Front wheels for Scott TT bikes looks like modified Boras

[Chris M]

The Saunier Duval (sp?) team had some front wheels on their TT bikes
for the Giro that has what looks like a HUGE hub flange functioning as
a fairing to shorten the spokes. The rim depth looks deeper than the
50mm of the production Boras. I also noticed that they were the only
team of the near dozen teams that use Campagnolo \ Fulcrum wheels.

http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&06giroSt11

Any ideas about the purpose, legality, wisdom etc. It seems to me that
it is a great way to shorten the spokes even more once the rim has the
optimum length to width ratio because the extra fairing seems like it
should be less likely to cause handling problems caused by intense
winds when compared to deeper rims. IOW the spoke length exposed would
be similar to an 80ish mm depth rim while not being located where the
wind has enough leverage to cause instability. Am I missing something?
Comments?

 

[SYJ]

Chris M wrote:
> The Saunier Duval (sp?) team had some front wheels on their TT bikes
> for the Giro that has what looks like a HUGE hub flange functioning as
> a fairing to shorten the spokes. The rim depth looks deeper than the
> 50mm of the production Boras. I also noticed that they were the only
> team of the near dozen teams that use Campagnolo \ Fulcrum wheels.
>
> http://grahamwatson.com/gw/imagedocs.nsf/updateframesetcall?openform&06giroSt11
>
> Any ideas about the purpose, legality, wisdom etc. It seems to me that
> it is a great way to shorten the spokes even more once the rim has the
> optimum length to width ratio because the extra fairing seems like it
> should be less likely to cause handling problems caused by intense
> winds when compared to deeper rims. IOW the spoke length exposed would
> be similar to an 80ish mm depth rim while not being located where the
> wind has enough leverage to cause instability. Am I missing something?
> Comments?

IIRC, cyclingnews did a mention of these awhile back. While the
functionality as you've described it seems pretty sensible, I do wonder
about the legality. Don't the retrogrouches over at UCI prohibit any
non-structural components in wheels?

SYJ

 

[Chris M]

Don't the retrogrouches over at UCI prohibit any
> non-structural components in wheels?
>
> SYJ

Yes, but I am sure they can attach it in a way to claim is has a
structural benefit. IMO so many of the rules are of dubious value. I
was just remembering that most of the rule changes in equipment started
very soon after the Festina Affair. I am glad to see that Verbrugen is
gone and I hope there will be more sensible policies going forward.
Heinz wanted to reduce average speeds that kept creeping up (which
created the perception of wide drug use) by establishing limits on any
equipment that possibly contributed to these speed increases. The
"Spinaci" handlebar extensions, minimum bike weights and frame geometry
specs all were ordered shortly after the 1998 Tour. WRT the
"structural: rules, it seems to me that the Mavic Carbone (50 mm deep V
wheels with CF fairings attached to rims that would function perfectly
without those fairings. The spokes attach to the rim after passing
through the CF wedge. The enforcement was and still is somewhat
selective.

WRT to the weight rules, I can think of so many easy ways to work
around them it makes me wonder if some of the teams don't do some of
them. I had expected to see SRM use full time and other functional
features on bikes that are easily under the weight limits when built up
normally. Record components drop significant weight each year and
Shimano (thought persistently behind in the weight wars) has made some
nice improvements in that area. They are proud of the Aluminum crankset
/ BB weighing in less than the same Record aluminum components, but the
CF cranks have been available since before they started delivery of
that latest version. Plus, Shimano has no CF anywhere in their groups.
What the F? No CF seatpost (some teams still use mountain bike
seatposts thought I can't remember why) meanwhile every single
component comparing Record to Dura Ace is lighter. With these feather
weight Record components lighter each year, it is even possible to
build a production CF frame with Chorus (Chorus in many cases is simply
the same component labeled Record 1 or 2 seasons previously) and come
in under the weight minimum. Still, no extra comfy saddles or power
meters (typically) are seen. Why? Are they using some of the tricks I
thought of? How hard would it be to drill a drain hole in the bottom of
the seat or down tube and freeze enough water to make the weigh in and
then the weight advantage creeps back as it melts and drains (or do
they weigh at the finish too?).

Anyhow, I would love to know about the construction of the wheels I
spotted and any wind tunnel results (if any) to see what the advantage
is.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

> Why? Are they using some of the tricks I thought of? How hard would
> it be to drill a drain hole in the bottom of the seat or down tube
> and freeze enough water to make the weigh in and then the weight
> advantage creeps back as it melts and drains (or do they weigh at the
> finish too?).

I have to say it: water expands when frozen

--
Phil