speed their wallet can buy to give them an advantage over those who can not afford it. That's my rant for today, flame away. :thumbsup:


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*For someone.......*



asgelle said:


> Minimal, small, insignificant, very little, touch, minor. All words with absolutely no meaning. Why use these vague meaningless descriptions when there is verified quantitative data available from which people can make informed decisions. Switch from the standard 32 spoke box section rim to a 50 mm aero rim, and you'll go about 0.5 mph faster. There it is. Now decide if it's worth it to you based on your competitive and financial situation. There's no one right answer to fit everynbody, and it's absurd for anyone to try to tell somone else what is or is not minimal, small, significant, minor, ...


that was busting chops for lack of precision it's ironic to me that you pull .5 MPH out of your butt without refering to the base speed with the boxed rim. Was that 14 to 14.5 MPH or 30 to 30.5 mph? Big difference. It also puts your assertion under the suspisious catagory.

Len


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Len J said:


> that was busting chops for lack of precision it's ironic to me that you pull .5 MPH out of your butt without refering to the base speed with the boxed rim. Was that 14 to 14.5 MPH or 30 to 30.5 mph? Big difference. It also puts your assertion under the suspisious catagory.
> 
> Len


Eye trouble? A-B-O-U-T http://www.analyticcycling.com or Google is your friend.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

asgelle said:


> Eye trouble? A-B-O-U-T http://www.analyticcycling.com or Google is your friend.


No eye trouble.....I already did the calcualtion...I wasquestioning wether you did based on your imprecise answer. (after all turnabout is fair play)...but nice try anyway.

If your gonna bust someone'schops...ya might want to stand on solid ground yourself.

Len


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

There's alot of tech data on Zipp's website. From that and other published data, the 0.5mph mentioned by asgelle is probably a best-case scenario (32spoke box rim to best deep-rim aero's) for a rider doing >25+mph at a given power output (wattage). It seems that a well-designed 35mm rim with low-number of bladed spokes (Vigor) provides most of the aero advantage of a full disk wheel. Since wind resistance increases geometrically with velocity, a slower rider would expect less of these gains (prob nil at <15mph). 
FWIW- I also noticed in Zipp's data that their baseline comparo wheel has an old GL33 rim which is a true 12mm box rim. The common Open Pro is 18-19mm so it should be more aero than this baseline.

But can the recreational rider tell a difference with more aero wheels? I have over 2k mi (each) on my Ult/OP's (32spoke, 1875g) and Neuvation r28aero's (27mm w/16-20 bladed spokes,1625g). Ride both wheelsets regularly on my old AL Cannondale (CAAD5 frame). Even though I am not as strong as the OP, I find a real difference. I prefer the Ult/Op's with 25mm tires for slower jaunts (16-18mph ave) for the smoother ride. For faster efforts (18-20+ave), the r28's with 20-23 tires feel much more spirited- especially during accelerations & sprints (25mph+). My peak sprint speed (~32mph level ground, no wind) is consistently 0.3-0.5mph faster with the r28's (more aero and lighter). My PB's for 50mi, 100k, and 100miIs tha have all come on the r28's.

MarkMcM suggested the difference between those nice 34mm Rolf Vigors and a 50mm rim would be less than the difference between box rims and the Vigors. I still think it might be noticeable by a faster recreational rider. Perhaps up to 0.2-mph??? Is that (plus the placebo effect) enough to let you hang longer with the peloton?????


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

My 2 cents. I raced for many years and intend to do so again. I was faster in time trials using aero wheels. Everyone is unless there is some epic crosswind. For road racing and crits, I never saw much advantage to aero wheels. My favorite crit wheels where box tubulars with 3X32 lacing. These wheels offered strength with low rotating mass. Most crits are about accelerating at a moments notice and weight mattered more to me than aerodynamics. For road racing, unless the course can support a breakaway, I prefer a standard open pro wheelset. I do have a set of carbon aero wheels with ambrosio rims and record hubs, but I use them exclusively for time trials.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigbill said:


> Most crits are about accelerating at a moments notice and weight mattered more to me than aerodynamics.


