# Wheel weight



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

OK, so I've heard wheels are a great way to lose weight off of a factory bike.

I weighed the factory Bontrager "Race SSR" wheels that came on my Trek 2.1 and they total 2331g with skewers. For around $500 I could buy a set of Easton or Mavics at around 1500g. That's nearly two pounds. (No wonder Bontrager warranties these things).

So here's the question: would the upgraded wheels be stronger or weaker than the factory Bontragers? Is this upgrade as good as it sounds?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> OK, so I've heard wheels are a great way to lose weight off of a factory bike.
> 
> I weighed the factory Bontrager "Race SSR" wheels that came on my Trek 2.1 and they total 2331g with skewers. For around $500 I could buy a set of Easton or Mavics at around 1500g. That's nearly two pounds. (No wonder Bontrager warranties these things).
> 
> So here's the question: would the upgraded wheels be stronger or weaker than the factory Bontragers? Is this upgrade as good as it sounds?


While Bonty's aren't known for their durability (especially the paired spoke variety), it's debatable whether the upgrade is as good as it sounds. First off, I'm assuming you're comparing _actual _weight of the Bonty's to the _claimed_ weight of the Easton/ Mavics. If so, be advised that manufacturers routinely lowball their weights for obvious reasons.

If your primary goal is to drop some bike weight, you'll likely succeed with this upgrade, but whether the payback is worth the cost is for you to decide. I think the best way to determine that is to pin down exactly what you're looking for in the new wheelset. Is it durability? Weight? Bling factor? Then, depending on your priorities proceed accordingly.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

dgeesaman said:


> OK, so I've heard wheels are a great way to lose weight off of a factory bike.
> 
> I weighed the factory Bontrager "Race SSR" wheels that came on my Trek 2.1 and they total 2331g with skewers. For around $500 I could buy a set of Easton or Mavics at around 1500g. That's nearly two pounds. (No wonder Bontrager warranties these things).
> 
> So here's the question: would the upgraded wheels be stronger or weaker than the factory Bontragers? Is this upgrade as good as it sounds?



You need to do an apples to apples comparison,,, Many manufactures claimed weight doesn't include skewers..Also I'm assuming your Bonti's had rim tape when you weighed them

You can definitely get a lower weight wheelset for a reasonable price but the actual weight savings will be less than you think


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Good points. My weights are done on an accurate scale but I did not remove skewers and rim tape. I found others state the Bontrager SSRs to have an advertised weight of 2130g so that would make the net savings to be 600g.

My intent is to have an all-around wheel that's an upgrade over the factory wheel. I live among a lot of rolling hills and so while I'm no climber I think it will be nice to have. My first weight loss goal is to get to 180lb (I'm at 200 now) and the wheel upgrade will be my reward. The upgrade wheel then will have to have some toughness since 180# is still a heavy load.


----------



## Nimitz (Jul 8, 2004)

weight isn't as a big of a deal as Aero...deeper rims will be more beneficial unless you are climbing quite a bit. depends what your budget is...

Chad


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> Good points. My weights are done on an accurate scale but I did not remove skewers and rim tape. I found others state the Bontrager SSRs to have an advertised weight of 2130g so that would make the net savings to be 600g.
> 
> *My intent is to have an all-around wheel that's an upgrade over the factory wheel*. I live among a lot of rolling hills and so while I'm no climber I think it will be nice to have. My first weight loss goal is to get to 180lb (I'm at 200 now) and the wheel upgrade will be my reward. The upgrade wheel then will have to have some toughness since 180# is still a heavy load.


With that criteria in mind I think Mavic OpenPro's with Ultegra hubs would be hard to beat. There are lighter wheels available, but you'd still be dropping about 300g's and IME these wheels are near bulletproof.
http://www.bicyclewheelwarehouse.com/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=4


----------



## dharrison (Oct 27, 2009)

In addition to weight savings, if you go custom and find a reputable wheel builder they will be much stiffer. I got a custom build for about the price of a comparable factory build and would do it again.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Well I haven't met my weight goal yet but when I do I'm thinking a set in the $500 range would be appropriate.

Based on things I've read it seems I would do well to get a set made from semi-standard components and not get too wild with spoke count. What can I say, I like to shop for technical toys and I have a list already with options. Easton EA-70X, Rol Volant, BWW Blackset w/ 24/28 spoke Ultegra hubs, Williams 30X, and BWW Mavic Open Pro with 24/28 spoke Ultegras. At 180lb I should have plenty of support with these and still enjoy a performance boost.


