# Deep dish wheels for cyclocross?



## sesquiped (Aug 15, 2007)

Are these really necessary? These wheels are permeating most every type of bike racing including cross and i can definitely see the advantages of having an aero rim for road racing, time trials, etc. But having stood and watched, as well as participated in many cross races, I just don't see the advantage. I just don't think we go fast enough during a race to require that extra aerodynamics. I can obviously see the advantage if they have less weight, but don't many deep dish rims weight more that their shallow counterparts? And sure, something aerodynamic better that something shaped like a brick. 

I guess I don't know about how structurally stable these wheels are, are they stronger than normal rims, harder to trash?

If i had the cash i'd but an upgrade to my 105/OpenPros in a second, but do you all think it's worth it to get the deep dish's?

What's next mountain bikes with 'em?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I ditched my Deep Vs this season and don' miss the 1/3# per wheel weight penalty at all. I don't think deep aluminum wheels serve any purpose other than for riders who are really hard on their wheels.

CF is another story though. You can have a ~40mm deep Zipp that is lighter than a low profile aluminum rim. The deep section helps to create a strong rim from the lighter material.

As far as aero -- I agree, not generally useful for CX. But some people feel that the deep rims help in steering through sand & mud (not sure I agree with that. . .)


----------



## p lo (Sep 26, 2002)

*sand*

i have noticed that is makes it easier to ride through the thick sand that most people end up running


----------



## OutOfBreath (Aug 29, 2007)

The benefit of carbon wheels is 3 fold: Strength, Stiffness, rolling through mud and sand. Most good quality carbon rims are stronger against impacts than an alloy one. 2, Deeper wheels use shorter spokes therefore increase stiffness. 3, When riding though mud and sand it is harder for said mud to "collapse" over the top of the wheel, therefore less resistance. Also, carbon has a great vibration damping quality. Added bonus.

Oh yeah, Carbon is everywhere. Reynolds has had there 26" and 29" mtn wheels out for about a year now.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

Deep rims cut through certain types of mud and sand a lot better than box sections. The mud doesn't close over the rim to the spokes (as long as it's not deeper than the rim, of course) so it goes through like a pizza cutter. 

I've raced on zipp 404 and 303 wheels and they're unbelievably fast for cross, in certain situations. They're better in the mud and sand, they're lighter and spin up from low speeds easier and they make the bike itself feel impossibly light on your shoulder (I had my bikes right around 17 lbs at one point). The aero aspect is not a factor at all.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

OutOfBreath said:


> Most good quality carbon rims are stronger against impacts than an alloy one.
> 
> Also, carbon has a great vibration damping quality. Added bonus.


Sorry, carbon rims are nowhere near as strong as aluminum ones. Carbon rims do not hold up well when they're getting banged on rocks and roots with the tires at 25 lbs. I've seen lots get broken and I've broken many myself.

Vibration damping? You mean the vibrations that have gotten past the 32mm tire which is being run at 25 lbs? I guess that is a bonus, if you have a good imagination.

I'm all for carbon wheels, don't get me wrong. There are some real downsides to them in cross though- price and durability. If those factors don't bother you (or they are sponsored to you), get them.


----------



## alxandl (Aug 23, 2004)

I rode carbon rims back in 2003 or 2004, broke one near the end of the race at Nationals, and swore them off. Then again, this season I picked up a used set of 404s (thanks DPCX) and realized why others are using them, They "feel" so much faster than my other wheels. My percieved list of benefits:

1) The stiffness is fantastic, so they track. 
2)The deep rims really do slice through mud. 
3)They are light
4) The aero properties come into play for short sections of most courses
5) They look bad ass, which is what it really is all about, right?

But, if you are paying full price for a set, you are freaking crazy. Donate $1,000 to your favorite charity, take your sweetie out to a fancy dinner, buy a set of used tubies on eBay and a plane ticket to Kansas City and come out ahead.


----------



## dyg2001 (Sep 23, 2004)

alxandl said:


> But, if you are paying full price for a set, you are freaking crazy.