Maybe to you, but not the the physical world. http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm (again)


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Maybe to you, but not the the physical world. http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm (again)


Interesting stuff there. to to OP just buy the wheels if there is no financial strain involved to do so. People without means to buy nice things always want to wax sublime about how ineffective or unimportant spending money on this and that is. Screw them and buy the wheels. You got the means so do so. If it means something as little as looks cooler it's worth it. Equipment is subjective. Oh and to all those out there who routinely say how glamourous it is to pass someone on a nicer bike than yours bite me. You get all excited when driving down the highway and your toyota passes the Porsche. Really.. who cares. Sorry been dying to rant that last statement. Again get the wheels. Qualify the purchase with " because I wanted them" and all is good.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

hooper said:


> Oh and to all those out there who routinely say how glamourous it is to pass someone on a nicer bike than yours bite me. You get all excited when driving down the highway and your toyota passes the Porsche. Really.. who cares. Sorry been dying to rant that last statement.


Touched on a sacred cow, have we?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Eye trouble? A-B-O-U-T http://www.analyticcycling.com or Google is your friend.


Here are some numbers you can use to plug into your favorite calculator. The box rimmed wheelset is off the charts with a CdA ~.048.


Here is another calculator, too:
http://www.whitemountainwheels.com/SpeedPower.html


----------



## hooper (Jul 22, 2006)

Pablo said:


> Touched on a sacred cow, have we?


Not really it's just a cringe statement. Are you one who likes to say that? Anyway I pass riders on nicer bikes than me all the time and sometimes they pass me. What this has to do with anything I just don't know. The statement is such a head basher is all. Kind of a juvenile attempt to justify ones difficult financial position in life. " I passed a guy that can spend more on a bike than me look I'm faster better than they are". Whatever is all. Grow up. Sorry you feel so insignificant that you ego must resort to such desperate statements. The only reason the statement is said is to feel somewhere better than the more sucessful guy you wish you could be. It's stupid.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*yes*

Yes. Deep section wheels are faster than standard 32 spoke wheels in almost all conditions. This is beyond debate. The tests and evidence is overwhelming. Conclusive. Stick a fork in it.

I personally know from timing myself many times that I am much faster on my Cervelo P2C with Zipp 808 front and disc rear, low aerobar position, aero helmet and skinsuit, than on a standard Bianchi ultralight road racing bike with even Zipp 303 tubular wheels riding in the drops. "Much faster" equals about 2 mph at 20-25 mph. So, a complete aero setup is faster than a non-aero setup. Harder to quantify the various components of each setup, though. 

For mass start events, my personal belief is to go with something that has the best of both lightness and aero, like the Zipp 303 or 404. Good compromise between accelleration, climbing, and aero. Your wheels will not be holding you back.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

hooper said:


> Not really it's just a cringe statement. Are you one who likes to say that? Anyway I pass riders on nicer bikes than me all the time and sometimes they pass me. What this has to do with anything I just don't know. The statement is such a head basher is all. Kind of a juvenile attempt to justify ones difficult financial position in life. " I passed a guy that can spend more on a bike than me look I'm faster better than they are". Whatever is all. Grow up. Sorry you feel so insignificant that you ego must resort to such desperate statements. The only reason the statement is said is to feel somewhere better than the more sucessful guy you wish you could be. It's stupid.


It just seemed like a rather strong reaction. 

Anyway, passing others while riding raises a whole different debate and we don't need to open that can of worms. 

Setting that issue aside (hopefully), I agree that reverting to the relative quality/cost of your versus anothers bikes is a bit childish, but I'm not sure it's as an extreme psycological condition as you seem to say it is. As a still relatively young person and based on my own personal experience as a stariving student, I've always seen this issue from another angle. It's a bit frustrating to a young person subsisting on sttudent loans to see older, often out-of-shape people on bikes that cost more that what a the student lives on throughout the year. In this situation, the use of this argument is not so much a feeling of insignificance as you assert, as it is a hearting way the starving student reminds him or herself that the bike itself doesn't make you go faster (unless they're deep rims ) but it's the engine. 