----------



## kritiman (Jul 31, 2006)

I've been considering the same thing lately, and have similar wheels now.
A little less weight, better handling and durability are key. So I have no idea which spoke pattern would be applicable. Those Mavic Open Pros look good.

Are these aero wheels and spokes mostly a marketing gimmick or is there a benefit for us mere mortals?


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

The way I understand it, if you climb hills you want a very light wheel. Aero matters less since nobody climbs very fast. If you spend time on the flats at speed, you want an aero profile rim and aero spokes, even if it weighs slightly more. Plenty of people buy the fancy wheels just because of looks whether they admit it or not.

There are downsides to these two extremes, mostly being serviceability, cost, and durability. I'm trying to step up a notch on looks, light weigh, and aero without burning up too much money and getting fragile.


----------



## simonaway427 (Jul 12, 2010)

Have a look at Soul. The s3.0 is a nice comprimise between weight savings and aero.

I have a pair of the 3.0SL myself
http://bikesoul.com/2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=11


----------



## waterobert (Nov 24, 2009)

Few weeks ago I have changed wheels from Shimano R10 to Shimano Dura-Ace carbon laminate. New wheels were about 450g lighter then the old ones. I was able to tell right from the start that my acceleration got much better. Also my average speed went up by about 0.6mph. I am very happy with new wheels, however compering to the old ones spokes are very thin. Now I worry a little about rough roads. IMO loose weight on the old wheels and reward yourself with light wheels.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Didn't happen*



waterobert said:


> Also my average speed went up by about 0.6mph.


Given that the fastest wheels in the world will give you 0.3 mph at 20 mph compared to a standard 32 spoke box section rim, I say you're running on placebo effect.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

simonaway427 said:


> Have a look at Soul. The s3.0 is a nice comprimise between weight savings and aero.
> 
> I have a pair of the 3.0SL myself
> http://bikesoul.com/2009/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=11


Thanks for the tip. The S2.0 Max and S3.0 look pretty interesting.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Kerry Irons said:


> Given that the fastest wheels in the world will give you 0.3 mph at 20 mph compared to a standard 32 spoke box section rim, I say you're running on placebo effect.


Exactly.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

I just picked up the Sram S30 wheelset + Sram PG-1070 cassette for $635 shipped, The cassette was $75, so the wheels were in the ~$500 range. they're very good wheels from Sram (who owns Zipp)


----------



## Hank Stamper (Sep 9, 2009)

Kerry Irons said:


> Given that the fastest wheels in the world will give you 0.3 mph at 20 mph compared to a standard 32 spoke box section rim, I say you're running on placebo effect.


I think your data only accounts for a rim change. Not rims and hubs as was the case here. Or are you saying hubs/bearings have no impact? Also your blanket statement couldn't account for the particular ride because accelleration will give you time on some while other flat straight courses would be all about aerodynamics. Are are you implying that a disk is the fastest for any ride?
I do agree that much of .6 would be placebo effect though.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> Given that the fastest wheels in the world will give you 0.3 mph at 20 mph compared to a standard 32 spoke box section rim, I say you're running on placebo effect.


Where's your reference for this?


----------



## waterobert (Nov 24, 2009)

Placebo effect, maybe. All I know that since I changed my wheels I go faster according to my bike computer and love it. LOL


----------



## been200mph (May 28, 2004)

Someone got a decent deal on my old wheelset. Just over $350 for my 1323g AC CR-350 wheelset in excellent shape is what they went for. Wonder if it's anybody from RBR?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*References*



skyliner1004 said:


> Where's your reference for this?


Actually, this kind of data appear all over the place, but the most definitive study I've ever seen was conducted by Chet Kyle. It was published in Bicycling magazine, but I suspect you can find it on the Internet. I'll let you dig for it.

As a general rule people are wanting/willing to believe that their equipment, particularly their wheels and tires, offer much more performance improvement than has ever been measured on the road. Continuing to foster this belief certainly suits the equipment manufacturers, and somehow there's a culture in many cycling publications that seems to want this to be true as well.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Bearings*



Hank Stamper said:


> I think your data only accounts for a rim change. Not rims and hubs as was the case here. Or are you saying hubs/bearings have no impact? Also your blanket statement couldn't account for the particular ride because accelleration will give you time on some while other flat straight courses would be all about aerodynamics. Are are you implying that a disk is the fastest for any ride?
> I do agree that much of .6 would be placebo effect though.


The "base case" bearings would have to be badly out of adjustment or just plain crap to add 0.3 mph to the drag. Lighter wheels will accelerate faster, but again there would have to a very large number of accelerations to account for a 0.3 mph speed increase. 