I agree. Luckily, you can buy a used set of Cane Creek Aros 58 wheels, which use made-in-the-USA Zipp carbon fiber tubular rims, on eBay for about $500, which is less than the cost of many "high end" clincher wheels (Ksyriums, hand-builts with Chris King hubs, etc.) that you see at the races. 

In terms of return on investment for cross racing equipment, here's my ranking: 
# 1: making sure your bike fits you
# 2: high-quality tubular tires
# 3: lightweight, durable tubular wheels
a distant # 4, everything else


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

dyg2001In terms of return on investment for cross racing equipment said:


> Word!


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

dyg2001 said:


> I agree. Luckily, you can buy a used set of Cane Creek Aros 58 wheels, which use made-in-the-USA Zipp carbon fiber tubular rims, on eBay for about $500, which is less than the cost of many "high end" clincher wheels (Ksyriums, hand-builts with Chris King hubs, etc.) that you see at the races.
> 
> In terms of return on investment for cross racing equipment, here's my ranking:
> # 1: making sure your bike fits you
> ...


I'll add that a set of aero wheels won't compensate for lack of training! (or technique...)

DAMHIK

M


----------



## onrhodes (Feb 19, 2004)

Take out all the hype and percieved benefits, and then factor in the fact that there are some "real" benefits, the fact of the matter is that you're not going to go from a mid pack finisher (no matter what level) to winning with a change to deep dish carbon wheels.

Would they be nice to have? Sure, but it would be nicer to have two sets of tubular wheels on open pro's with double butted spokes, alloy nipples and different tires for different conditions. You can do that for under $600-700.

I'm not knocking the deep dish carbon wheels, but for the majority of us "beer league bike racers" they are not really a practical choice.

Given most Americans drop practical for bling/marketing at the drop of a hat, otherwise we'd all be driving Corollas, Civics or Focuses.

I'll end with what I normally tell people. If you have money pouring out your orificies and need to coolest, latest thing, then go ahead and buy them. If you can get a killer deal on them, then go ahead and buy them, finally if you're smart save the money and train more.


----------



## HarrieH (Sep 6, 2007)

Deep section wheels don't have any benefit.
Just for poseurs (don't misunderstand: I do have it all and also ride it...).
Same for CF rims.
As long as they don't increase strength/stiffness drastically and reduce weight, they're just a gimmic.
Nothing better than regular alu rims, e.g. Mavic Open Pro clincher or SSC tubular rims.


----------



## dyg2001 (Sep 23, 2004)

HarrieH said:


> Deep section wheels don't have any benefit.
> Just for poseurs (don't misunderstand: I do have it all and also ride it...).
> Same for CF rims.
> As long as they don't increase strength/stiffness drastically and reduce weight, they're just a gimmic.
> Nothing better than regular alu rims, e.g. Mavic Open Pro clincher or SSC tubular rims.


Deep-section carbon fiber tubular rims offer no benefits compared to Mavic Open Pro clinchers, and are just for poseurs? I respectfully disagree.


----------



## OutOfBreath (Aug 29, 2007)

wunlap togo said:


> Sorry, carbon rims are nowhere near as strong as aluminum ones. Carbon rims do not hold up well when they're getting banged on rocks and roots with the tires at 25 lbs. I've seen lots get broken and I've broken many myself.
> 
> Vibration damping? You mean the vibrations that have gotten past the 32mm tire which is being run at 25 lbs? I guess that is a bonus, if you have a good imagination.
> 
> I'm all for carbon wheels, don't get me wrong. There are some real downsides to them in cross though- price and durability. If those factors don't bother you (or they are sponsored to you), get them.


I am sorry your personal experience with carbon wheels has jaded your view of the facts. I have personally visited both the Maclean Composites (Reynolds) factory and the Bontrager factory and seen the stress and impact tests that they both do with a variety of carbon and aluminum wheels. The majority of carbon wheels exceed the numbers put up by all aluminum wheels. The only exceptions to this rule in the mass market is Zipp and Mavic. Zipp rims, not so strong in comparison. And Ksyrium (sl or es) exceed the strength numbers of virtually all other aluminum rims and rival that of some carbon rims due to their FORE technology. 