I can't really speak for other, older people in bad financial situations who use this argument and I think people should spend all the money on significant and insignificant bike stuff they want.


----------



## Stray Cat (May 25, 2007)

This is all my opinion:

The wheels you have right now sound very nice. Still got a decently deep rim at a good weight.

From my experience, I definitely noticed the Aero benefit. I run M28 Aero 2s as trainers and was looking for a set of deep race wheels. Borrowed a friends set of Spinergy Stealth SS for a couple days and put about 80 miles on them. I definitely noticed some big differences. 

First of all, it was easier to maintain speed around 23-24mph solo on the flats. (I typically train solo) I took them around the same 10 mile loop I do everyday so no variables in terrain changed. It was very windy but I didn't feel like I was pushing "as hard" into the wind. On the same decent where I freewheel down at 25-26mph, I was doing 28-29 effortlessly. I was kind of shocked.

Now the bad part. All though these wheels felt great when you were up to speed, it wasn't as quick to get up there at all. My climbs were definitely slower. 

Overall, they make great time trial/Tri wheels, but they just don't have the acceleration they should. Weighing in at 1795 grams they feel like pigs. The aluminum braking surface is a huge weight penalty when added to the carbon rim. All of the extra weight is on the outermost portion of the rim which is the most significant. I would NEVER use these in a crit myself. I'll use 1400 gram non aero wheels just because the local crits accelerate so much. If I can get a 50mm+ in around 1500 grams that'd be perfect. Maybe let me hold a break longer at ~30mph.

Keep in mind these are only 43mm deep. Not that much deeper than what you have now. Unless you have money burning in your pocket, which you should paypal me some if that's the case , I'd only look at 50mm+. 

I've been looking at this extensively the past 2 weeks. I've got a budget around $1k for race wheels. Those spinergys are around $600 but the weight kill them for me. 

I would LOVE a set of tubular Zipp 404s, but way out of my price range even on ebay. 

The Spinergy FCC and FCT look good but I'm not so sure about the PBO spokes as I've heard they are flexy and I'm around 185lbs and tend to mash up the smaller hills. (PBO spokes are suppose to ride awesome tho!) They also are typically 100 grams heavier than claimed.

I love Neuvation cycling and plug them in any thread asking but 1520 grams for a full carbon TUBULAR is not light. (not cheap either) 

I've found the Williams Cycling 50Cs so far to be a great compromise between everything. A friend on another board recommended them to me after loving his 19s. $1k for 50mm, ceramic bearings, carbon clinchers at 1560 grams. Comes with pads, valve extender, and rim tape too which saves me some money. Only thing that I don't like, you can't build it up with a power tap. Gave him a call and they said in Winter they should make a wheel with a powertap. (Very nice on the phone like John at Neuvation)

I'm still looking at Troy at Ligero building be a set of carbon tubulars but it might run more and I will definitely be waiting a while for them! I think I'm going to have a set of 50Cs on my doorstep next week. 


I'd suggest trying to borrow a pair from a friend if they'd let you. If not, look on Zipps website and see if they have a dealer that does wheel demos near you. No one can tell you exactly how you will feel about any wheel. We can get close, but you have to find out for yourself.

Good luck,
Zack


p.s~ Although very heavy, they sure do look sexy!


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

Stray Cat that is a great looking bike. I would call this the "Zebra look" You might have to endure the weight of the wheels just for the looks! I appreciate everyones comments and enjoy the "different points of view". If I were to buy 50 mm+ rims it would be used off ebay where I could recoup the money if not happy with them or try the Karbona tubulars at $550-weight 1520 . Additional thoughts appreciated.


----------



## Stray Cat (May 25, 2007)

Ha. I really like the way they look. They even make white spokes for the wheels which would look great. Function over form though. 

Personally, if I got a tubular it'd have to be sub 1400 grams to deal with the expensive tires and hassle of a flat to be worth it. Never seen those Karbonas before a google search 5 minutes ago. Interesting.