Except for long, steep climbs, a disk (or any aero wheel) is essentially always faster. Whether anyone wants to deal with the crosswind effects to gain a tiny bit of speed is up to them. 

I know that aero wheels are faster, but I ride 32 spoke box section rims. Who needs to be blown around when the wind picks up? Saving 3 minutes over 100 miles is a huge advantage if you're a time trialist, and pretty meaningless if you're riding a century.


----------



## skyliner1004 (May 9, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> Actually, this kind of data appear all over the place, but the most definitive study I've ever seen was conducted by Chet Kyle. It was published in Bicycling magazine, but I suspect you can find it on the Internet. I'll let you dig for it.
> 
> As a general rule people are wanting/willing to believe that their equipment, particularly their wheels and tires, offer much more performance improvement than has ever been measured on the road. Continuing to foster this belief certainly suits the equipment manufacturers, and somehow there's a culture in many cycling publications that seems to want this to be true as well.


.3mph doing what? acceleration? cruising? descending? did you take into account head winds? cross winds? 

you're the one who spewed the statement who hasn't referenced it. goggled a few simple searches for Chet kyle relating to wheels and weights and experiments, nothing relating to this statement. please provide it for us.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Riding*



skyliner1004 said:


> .3mph doing what? acceleration? cruising? descending? did you take into account head winds? cross winds?
> 
> you're the one who spewed the statement who hasn't referenced it. goggled a few simple searches for Chet kyle relating to wheels and weights and experiments, nothing relating to this statement. please provide it for us.


The 0.3 mph number is flat road, 20 mph, no wind. Tests were done with a "coast down" methodology and as I said, reported in Bicycling magazine a number of years ago (August 1997). The top wheels then are still the top wheels (e.g. Hed tri-spoke). A pretty good reference condition, since the wheel makers are always showing us numbers from their optimum yaw angle rather than from any standard set of conditions. 

I know you want to doubt this, but there it is. Kyle is one of the top aero researchers in the field, and his tests are a gold standard. Of course different wheels perform differently in crosswinds, but for the average cyclists, a flat road, no wind, 20 mph reference is a good benchmark. BTW, that translates to 0.4 mph at 25 mph. When someone claims that their wheels are good for 0.6 mph, they need to offer a lot more proof than "average speed on my regular loop."


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Someone local has a wheelset of Shimano Dura-Ace WH-7801's for sale around $300. I did some reading and they are mostly positive about these wheels but I have a couple of questions.
- Will this wheel support a 195lb rider? While I don't ride "hard" on my wheels, and the Shimanos have a good reputation for durability, the 16/20 spoke design doesn't instill confidence like 28 or 32 spokes.
- I read that this line of wheels fit only true Shimano 10 speed cassettes due to the spline dimensions. I have 10-speed 105 drivetrain and plan on installing an Ultegra cassette to the wheelset. The splines are a non-issue for me then, right?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

dgeesaman said:


> Someone local has a wheelset of Shimano Dura-Ace WH-7801's for sale around $300. I did some reading and they are mostly positive about these wheels but I have a couple of questions.
> - Will this wheel support a 195lb rider? While I don't ride "hard" on my wheels, and the Shimanos have a good reputation for durability, the 16/20 spoke design doesn't instill confidence like 28 or 32 spokes.
> - I read that this line of wheels fit only true Shimano 10 speed cassettes due to the spline dimensions. I have 10-speed 105 drivetrain and plan on installing an Ultegra cassette to the wheelset. The splines are a non-issue for me then, right?


JMO, but I'd pass on that wheelset for a couple of reasons. First, the spoke count is too low for a 195 lb. rider. Second, that model freehub is 10 speed _only_ with higher splines, which means you won't be able to use anything but the CS-7800 cassette. It's expensive and the larger cogs are titanium (so they wear faster). All in all, not a good deal.


----------



## dgeesaman (Jun 9, 2010)

Ahh, thanks. I had thought the ultegra might fit but that makes sense.

Anyway I'm not interested in spending money on DuraAce cassettes so I'll call off the visit.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

I just upgraded from a Bontrager Race Lite Front / Bontrager Classics Rear to DuraAce 7850 SLs. Man, what a difference.

Anyone who says weight doesn't matter hasn't been up a real incline. The 7850s are stiff too; I can't get them to rub. I want to think they are also more aero because of the semi-aero spokes and lower spoke count (rear), but I am not sure how much of a real difference they make.

I haven't ridden them long enough to know if the low spoke count will be trouble. I have hit a bunch of crap already with zero issue (and I keep my brakes tight).

Btw, I am 195lbs.

Oh, and they are tubeless compatible.


----------

