32 spoke wheels in Tour de France?

I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they using,
and how do they manage to keep up with riders with aero wheels?

Thanks

 

"Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they
> using, and how do they manage to keep up with riders with aero wheels?

Aero wheels really only matter in time trials and you'll undoubtedly see the fanciest wheels then.
On the mountain stages, weight is more important. On the flat stages, the peloton sticks close
together so aerodynamics aren't very important.

 

I've read something about the 32 spoke wheels having a lot of rotational weight. Wouldn't they save
more energy by using the lighter wheels with less spokes?

"Ken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> > I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they
> > using, and how do they manage to keep up with riders with aero wheels?
>
> Aero wheels really only matter in time trials and you'll undoubtedly see
the
> fanciest wheels then. On the mountain stages, weight is more important.
On
> the flat stages, the peloton sticks close together so aerodynamics aren't very important.

 

"Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in news:b77rvu$sq1 @dispatch.concentric.net:

> I've read something about the 32 spoke wheels having a lot of rotational weight. Wouldn't they
> save more energy by using the lighter wheels with less spokes?

Is this a troll or something? Where did you read that? Try asking the author your question.

 

"Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they
> using, and how do they manage to keep up with riders
with
> aero wheels?
>
> Thanks

*yawn*

.01

 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:00:30 +0000, Jiyang Chen wrote:

> I've read something about the 32 spoke wheels having a lot of rotational weight. Wouldn't they
> save more energy by using the lighter wheels with less spokes?

1) Fewer spokes, not less.

2) What makes you think a 9-spoke wheel is lighter than a 32-spoke wheel? It's not. In order to get
by with fewer spokes, the rim has to be stronger. Stronger means heavier.

3) Rotational weight is weight, pure and simple.

The reason more pros don't ride handbuilt 32-spoke wheels, and instead ride boutique 11-spoke
wonder-wheels is very simple. The people who market boutique wheels pay them to ride them, and they
aren't _that_ much worse, so why not? Some are more aero, which helps in a time trial.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored _`\(,_ | by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo (_)/ (_) | Emerson

 

Jiyang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they
> using, and how do they manage to keep up with riders with aero wheels?

It's all irrelevant, since everyone knows LANCE and pals would be dropped like a hot rock by anyone
blessed enough to ride a lowracer recumbent, I read it here on rbmisc.

The guys with 32 spoke wheels keep up because the other racers feel sorry for them for having such
lame equipment sponsors.

 

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:00:30 +0000, Jiyang Chen wrote:
>
> 3) Rotational weight is weight, pure and simple.

Not quite. Heavier wheels have more angular momentum, which is proportional to rotational inertia,
which, in essence, means a spinning wheel wants to keep on spinning. This is an advantage on long
flats, but a disadvantage in sprints and climbs.

 

A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound of
rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."

"Ken" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in news:b77rvu$sq1 @dispatch.concentric.net:
>
> > I've read something about the 32 spoke wheels having a lot of rotational weight. Wouldn't they
> > save more energy by using the lighter wheels with less spokes?
>
> Is this a troll or something? Where did you read that? Try asking the author your question.

 

Jiyang Chen writes:

> A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound
> of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."

Oh cut it out! Repeating this BS only embeds it deeper in bicycling myth and lore. Bicycles do not
accelerate fast enough for these weights to have any effect, so the computation is invalid. Neither
rotating or static weight on a bicycle has a significant effect on bicycle propulsion, the bicycle
accelerating with such a low rate that it is imperceptibly affected by weight in the range of
interest. Weight is important in climbing but then those who argue about its importance are
generally those who never look into a mirror critically with respect to weight.

Aluminum spoke nipples are a classic example of misplaced concern for weight.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

Jiyang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:

> A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound
> of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."

This is almost definitely marketing BS. Ksyrium Elites are HEAVIER, not lighter than a pair of
hand-built 32-spoke wheels of the same price. Given that the Ksyriums have fewer spokes it's very
likely that the rim is much heavier than the typical rim in a 32-spoke wheel.

-as

 

"Jiyang Chen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I've noticed the riders using the 32 spoke wheels in previous Tours. What wheelsets are they
> using, and how do they manage to keep up with riders with aero wheels?

Those guys aren't using old stuff like Jobst would put together, take team Telekom, they used
Campagnolo Neutrons at the Tour on many stages, as did Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano on his
ONCE-Eroski's Giant TCR Composite and Alexander Shefer riding for team Alessio. Laurent Dufaux was
using Campy Eurus which only have 14 spokes.