If you want to "try" something. Look for those Zipp demos, friends, Spinergy Stealth SS on ebay (could recoop most of your cost by reselling), or something similar.

Good luck


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Stray Cat said:


> This is all my opinion:
> 
> The wheels you have right now sound very nice. Still got a decently deep rim at a good weight.
> 
> ...


Not to pick on you, but it is amazing how the placebo effect dominates most things bike related. Your M28s should be very close in aero performance to the Spinergys... certainly not more than 0.2 mph (if they had the fiber spokes they'd be worse). Similarly on a climb you would not see a noticeable difference. Even if there was a significant difference getting up to speed (there isn't) you wouldn't notice it on a climb anyway. The couple hundred extra grams of weight would be around 0.25% difference in speed, and if the wheels were really more aero that would probably compensate for it.

The problem with subjective opinions that have no relation to physics is that the outcome is mostly ruled by whatever you believe it will be... so if someone has a different belief, they will get a very different result. And if you are truly interested in going faster, it is best to choose options that really are faster. 

I do like the black/white theme on your bike though...


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

rruff said:


> Not to pick on you, but it is amazing how the placebo effect dominates most things bike related. Your M28s should be very close in aero performance to the Spinergys... certainly not more than 0.2 mph (if they had the fiber spokes they'd be worse). Similarly on a climb you would not see a noticeable difference. Even if there was a significant difference getting up to speed (there isn't) you wouldn't notice it on a climb anyway. The couple hundred extra grams of weight would be around 0.25% difference in speed, and if the wheels were really more aero that would probably compensate for it.
> 
> The problem with subjective opinions that have no relation to physics is that the outcome is mostly ruled by whatever you believe it will be... so if someone has a different belief, they will get a very different result. And if you are truly interested in going faster, it is best to choose options that really are faster.
> 
> I do like the black/white theme on your bike though...


I think that you have actually hit on TWO major points here.

First, the one you intended, is that the subjective posts do not provide any real evidence that one wheel is any better than any other.

The second, however, is that the 'placebo affect' (or the huge mental aspect of cycling) does exist. This is why the only objective evidence posted, based on math models, has much less relevance than the proponents would like to believe.

TF


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

TurboTurtle said:


> The second, however, is that the 'placebo affect' (or the huge mental aspect of cycling) does exist. This is why the only objective evidence posted, based on math models, has much less relevance than the proponents would like to believe.


Not at all... one is random and the other is real. Well... this is the way I look at it. The mental aspects associated with "gear" work mostly in a negative way rather than positive. For instance you buy a new wheelset (or whatever) and you are suddenly faster... even though there is no physical reason why this should be so. Is your new mental state making you fast or was your old mental state slowing you down? In other words, did you really get a sudden boost in max sustainable power output, or were you simply not going as hard as you could before? I propose that it is the later... otherwise you could compound the placebo effect into ever increasing performance until you were setting world records. But what usually happens instead is that once the newness wears off your performance drifts back to where it was before... until you get another new thing... and then the cycle repeats. 

So, depending on your susceptibility to the placebo effect, there will be a fluctuating performance component associated with gear, but actual physical differences in the performance of gear will be sustainable.

The best athletes have little placebo effect going on... they are capable of performing at their physical limits regardless of equipment or circumstances.


----------



## ghostzapper2007 (May 22, 2007)

For deep dish carbon wheels do most of you tend to favor tubulars or clinchers and why? Are there flat preventers for both which can be sprayed into the tube in advance to prevent leaks or at least slow a leak down so that it is usually rideable home or to the next pit area in a race?

Do most cross racers prefer tubulars or clinchers and why?


