Is a 400 gram wheel difference noticeable?
- Thread starter stang106
- Start date
stang106 said:
There may be other ride characteristics of the lighter wheels that yo may notice more than the weight. Stiffness is one example. An extreme example could be that one broken spoke on a lighter wheel could make it unrideable.
If the lighter wheels have fewer spokes, they would likely have improved aerodynamics.
It depends on where the weight savings is coming from. On rolling terrain, there's a lot of accelerating after the climbs. Lighter rims are going to make a significant difference over a long ride, but if the weight is being saved in the hubs and spokes, it might not be noticeable.
i went from a set of mavic mtb wheels (don't remember which ones) and bought some from Dave's Speedream Wheels and saved a couple hundred grams. = big difference in climbing. i honestly didn't think it would make a ton of difference. i was wrong and it's been the best upgrade to my bike. if you can save rotational weight, do so. it makes a lot bigger difference that a lighter frame.
I also race mountain bike cross country on a Santa Cruz Blur; when the course warrents a lighter tire I can easily tell the difference when climbing steep trails I am used to. But for the road I'm still using my 21 year old race bike but will be purchasing a new bike this winter, so I want to figure out these details. I do want the fastest time I can get though.
Dave
Dave
400g is very significant provided it is rotational weight you are saving ie from the rim other wise you would barely notice.
By example I had a set of Mavic open pros laced to Ultegra hubs 32 spokes F&R and then went to a set of Rolf Vector Comps 18 and 24 spokes F&R weight difference was negligable however The Rolfs feel heavier and do not accelrate like the OP's as all the weight is at the rim to support fewer spokes.
However as I am a bigger guy who likes Crit & Time Trial racing The Rolf's are a better allround wheel that are more areo and bomb proof (trued once in 5000km of hard riding while the OP's are done in less Km's and are my rain wheels now). They might be slower to accerate but once up to speed they are awesome. My next wheel set will be the Mavic Cosmic Carbones or Zipp 404's I feel is the best of both worlds.
Over a 100 K time trial the time savings of the wheels will depend more on the cross section of the rim wider is better here. But the weight of the rim will affect accelerationas well as hill climbing.
By example I had a set of Mavic open pros laced to Ultegra hubs 32 spokes F&R and then went to a set of Rolf Vector Comps 18 and 24 spokes F&R weight difference was negligable however The Rolfs feel heavier and do not accelrate like the OP's as all the weight is at the rim to support fewer spokes.
However as I am a bigger guy who likes Crit & Time Trial racing The Rolf's are a better allround wheel that are more areo and bomb proof (trued once in 5000km of hard riding while the OP's are done in less Km's and are my rain wheels now). They might be slower to accerate but once up to speed they are awesome. My next wheel set will be the Mavic Cosmic Carbones or Zipp 404's I feel is the best of both worlds.
Over a 100 K time trial the time savings of the wheels will depend more on the cross section of the rim wider is better here. But the weight of the rim will affect accelerationas well as hill climbing.
I agree with the last few posts. It depends on where on the wheel the weight is. I changed from 2.25" 650 gram tires with standard tubes to 1.75" Kenda Kozmik Lite II's at 345 grams and superlight tubes, about 350 grams difference per wheel. It's like riding a different bike because all the weight is at the rim. It wouldn't have been near as dramatic if the weight had been at the hub or on the bike.
SS
SS
Thanks for the input.
Big Daddy: Interesting you should mention the Mavic Cosmic Carbones as they come standard on the new Specialized 2005 Transition S-Works I am considering. http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=9718
My other option was to build the bike and was thinking of Rolf Vigor wheels. I am isolated here and can only find people who has used these things online so I do appreciate the input.
Dave
Big Daddy: Interesting you should mention the Mavic Cosmic Carbones as they come standard on the new Specialized 2005 Transition S-Works I am considering. http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=9718
My other option was to build the bike and was thinking of Rolf Vigor wheels. I am isolated here and can only find people who has used these things online so I do appreciate the input.
Dave
I would counter what Gruppo said:
By saying that: The weight savings is way more noticable when it's rotating weight vs. stationary weight. If you want to verify this, take a weight that equals that of a full water bottle and fasten it to the spokes on your rear wheel and then go for a nice long ride. I guarantee that you'll notice a significant difference!