Alexandre Botcharov riding for AG2R-Prévoyance used 20 spoked Penta wheels.

There are tons of teams using either Shimano Dura Ace with 16 J-bend spokes or the 18 and 20 Zicral
bladed straight pull spoke Mavic Ksyrium SSC SLs.

A guy like me should really be rolling on something like Campy's nice Hyperons.

Anyway, the days of riding on 32 spoked wheelsets built by some old guy at the bike shop are forever
long gone. Old silly stuff like Mavic's CXP-33, Open Pros, and MA3 aren't going to get you anywhere
and look really cluncky.

 

Jiyang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
: A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound
: of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."

lol. that's from the may 2003 issue of bicycling magazine page 120 and the exact quote is:

"Switching from a traditional 32-spoke wheel to a low-spoke-count model such as Mavic's Ksyrium
Elite ($500, www.mavic.com) shaves about a half pound of rotating weight, equal to dropping 3-5
pounds elsewhere."

catalog, indeed!
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

Yep, that's it...

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jiyang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> : A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a
pound
> : of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."
>
> lol. that's from the may 2003 issue of bicycling magazine page 120 and
the
> exact quote is:
>
> "Switching from a traditional 32-spoke wheel to a low-spoke-count model
such
> as Mavic's Ksyrium Elite ($500, www.mavic.com) shaves about a half pound
of
> rotating weight, equal to dropping 3-5 pounds elsewhere."
>
> catalog, indeed!
> --
> david reuteler [email protected]

 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 19:57:59 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Jiyang Chen writes:
>
>> A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound
>> of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."
>
>Oh cut it out! Repeating this BS only embeds it deeper in bicycling myth and lore. Bicycles do not
>accelerate fast enough for these weights to have any effect, so the computation is invalid. Neither
>rotating or static weight on a bicycle has a significant effect on bicycle propulsion, the bicycle
>accelerating with such a low rate that it is imperceptibly affected by weight in the range of
>interest. Weight is important in climbing but then those who argue about its importance are
>generally those who never look into a mirror critically with respect to weight.
>
>Aluminum spoke nipples are a classic example of misplaced concern for weight.

Sometimes I wonder when the marketing departments are going to swing the other way. For the past few
years we've been hearing about the benefits of low spoke count wheels with their attendant heavier
"aero" rims. Now we see "low rotational weight" being touted. Every time I look at my 36 spoke Mavic
Montlhéry rimmed wheels I'm reminded that there was a day when sub-400 gram rims were common. Could
we someday see the return of high spoke count, light rimmed wheels marketed with claims of low
rotational weight? After all, if we can reduce rotational weight by a half pound it's like losing
two to three pounds elsewhere. ;-)

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:25:13 +0000, Frank Riley wrote:

> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 02:00:30 +0000, Jiyang Chen wrote:
>>
>> 3) Rotational weight is weight, pure and simple.
>
> Not quite. Heavier wheels have more angular momentum, which is proportional to rotational inertia,
> which, in essence, means a spinning wheel wants to keep on spinning. This is an advantage on long
> flats, but a disadvantage in sprints and climbs.

How, pray tell, would that be an advantage on long flats? The only extra energy input is in
accellerating that huge mass to obtain the required rotational inertia. To get an idea of the amount
of energy that takes, put your bike on a stand, put it in your biggest gear, grab the pedal with one
hand, and spin the rear wheel. That sucker is probably going as fast as it would at 30mph or more.
Now, of course you double that seeing as how you have two wheels, but that was one push on a pedal
with one hand.

Once you get to cruising speed, you are not accelerating the wheel much at all, so the issue is
moot. But even with a lot of acceleration, that rotational energy is small potatoes. By the way, in
climbing, as long as your speed is reasonably uniform, the only problem is getting the mass up the
hill. Again, no change in speed means no need to contribute to the rotational energy. You do, of
course, have to carry that weight up the hill, be it on the rim or on your waist.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but _`\(,_ | what canst thou say?
-- George Fox. (_)/ (_) |

 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:38:13 +0000, Antti Salonen wrote:

> Jiyang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A cycling catalog... "Upgrading from a 32 spoke wheels to Mavic Ksyrium Elites save half a pound
>> of rotational weight, or 2-3 pounds elsewhere."
>
> This is almost definitely marketing BS. Ksyrium Elites are HEAVIER, not lighter than a pair of
> hand-built 32-spoke wheels of the same price.