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

rruff said:


> Not at all... one is random and the other is real. Well... this is the way I look at it. The mental aspects associated with "gear" work mostly in a negative way rather than positive. For instance you buy a new wheelset (or whatever) and you are suddenly faster... even though there is no physical reason why this should be so. Is your new mental state making you fast or was your old mental state slowing you down? In other words, did you really get a sudden boost in max sustainable power output, or were you simply not going as hard as you could before? I propose that it is the later... otherwise you could compound the placebo effect into ever increasing performance until you were setting world records. But what usually happens instead is that once the newness wears off your performance drifts back to where it was before... until you get another new thing... and then the cycle repeats.
> 
> So, depending on your susceptibility to the placebo effect, there will be a fluctuating performance component associated with gear, but actual physical differences in the performance of gear will be sustainable.
> 
> The best athletes have little placebo effect going on... they are capable of performing at their physical limits regardless of equipment or circumstances.


I would say it is more likely that the standard equipment gives a normal, not negative, response. But the point is that it does show the significant, real difference the mental game has in cycling; whether from placebo or focus, motivation. etc.

"The best athletes have little placebo effect going on... they are capable of performing at their physical limits regardless of equipment or circumstances." I would agree to "little" and that this is one of the main reasons that they are the best - motivation and focus every time they perform. However, this is not true for the rest of us - not even close.

TF


----------



## DocVijay (Aug 16, 2007)

...double post...

Sorry.


----------



## DocVijay (Aug 16, 2007)

Stray Cat said:


> This is all my opinion:
> 
> The wheels you have right now sound very nice. Still got a decently deep rim at a good weight.
> 
> ...


Good choice in wheels. I have hte Stelath FCC's and love them.

But more important than how well they work is that I love how they look and how they feel. Do they make me faster? Dunno. Do they make me happy? Yep. That's all I need.

Can't say if they PBO spokes are flexy though. I have Spinergy wheels with PBO spokes on my road and mountain bike, but I only weigh 135, so I tend not to induce much flex in anything. The wheels are comfortable though, and my mountain wheels are 6 years old and as true as the day I bought them.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

TurboTurtle said:


> "The best athletes have little placebo effect going on... they are capable of performing at their physical limits regardless of equipment or circumstances." I would agree to "little" and that this is one of the main reasons that they are the best - motivation and focus every time they perform. However, this is not true for the rest of us - not even close.


But moving from external motivation to internal is trainable. This is one case where the "Shut up and train" crowd have it right. Instead of investing in non-beneficial equipment (definition of placebo), one is much better off using the money to develop the mental skills to draw on a higher percentage of optimal performance through internal cues. Sports psychology has been shown to yield large performance gains.


----------



## DocVijay (Aug 16, 2007)

asgelle said:


> Sports psychology has been shown to yield large performance gains.


Yes, that's true, but sports psychology doesn't look as cool as a nice set of carbon rims! :thumbsup:


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

TurboTurtle said:


> I would agree to "little" and that this is one of the main reasons that they are the best - motivation and focus every time they perform. However, this is not true for the rest of us - not even close.


That and good genetics... ie having the right parents.

I think motivation and focus... and dealing with the unpleasant feelings that come up at the limit... are trainable for all of us. We are kinda stuck with the genetic part, but we can still strive to do the best with what we have.


----------



## hidekikun (Aug 9, 2008)

hooper said:


> Interesting stuff there. to to OP just buy the wheels if there is no financial strain involved to do so. People without means to buy nice things always want to wax sublime about how ineffective or unimportant spending money on this and that is. Screw them and buy the wheels. You got the means so do so. If it means something as little as looks cooler it's worth it. Equipment is subjective. Oh and to all those out there who routinely say how glamourous it is to pass someone on a nicer bike than yours bite me. You get all excited when driving down the highway and your toyota passes the Porsche. Really.. who cares. Sorry been dying to rant that last statement. Again get the wheels. Qualify the purchase with " because I wanted them" and all is good.


It's more akin to passing a porche on the circuit in your toyota. (I ride laps of a popular training place around here). I pass a lot of roadies, not the hardcore ones, but I do pass maybe about 80% of the people on nice roadbikes I come across there. My current bike is a 5 year old beat up mountain bike with a 130mm fork, and 7 inch disc brakes and commuter tires..


----------