To the original poster: I think you'd probably notice a 400 gram difference in your wheels over the course that you described. It might not be super obvious but you'll likely notice the difference.
gruppo said:
By saying that: The weight savings is way more noticable when it's rotating weight vs. stationary weight. If you want to verify this, take a weight that equals that of a full water bottle and fasten it to the spokes on your rear wheel and then go for a nice long ride. I guarantee that you'll notice a significant difference!
To the original poster: I think you'd probably notice a 400 gram difference in your wheels over the course that you described. It might not be super obvious but you'll likely notice the difference.
meehs said:I would counter what Gruppo said:
By saying that: The weight savings is way more noticable when it's rotating weight vs. stationary weight. If you want to verify this, take a weight that equals that of a full water bottle and fasten it to the spokes on your rear wheel and then go for a nice long ride. I guarantee that you'll notice a significant difference!
To the original poster: I think you'd probably notice a 400 gram difference in your wheels over the course that you described. It might not be super obvious but you'll likely notice the difference.
A safer method would be to inject 200 ml of water in your tubes. Its a BIG difference. This has been done as rude sabotage on at least one racer. The water adds some drag at lower speeds but once you are over 10 MPH, its all distributed evenly around the wheel.
stang106 said:
i think you need a physicist to answer this question. sure it's harder to accelerate a heavier wheel if the weight is at the rim, but it will also carry you farther up the next hill or longer down the flat, giving up all that stored energy you put into it to get it up to speed...i think...
That would only work in a vacum. The energy stored in a spinning wheel (unless you're using lead filled tiresanerobic said:
) is pretty small compared to the energy dissipated by aerodynamic drag.
and the extra energy required to spin them to speed is small...artmichalek said:That would only work in a vacum. The energy stored in a spinning wheel (unless you're using lead filled tires
the point is you get out of it what you put into it. the drag is the same with a heavier or light wheel, assuming the same shape. however much harder it is to spin them up to speed will be given back to you in duration.
Perhaps in an ideal system. In the real world, energy out is never as high as energy in.anerobic said:
I don't know any physicists but I do know an engineer. That would be me.
An average human can produce only about 1/6th horsepower at the pedals. At that small of a power output the work involved in getting the weight of a wheel spinning far outweighs the ability of a wheels mass to store kinetic energy. To get a noticable flywheel effect from a bicycle wheel you would have to add many hundred grams. In addition, in the case of a bicycle and hills you have aerodynamics and gravity to contend with. The stored energy in a spinning wheel is only capable of maintaining the spinning motion, not overcoming any additional linear forces (such as gravity) without using up the stored energy rapidly. Once the weight of the spinning wheel starts up the hill the power required to overcome gravity and push any extra weight up the hill uses up any stored kinetic energy in the wheel very quickly. Then, the rider must push the extra weight up the hill and overcome air resistance also.
So, in the case of a bicycle, lighter is always better.
SS
An average human can produce only about 1/6th horsepower at the pedals. At that small of a power output the work involved in getting the weight of a wheel spinning far outweighs the ability of a wheels mass to store kinetic energy. To get a noticable flywheel effect from a bicycle wheel you would have to add many hundred grams. In addition, in the case of a bicycle and hills you have aerodynamics and gravity to contend with. The stored energy in a spinning wheel is only capable of maintaining the spinning motion, not overcoming any additional linear forces (such as gravity) without using up the stored energy rapidly. Once the weight of the spinning wheel starts up the hill the power required to overcome gravity and push any extra weight up the hill uses up any stored kinetic energy in the wheel very quickly. Then, the rider must push the extra weight up the hill and overcome air resistance also.
So, in the case of a bicycle, lighter is always better.
SS
stang106 said:
Practically no.
See: http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm
You may save 1w overall. Over the course of 112miles, you may see a few seconds improvement.
Aside from what all of the facts and figures say, from my own experince nothing makes a more noticable improvement on bike performance than lighter wheels and tires. 400 grams = over 3/4 of a pound (.88 pounds to be exact). Regardless of what the "science" says, I for one think you'd definitely notice a .88 pound difference in your wheels.
meehs said:
Do you have any real evidence? Mind you, this is the same kind of junk science which brought you such fakes like "the moon shot" or the "Space shuttle" or that new fangled gadget you might have heard of called the "computer" or something like that....
Similar threads