I don't know about that. For the same price you can get gold-plated rims, which would add to the
"rotational weight".

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster." --Greg LeMond _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |

 

> Anyway, the days of riding on 32 spoked wheelsets built by some old guy at the bike shop are
> forever long gone. Old silly stuff like Mavic's CXP-33, Open Pros, and MA3 aren't going to get you
> anywhere and look really cluncky.

In the TDF, that's certainly true. I spent some time last night going over the photos I took during
the last 3 TDFs. There were no "conventional" wheels in evidence in any of the photos. Some of that
has to do with sponsorship $$$, some with aerodynamics. Aerodynamics don't mean squat when you're in
the middle of the peloton, but they can become significant if you're off the front. Does the cannon
fodder (domestique) need aero wheels? In most cases, probably not. But it's easier for the team
mechanic if he only has to deal with one type of equipment, and it's better for the wheel sponsor
when their product gets greater exposure.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:21:21 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>> Anyway, the days of riding on 32 spoked wheelsets built by some old guy at the bike shop are
>> forever long gone. Old silly stuff like Mavic's CXP-33, Open Pros, and MA3 aren't going to get
>> you anywhere and look really cluncky.
>
> In the TDF, that's certainly true. I spent some time last night going over the photos I took
> during the last 3 TDFs. There were no "conventional" wheels in evidence in any of the photos. Some
> of that has to do with sponsorship $$$, some with aerodynamics.

BS. It _all_ had to do with sponsorship dollars.

> Aerodynamics don't mean squat when you're in the middle of the peloton, but they can become
> significant if you're off the front.

I remember seeing Jalabert (sp?) reaching down to re-do his brake QR after a climb. His "high-tech"
wheels gave so much on the climb that the brake would rub otherwise. Such an advantage. Also keep in
mind the sight of the US Postal team time trial in '01, blown apart literally by crosswinds that
caught the big flat sides of their aerodynamic wheels. Sure, they would have helped if the wind was
calm, but it wasn't anywhere near calm and they rode them anyway. What's to blame there, bad
management or the insistance of sponsors?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. _`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |

 

> BS. It _all_ had to do with sponsorship dollars.

> BS. It _all_ had to do with sponsorship dollars.

> Also keep in mind the sight of the US Postal team time trial in '01, blown apart literally by
> crosswinds that caught the big flat sides of their aerodynamic wheels. Sure, they would have
> helped if the wind was calm, but it wasn't anywhere near calm and they rode them anyway. What's to
> blame there, bad management or the insistance of sponsors?

And people call *me* cynical?

Whether your sponsor is Mavic or Rolf or Bontrager, they really don't give a rat's tail which of
their wheels you use in a given event, as long as you use their wheel. Postal (and every other TDF
team) has a number of special and general-purpose wheels at their disposal...most often by the same
manufacturer. The choice of which wheel to use for a given course, *especially* for a time trial, is
never the sponsor's. They sign a contract that says they'll professionally represent the product,
not that they'll use a aero wheel with "big flat sides" in every time trial.

Your bone to pick is with the team manager and perhaps some riders, maybe the mechanic. But it's not
with Mavic or Bontrager or whomever. So, to answer your specific question, "bad management" is to
blame. Sorry it cannot be more insidious than that.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:21:21 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, the days of riding on 32 spoked wheelsets built by some old guy at the bike shop are
> >> forever long gone. Old silly stuff like
Mavic's
> >> CXP-33, Open Pros, and MA3 aren't going to get you anywhere and look really cluncky.
> >
> > In the TDF, that's certainly true. I spent some time last night going
over
> > the photos I took during the last 3 TDFs. There were no "conventional" wheels in evidence in any
> > of the photos. Some of that has to do with sponsorship $$$, some with aerodynamics.
>
> BS. It _all_ had to do with sponsorship dollars.
>
> > Aerodynamics don't mean squat when you're in the middle of the peloton, but they can become
> > significant if you're off the front.
>
> I remember seeing Jalabert (sp?) reaching down to re-do his brake QR after a climb. His
> "high-tech" wheels gave so much on the climb that the brake would rub otherwise. Such an
> advantage. Also keep in mind the sight of the US Postal team time trial in '01, blown apart
> literally by crosswinds that caught the big flat sides of their aerodynamic wheels. Sure, they
> would have helped if the wind was calm, but it wasn't anywhere near calm and they rode them
> anyway. What's to blame there, bad management or the insistance of sponsors?
>
> --
>
> David L. Johnson
>
> __o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. _`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
> (_)/ (_) |