Ron Ruff said:SYJ said:This raises an interesting question. There have been plenty of folks
referencing the TOUR magazine aero wheel comparison, but does anyone
know of a comparison of un-aero (Open pro) to semi-aero (CXP33) to
kinda-aero (IRD Cadence Deep/Velocity Deep-V) to pretty aero (fill-in-
the-blank carbon 38mm) to really aero (fill-in-the-blank carbon 50mm)
rims? I'd like to build up a new set of lightish, aeroish wheels
before Lotoja this year (after 200 miles, every watt saved really adds
up), but am curious where the point of diminishing returns lies.
I have similar requirements for my own use as I like long races too. I
ended up going with Velocity Deep-V 28/32 on my "race" wheels. If I
had more cash available I'd get some 50mm deep carbons with metal rims
like Zipp 404 clinchers, but it is just too much money. I'm not really
in danger of winning any races so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Last year I tested (5000km) some prototype 45mm full carbon clincher
wheels from Control Tech. They were really nice and very strong, but
the braking issues with carbon rims was too much of a hassle for me.
My current Deep-V's are almost as fast, and switching off from my
every-day 36/36 Aerohead/OC wheels doesn't require any monkeying with
the pads.
Quoted message said:Interesting to me as well. The best single set of data was a test Tour
did in 2002 where there were a lot of wheels represented in the
20-30mm deep range. Most of them had CX-Ray type spokes also, so a
comparison of just the rim could be made. There was a *bigger* aero
difference between the 20mm compared to 30mm, than between 30mm and
60mm. It's only ~2% difference in your top speed though, and if you
are doing a 200+ mile ride the best way to save watts is to go a
little slower...
Speeds that are maintainable by mortals over 200 miles are probably
right in the sweet-spot of maximum time difference saved with aero
gear. That is to say, fast enough for it to make a difference, not
fast enough for the difference to be miniscule.
Quoted message said:Joseph... if the guy is really a nut about light weight, the Tune hubs
are the best regarded of the superlight ones. Pillar makes very light
titanium bladed spokes that will fit through standard hub holes.
They've been out about a year and I haven't heard any complaints yet.
The AC350 rim is decent for a light clincher... can you get those
seperately in Norway? You can't in the US, but I hear you can in
Europe. Other clincher rim options are Alex Crostinis or the IRDs...
or maybe even the Aeroheads. The last Aerohead I weighed was pretty
close to spec at 411g.
The Tune stuff is too steep for him. The local supply for rims is
pretty limited, so we'll be ordering from abroad I suppose. He's not
really a light-weight nut, but here is the progression of the story:
He has Ultegra WH-600 wheels which are pretty nice (asymetric rear,
semi-aero 24mm rim, aero spokes, 1710g) but he wants "better" wheels
that are lighter. He suggested Campy Shamal Ultra which would save
about 300g. Seemed like a lot of money for 300g. I figure if he is
going to replace his pretty nice wheels, he should make a big leap
either to super light-weight or aero. My preference would be aero, but
he is leaning more towards light weight. The idea of spending lots of
money (any?) on wheels that do not drastically improve either of these
areas is a waste IMO. So I suggested the 50mm carbon tubulars since he
was already in the area in terms of price with the Shamals. Tubulars
are no-go and he is not buying my aero is better line, so light-weight
it is. But it has to be light, so stuff like the Aeroheads is out. The
CR350's look good, but I don't know where to get them.
Joseph