If you would like, I can try and get those test results and post them, but only if you're willing to open your mind. If not, it would be a waste of time. Please don't read this as disrespectful or combative, I just don't know any other way to state it.

I also agree with the other people on this post, it's not about the bike unless your a pro and you do everything else perfect. The rest of us do it because it's a blast. Race what you got, who cares. 

But, If you're a pro or are fortunate enough to build your dream bike, Carbon wheels should definately be on the short list.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

Well, I'd love to know what kind of tests those were. Were they made to duplicate the kind of beatings the wheels would get in cyclocross? With cyclocross tires at low pressure? 

I'm not trying to be combative either, I just honestly have never heard someone claim that carbon rims will actually hold up to cyclocross use BETTER than aluminum. I've seen so many broken carbon rims- the frequency of failure in carbon rims (which are used by only a small percentage of racers) seems far greater than with aluminum rims (which are used by almost everyone). 

You can see where I'm going here- anyone who comes out to a lot of big cross races and sees the guys who get free wheels (me, at one point), usually finds out that when you get going fast on rough courses, the wheels break frequently.


----------



## sesquiped (Aug 15, 2007)

I'd love to get my hands on a pair of CF wheels and test the slicing through mud and sand theory. At first i equated it to sticking a rudder on the front of a boat, but thinking more about it, it just may work. I don't bet that it would be a clean laceration, but it may work.

I've been racing in the bay area this season and I've seen pretty much nothing close to mud or sand on any courses so far. If there were any mud around here, I'd love to have a second set to shed a few pounds in the middle of a race. I've never flatted during a race, but i'm sure at some point i will and also will be wishing that i had a spare wheel. I also imagine anyone whoe has the cash to blow on CF wheels, has enough to have a second set, whether or not hey are smart enough to are another story. Not finishing a race b/c a mechanical sucks.

I completely agree that a great bike isn't gonna make a great rider.


----------



## jerry_in_VT (Oct 13, 2006)

*God are we talking about this AGAIN?*

That said, let me chime in too!

I have raced with mavic reflex/da tubie and clincher, spinergy SPOX, Rold Vector Pros, Mavic K's, and a couple pairs of Zipps.

While I have not ridden clinchers in a while, when i went to tubies it was night and day.

I found that I was beating up the shallow AL rims pretty easy, trueing alot, getting flat spots, etc. I went to the SPOX, they were sooo light. Then I got a set of old zipps on the bay for 300 plus shipping. As with most zipps on ebay, they appeared to be UNUSED cause the owner kept them "safe" for TTs and stuff. I have ridden the living CRAP out of these wheels. Including summers. The SPOX felt great, very good suspension affect. However, they did show wear and got out of true pretty badly.

The Zipps have never needed to be touched. They feel as stiff as the Mavics (almost) and stiffer then the Rolfs. The Rolfs were really harsh riding. Maybe it was the tension being so high?

I liked the ride and durability of the zipps so much i got a newer (lighter) set on ebay this year, agian for 330 or so, with nice road tires which I sold. I got the K's on ebay for 450 shipped WITH a new set of 32 Dugast Rhynos. I really like how they ride and feel and have been swapping them and the zipps between races (I do two a day often) and cant seem to come to a consensus as to which is better for me. I think the tires (challenge 32 vs ryhnos) makes too much difference to be able to tell.

The Mavics ride really nice, the zipps felt faster on day two at gloucester (used mavics day 1). The zipps do seem better in the sand, but that is just seat of the pants. Mavics seem stiffer in accelerating. They both ride nice (think due to lowish spoke tensions).

I just glued up 34's on the new set of zipps and so far I am in love. 

Alot of it for me was economics. Everyone wants dimpled rims (why??) so you can get old zipps cheap. K's really never seem to be under 400 on ebay. I just got lucky. I plan to get ride of either one pair of zipps or the mavics. Just have to pick. I should just sell the mavics and try to get 400 for them and be ahead of the game, but I dont dare take off the dugasts cause they are glued so well.

I think someone should call PETA cause we are beating the crap outa this poor horse.

J


----------

